Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

28 February 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

This letter is regarding a stack of recently returned mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to people being held at SVSP. As you are probably aware, the handling of MIM?s mail by the CDCR has been an ongoing concern. MIM?s mail has been consistently returned by SVSP mailroom staff, usually unopened, for well over a year now.

Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in February 2009, Under Lock & Key is still being returned with the reason ?Not on approved mailing list at SVSP, SOLEDAD, CA?? Is there another list that MIM Distributors must be on in order to get mail to people held at SVSP, in addition to not being on the centralized list of disapproved publications?

Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with people being held in SVSP.


Sincerely,

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

6 April 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

In your letter from March 20, 2009 you state that Scott Kernan had imposed a ban on MIM publications at CDCR. I am aware of the 2005 document proclaiming such a ban, but the Office of Legal Affairs appears to be giving you a different story than they are giving the U.S. District Court regarding the continued applicability of this ban.

According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, that I cited in my previous letter, ?The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.? As I tried to explain in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

I also find it surprising that you are not aware of the October 21, 2008 memo, which also reads, ?Wardens are to ensure that this memorandum and list are distributed appropriately. This includes ensuring that they are copied, distributed, and posted at locations accessible to inmates, parolees, and employees?? As a Warden it appears to be required that you not only be aware of this memo but that you make it available to all others within the facility you oversee.

The Deputy Attorney General representing Mr. Kernan has represented the above quoted memo as being the truth on the ground within CDCR facilities. If the CDCR Legal Affairs office is still upholding the ban as you claim then perhaps the miscommunication is at a higher level. I am cc?ing the Deputy Attorney General as well as the Legal Affairs office to request their responses to this matter.


Thank you for your time,

Roy W. Cherry, Superintendent
Hampton Roads Regional Jail
2960 Elmhurst Lane
Portsmouth, VA 23701
April 22, 2009
Superintendent Cherry,

This letter is in regard to the most recent acts of censorship based in your facility against MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. We have been attempting to communicate with your employees to remedy this issue since January of 2008 to no avail. Hopefully you can explain the matter to us clearly with legal reference.

Prisoner XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at Hampton Roads Regional Jail has been having his mail returned to us with stamps or writing on the envelopes that state "Refused" and "Unauthorized Contents." Some envelopes have "Unauthorized Publication" hand-written on them when they are not even publications, but personal letters. Can you please explain to us what is "unauthorized" about the "content" of these materials?

We also received one notice of "unathorized property" receipt that was filled out by Mail Clerk P.L. Punilei on 03/11/2009. Clerk Punilei described the contents as "Unauthorized Publication of Material." A copy of this notice is included with this letter. Also for your reference we have included one of the envelopes that the returned mail was in.

The materials that have been returned to us are personal letters, MIM Distributors' newsletter Under Lock & Key, and a pamphlet titled What is MIM? Your assistance with this issue is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259

22 April 2009

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is regarding an ongoing pattern of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Menard Correctional Center. It seems that this mail is being returned to sender without consideration of its contents since none of the envelopes have been opened. One returned letter was a two-sentence letter to a prisoner confirming receipt of mail, a number of other returned pieces contained a publication with the expressed purpose of reducing violence in prisons. All of the mail was stamped with ?Item Not Permitted? and a couple had ?MIM Banned? written on them.

After reviewing Section 525.230 of the Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Admn. Code Sec 525.230), it seems that a number of rules were overlooked in these incidents. First, part c) explains that written notice of administrative decisions to review a publication coming into the facility will be sent to the prisoner and the publisher, no later than 30 days from the date the facility received the item. In addition, part f) states that a publication can be banned after 6 consecutive denials. We never received notices for any of these issues. I also know that at least some of the prisoners who have been denied mail from MIM Distributors have also not been notified of the censorship. We did receive the last two issues returned to us with the above mentioned stamp, but this does not explain how the literature violates any of the criteria laid out in part b). I am confident that upon review you will find that it does not. Since we were not given an opportunity to request a review before, I am doing so now. Enclosed is the most recent issue of the publication Under Lock & Key that is published by MIM Distributors.

If it is true that the publication Under Lock & Key has been banned, does said ban apply to any mail with MIM Distributor?s return address on it, such as the aforementioned letter? The definition of ?Publication? in Section 525.202 does not include letters, and 525.300 does not seem to allow for a general ban of a party from sending mail to a prison. Please clarify.


Thank you for your time,

Media Review Committee
Cayuga Correctional Facility
PO Box 1186
Moravia, NY 13118-1186

5 April, 2009

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is regarding a history of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to readers being held in Cayuga Correctional Facility. Most recently, mail sent to Mr. XXX, Mr. YYY and Mr. ZZZZ was all returned with a stamp reading, ?Return to Sender Not on Approved Correspondence List.? Is there a regulation particular to Cayuga that requires someone to be put on an approved list to send mail to someone there? If so what is the process to get on that list?

We know this is not a systemwide regulation as MIM?s mail gets to prisoners throughout the NYSDOCS. We hope to resolve this issue with you soon.

Thank you for your time,

Chris Barela
Do?a Ana County Detention Center
1850 Copper Loop
Las Cruces, NM 88005


10 November 2007

Mr. Barela,

This letter is in regards to repeated censorship of literature sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#YYYYYYY). On September 24, 2008 a copy of MIM?s newsletter Under Lock & Key Issue 4 was returned with the stated reason ?newsletter copies.? This was a newsletter that is published by MIM Distributors, and is printed and mailed in bulk. by them. In order to test the policy I printed out a copy of the newsletter myself and sent it and once again it was censored on October 21, 2008 stating ?Copies (newsletter) and staple).? (see enclosed) So both times it was censored for being a ?copy,? when it was not.

The list of mail guidelines sent with the rejection statement says ?Xerox copies? are not permitted. When I check your mail policies online it does not list this restriction, I assume because such a restriction would be contrary to the law. Regardless of whether the items sent in were ?copies? or not, you cannot censor mail unless it threatens legitimate penological interests as established by TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

In recognition of these facts, I am requesting that you ensure that mailroom staff will not censor MIM?s mail in the future.

We look forward to your response,