MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
MIM Distributors protests censorship for "multiple copies"
Show Text
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
MIM Distributors appeals censorship because no notification given to publisher
Show Text
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
MIM Ditributors says no notification is illegal
Show Text
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
MIM Distributors request information about censorship
Show Text
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
MIM Distributors says no notification is illegal
Show Text
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 several different publications and letters.
Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX:
? Under Lock & Key 18 (January/February 2011) sent on 01/28/2011
? Under Lock & Key 19 (March/April 2011) sent on 03/24/2011
? Under Lock & Key 20 (May/June 2011) sent on 05/27/2011
? a letter dated 06/10/2011
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.
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
MIM Distributors protests ongoing censorship without notification
Show Text
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
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
Additional information: Mass mailing from MIM DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by GP ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed M. Cleary, Correctional Officer, Investigative Services Unit
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
11/07/2011
Prisoner appeals censorship (bypassed First Level)
Show Text
Explain your issue:
The trivial excuses for the denial of my correspondence with MIM Distributors. I have just recently received a 1819 form on which many penalties or infractions were marked down as a cause for the issuance of "1819" although I doubt that a notification or apprising letter of hunger strike merits any promotion of gang activity or third party correspondence, with the latter being the most common excuse for my most recent 1819 forms. Yet within CDCR Title 15 Section 3139, third party correspondence is defined as inmate to inmate in different facilities. And I understand the proxy criteria as well. But publications or mass letters from publishers withholding names, as many human rights/prisoner rights publications do (i.e. Prisoners [sic] Legal News (PLN), California Prison Focus (CPF), MIM Distributors, Critical Resistance, etc.), to apprise prisoners of legal matters, prisoner right matters or more assistance on books/literature programs for prisoners. I am aware of now of the aforementioned being on a banned list so therefore the petty excuses to disallow my mail for interactions out of context is a small gesture of a vendetta to suppress any mail or literature associated with any of these human rights advocate groups. I have been notified by MIM Distributors that on several occasions some literature has been sent to me was censored and returned in the month of August 2011. But I have never been notified of this by the facility in order to appeal as I purchase books and or receive donated books/literature from MIM Distributors, and do not find professional that intended books/literature or mail from MIM Distributors is being disallowed to me at subjective whims. As a July 12, 2011 Director's Level Decision case no. 1020001 criticizes that a blanket denial on "MIM" is inappropriate. Thus I challenge with merit.
Action requested:
I ask that my mail be allowed without prejudice and future publications, books/literature from MIM Distributors of any type meeting CDCR Title 15 Section 3134.1 be allowed and given to me and given due process to appeal any disallowed books/literature. Furthermore, mail room staff and ISU be notified so future hassles can be avoided.
12/15/2011
Secont Level Review - Partially Granted
12/19/2011
Prisoner appeals Second Level Review
Show Text
If you are dissatisfied with the Second Level response, explain the reason below:
I wish to pursue this issue of my mail being withheld for matters not violating stipulating articles in CDCR Title 15. My contentions remain the same now which i may add my due process rights have been violated and I suspect they still are. I raised relevant issues on my appeal and the response to that was just reiterations of what it already stated on my 1819 form, nothing else! I have filed a 602 earlier in the year as I bought some magazines from MIM Distributors which under DOM 54010.4 is classified under periodicals, was sent back unbeknownst to me (due process violated). The Sgt. handling my 602 advised me MIM Distributors is not a banned publisher because he checked and all other magazines and material were to be let through, yet at the end of October I received a form from MIM Distributors on all materials that were sent to me, have of what was on [this] list never made it to me yet all fir the DOM 54010.4 criteria. Under what excuses my material was sent back or returned I cannot say as like my 2/15/11 602 Appeal Log #PBSP S-11-00546 I was never notified nor given opportunity to appeal it. Starting in October I have been receiving a slew of 1819 forms on just letters from MIM Distributors, citing excuses from "banned vendor list", third party correspondence and "promotion of gang activity" with "hidden coded messages" - Yet 2nd level reviewer could not specify but reiterate citations which indicates a vague and cursory management of my 602 not thorough. The Dec 2nd 2011 interview was just a "do you have anything further to add" and all was concluded. Therefore I seek relief as stated on Section B, which all material that was disallowed for no ause be re-mailed to me as well as to not have any future mail/books/magazines and literature sent to me by MIM Distributors be withheld or returned, as MIM is not on vendors banned list.
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c2405.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c3598.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c2208.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c3641.jpg){kind=link}