Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

See documentation to "Prisoner files grievance" 04/01/2010

Warden Mike McDonald
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127-0750

November 15, 2009

Warden McDonald,

In October, MIM Distributors sent a magazine titled MIM Theory no. 8: Revolutionary Nationalism to prisoner XXX. It was returned to sender with "Disallowed Item" stamped on the envelope.

In July 2009 we wrote to you regarding the apparent ban on MIM literature that your facility was enacting. We did not receive a response from your office, but since then it seemed as though the ban was lifted. So we wonder, why is it that this publication is "disallowed?"

We would like to request an independent review of this decision to censor MIM Theory no. 8, and upon overturn of this denial, we request that XXX be allowed to receive this publication.

We appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: Affected parties.

Warden Mike D. McDonald
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127-0750

7 May 2010

Dear Warden McDonald,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 23 April 2010. I would like to thank you for your response, and especially for your acknowledgment that MIM Distributors is not a banned publisher at High Desert State Prison.

In your letter you stated that "High Desert State Prison has been receiving MIM Publications from your company which contains information that could pose a threat to the safety of staff and inmates. This publication is in violation of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 15 and the Department Operations Manual (DOM)."

You failed to state or describe which publication(s) you are referring to, and instead say that all publications coming from MIM Distributors "could pose a threat to the safety of staff and inmates." Although you write later in your letter that "All MIM publications . . . will be reviewed on an issue-by-issue basis," it seems to be in direct contradiction to the above statement. Please clarify which publication(s) you are referring to that you allege violate CCR Title 15 and the DOM.

You also fail to state or describe what about the publication "could pose a threat to the safety of staff and inmates." I ask you, does the content pose a threat or not? Any publication could pose a threat, which are not grounds to censor a publication. Either it poses a threat or not, and either it is censored or not. It is your job, and by proxy the job of your mailroom staff, to determine whether an item poses a threat or not. I ask you to decide if the publication poses a threat or not.

Additionally, you cite the entire 230 pages of California Code of Regulation Title 15, as well as the Department Operations Manual, as the "rule" that this unnamed publication is in violation of. This is hardly a satisfactory citation of violation. According to United States case law, when dealing with a prisoner's right to free speech, it is valid only if it is related to legitimate penological interests. I kindly ask you to explicitly cite which legitimate penological interests this publication is supposedly in violation of.

As a reminder, the publication I wrote to you about in November of 2009 was a magazine titled MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism. It is a magazine that is published and distributed by MIM Distributors. This magazine was censored without any explanation, except for a stamp on the envelope that said "Disallowed Item." I wrote to you nearly six months ago to ask for further explanation as to why this magazine is "disallowed," and to request an independent review of this censorship.

In the past year, MIM Distributors has limited the mail we send into High Desert State Prison because of the illegal and irrational censorship carried out by the mailroom staff. Since you have stated in your letter from April 2010 that your staff will now review them on an issue-by-issue basis, we look forward to seeing your allegiance to state law in action.

I am still requesting an independent review of the censorship of MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism that was denied delivery to Mr. XXX in September of 2009, without notification to either party as to why.

We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties
Mailroom Supervisor Sergeant M. Keating

Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

24 April 2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 13 April 2010, Florida State Prison Mail Room Personnel K. Ferguson rejected a letter from MIM Distributors P.O. Box 40799, San Francisco, CA 94140 to Mr. XXX. This letter is to appeal the decision to deny this letter by K. Ferguson. I have attached a copy of the letter in question for your reference. The reason K. Ferguson for this censorship was that the "mail establishes or conducts business."

On the FDC website there is a page titled "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Writing to an Inmate." On this page there is one rule about "business."
J. Incoming mail shall be disapproved for mailing or delivery to an inmate if any part of it:
xii. It contains an advertisement promoting any of the following where the advertisement is the focus of, rather than being incidental to, the publication or the advertising is prominent or prevalent throughout the publication.
* Three-way calling services;
* Pen-pal services;
* The purchase of products or services with postage stamps; or
* Conducting a business or profession while incarcerated

As you can see from the content of the letter, there is no advertisement for conducting business or developing a profession for prisoners. On the contrary, the main focus of the letter is an invitation to join a study group.

We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Central Office Media Review Committee
Building 2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226-2050

4 April 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

On 16 March 2010 mailroom staff at Clinton Correctional Facility censored an unnamed document to Mr. xxx, who is a prisoner held at Clinton. Not only is there no indication as to what the letter was that was censored from Mr. xxx, but no explanation is given as to what was "unauthorized" about the material contained in the envelope. I have included with this letter a copy of the memorandum I am speaking of.

Lawfully, the prisoner and the sender of the material must be informed of what is being censored, and specifically why it is deemed a threat to the safety and security of the prison, prisoners, and staff. This censorship is therefore completely illegal.

As we are sure you are aware,

?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

and,

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800

This letter is to (1) request more information about this censorship, namely WHAT and WHY. We would also like to (2) appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that material from MIM Distributors is "unauthorized material."

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties