Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342

27 March 2012

RE: Censorship incident at Coffield Unit, Tennessee Colony, TX from MIM Distributors to Mr. xxx

Dear Director Thaler,

I am in receipt of a Correspondence/Contraband Denial Form from the Mailroom at Coffield Unit. This form was used to deny a package from MIM Distributors to Mr. xxx. The contents of this package was 5 copies of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012). The reason cited is "multiple copies."

We believe this decision by Mailroom Staff at Coffield Unit to be an incorrect application of BP-03.91. A review of BP-03.91 (rev. 2, February 11, 2010) reveals that no prohibition to receive multiple copies of publications has been included in the regulations. Indeed, "multiple copies" is not listed under criteria for disapproval in BP 03-91, paragraph IV.A (Content Inspection of General Correspondence), or IV.E. (Content Inspection of Publications). Nor could such a reason constitute a valid basis for rejecting incoming mail, for the U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that only censorship decisions rationally related to a legitimate penological interest may be deemed as constitutional. A ban on multiple copies mail does not seem rationally related to any legitimate penological interest and is therefore evidently unconstitutional.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Regional Director: Robert Eason
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Region II Director's Office
#2 Backgate Road
Tennessee Colony, TX 75803

Senior Warden John Rupert
2661 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony, TX 75884

Kim (Chris) Southerland, Regional Director
Northern Florida Region Office
P. O. Box 718
Lake Butler, Florida

27 March 2012

RE: Censorship incident at Florida State Prison -- exclusion of publication sent from MIM Distributors to Mr. xxx

Dear Regional Director Southerland,

I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Florida State Prison (FSP). MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012). We mailed the newsletter to Mr. xxx via Standard Mail with the United States Post Office, on January 30, 2012.

Mr. xxx recently informed us that he never received the publication, and sent us a Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications. MIM Distributors did not receive a Notice of Rejection from FSP Mailroom Staff.

Florida Administrative Code states at sections 33-501.401 that both the prisoner and the publisher have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As you are certainly aware of, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles and with the cited Florida Administrative Code rule, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Johnson.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests:
1. to know whether or not a censorship determination has been made on the above named publication;
2. to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of our materials;
3. to be afforded due process rights as outlined in Florida Administrative Code on any future rejection or impoundment of publications from MIM Distributors; and
4. that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner as to the censorship determination of this publication.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Steven F. Singer, Warden
Florida State Prison
7819 NW 228th Street
Raiford, FL 32026-1000

Warden (A) Michael Stainer
California Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581

March 15, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at California Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Stainer,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that occurred at California Correctional Institution. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner the publication Under Lock & Key issue 22 (September/ October 2011) via Presorted Standard Mail on 09/21/2011. We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received these materials. Nor did he receive any notice or determination from your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Barnett.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters;
2) in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
3) We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


CC: Affected parties

Warden (A) Connie Gipson
California State Prison - Corcoran
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

March 14, 2012

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at California State Prison - Corcoran ? exclusion of publications sent to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Gipson,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that occurred at CSP-Corcoran. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a pack of mail on October 13, 2011.

Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX:
? a letter titled "Poetry Writing Guide for Under Lock & Key"
? a letter titled "Invitation to join Introductory Study Group"
? an article titled "Maoism Around Us"
? and a study group assignment titled "Study group assignment 1"

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received these materials. Nor did he receive any notice or determination from your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Barnett.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters;
2) in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
3) We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


CC: Affected parties

Warden (A) Martin Biter
Kern Valley State Prison
PO Box 3130
Delano, CA 93216-6000

March 14, 2012

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Kern Valley State Prison ? exclusion of publications sent to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Biter,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that occurred at Kern Valley State Prison. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner several different publications and letters.

Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX:
? Under Lock & Key 17 (November/December 2010) sent via Presorted Standard Mail on 11/19/2010
? Under Lock & Key 18 (January/February 2011) sent via Presorted Standard Mail on 01/28/2011
? Under Lock & Key 23 (November/December 2011) sent via Presorted Standard Mail on 05/27/2011

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received these materials. Nor did he receive any notice or determination from your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Barnett.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
2) in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
3) We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


CC: Affected parties