Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004

24 June 2011

Dear Warden Salinas,

Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004

24 June 2011

Dear Warden Salinas,

Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

S. XXXXXX Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004

24 June 2011

Dear Warden Salinas,

Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004

24 June 2011

Dear Warden Salinas,

Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004

24 June 2011

Dear Warden Salinas,

Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

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

24 June 2011

Dear Director Thaler,

I am in receipt of a Decision Form from the Director's Review Committee, upholding the erroneous applicaion of Board Policy (BP) 03.91 Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules. The item was originally denied deliver to Mr. XXX, a prisoner held in Coffield Unit, on 8 April 2011. Mr. XXX appealed the denial on 8 April 2011. The Decision Form from your office is dated 19 May 2011.

This censorship is erroneous because the reason given on 8 April 2011 was "multiple copies of publication (x2)," and your 19 May Decision Form states "The DRC has rendered a decision regarding your appeal of the Unit rejection of the multiple copies of publication received in contradiction with BP 03-91.." First, the publication that was sent to Mr. Taylor was not multiple copies. It was a quantity of the newspaper MIM Notes, which is no longer in print. Each issue of MIM Notes sent in this package was unique, and a quick review of the contents will support this.

Regardless of whether there were multiple issues of MIM Notes newspaper included in the package of newspapers to Mr. XXX, reviewing BP-03.91 (rev. 2, February 11, 2010) demonstrates that it is not even a TDCJ Procedure to censor incoming mail to prisoners based on how many copies of an item are sent. "Multiple copies" is not listed under criteria for disapproval in IV.A. Content Inspection of General Correspondence, or IV.E. Content Inspection of Publications. If you are still upholding the decision to disapprove these newspapers to Mr. Taylor, please point me to the procedure supporting the denial.

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

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

The Office of Publication Review has reviewed the above-mentioned individual publication and has determined that the individual publication will be [X] Excluded. Per DO 914.08 Inmate Mail - Unauthorized Publications and Material, it is determined that this individual publication is excluded. Policy #1.1.1 Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance.

Along with this Cover Memo, you received a Notice of Result explaining the reason why your publication was excluded.

Per DO 914, your copy of the publication will be held for the following timeframes:
- 90 days after the exclusion date if no Second Review is requested
- 3 years after the exclusion date if a Second Review has been requested.

I received your inmate letter dated 6/1/2011, in which you are asking for a second review of your MIM letter - Revolutionary Greetings Comrades. This publication was sent at the same time as your other publication United Front - Study Course Response Part 3. This was also excluded on the same date as the other and a notice was sent to you by me on 2/7/2011. Again, this publication was returned from Central Office after 90 days for disposition and that is why you received a contraband notice. Therefore, it has been past the time frame guidelines for a second review.

Property seized for reason "Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance"

On 6/9/2011 I received a notice of exclusion form, stating that "MIM-United Front Study Course-Part 3". I am requesting a second review and intend to exhaust all administrative remedies in the mentioned proceeding. This material was censored Dec 5 2010, yet reviewed 2/7/2011 and a notice of exclusion wasn't provided until the above date, per D.O. 914.08 Policy #1.1.1 "Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance." The Notice of Result - Publication Review did not provide a specific page number on which riots/work stoppages/resistance are supposedly mentioned, nor now the mention of these things legitimately affects the penological interest at ASPC Central Unit. Could you please refer me to the page number where this information can be found so that I may investigate the issue further? If this claim cannot be substantiated, please deliver me the letter. Surely, there is not a practice of censoring all major newspapers at ASPC Central Unit, or perusing them each day for mentions of riots/work stoppages/resistance. I doubt that a mention of any of these things would be related to the legitimate penological interests of the institution such that the letter should be censored. In summary, the mailroom staff at ASPC Central Unit has been arbitrarily and illegally denying me mail that is sent from MIM Distributors for nearly (3) years. As an employee of the state of Arizona, you are obligated to respect both mines and MIM Distributor's 1st Amendment right to free speech. I have several requests that I hope can fulfill the remedy at issue: 1) the immediate end to interference of mail intended for myself from MIM's, 2) Explanation of why this letter, allegedly violates D.O. 914.08 Policy #1.1.1 Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance and how this relates to the legitimate penological interests of the institution.

I received your inmate letter dated 6/9/2011, in which you are asking for a second review of your MIM-United Front Study Course Response Part 3. This publication was sent to Central Office on 12/8/2010, and was excluded on 2/7/2011. You were provided with a notice of exclusion on 2/7/2011, as I have a copy of the notice sent to you by myself. Once a publication is sent to Central Office for review and it is excluded, it remains there for 90 days. Once the 90 days is up, it comes back to be treated as contraband by the specific units. This is why you were notified again on 6/9/2011, because it just came back from Central Office. Therefore, since it has been well over 90 days, you are out of time frames for a second review.