Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Richard Morgan, Director Prisons Division
Washington Dept. of Corrections
PO Box 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100

14 June 2009

Dear Richard Morgan,

This letter is to follow up on correspondence that a few people receiving literature from MIM Distributors have been having with yourself and local DOC representatives. In the last eight months staff in prisons including Stafford Creek Corrections Center and Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) have begun using DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2, to substantiate the censorship of literature sent by MIM, citing ?Publication over the one year limit.?

I do not know the history of this policy, but its sudden frequent use against MIM Distributors seems to ?render the regulation arbitrary or irrational? as defined in TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). MIM Distributors has distributed its MIM Theory magazines to people held by the Washington DOC for over 15 years. During that time, various staff have tried to label the materials as different forms of ?a threat to security?, but overall the department has allowed people under their control to receive these journals. Why are they suddenly deemed unacceptable on a rule that has no apparent relevance to legitimate penological interests?

When this first began happening I appealed this censorship to the Facility Superintendent of WSP, but never received a response. In addition to MIM Theory journals, portions of an essay published a hundred years ago have been censored under the ?1 year? policy in Washington State Penitentiary. Meanwhile, in January, a letter to a person being held in Stafford Creek regarding this issue was returned to us with no reason given. I provide these as examples of staff going beyond even the stated policy in DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2 to censor MIM Distributors and discourage our efforts to correct the situation concerning the handling of MIM Distributors? mail.

As I wrote to the Superintendent at WSP, perhaps there is a reason for this rule that I am not seeing and it is being applied unnecessarily in regard to MIM Distributors mail? Whatever the case, I am requesting a response explaining the application of DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2 to publications sent by MIM Distributors and how it is related to ?legitimate penological interests.?

Thank you for your time,

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

22 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, dating back to at least September of 2008. Recently, mail sent to Mr. XXXXXX. XXXXXX, YYYYYYY, and ZZZZZZZ was all returned with a stamp reading, ?Return to Sender Not on Approved Correspondence List.? I sent a letter to Cayuga to inquire about what the ?Approved Correspondence List? was and how one gets on such a list. I have yet to receive a response, but I did receive additional mail to Mr. XXXXXX. XXXXXX returned to MIM Distributors for the same reason given above.

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? If not, how can we assure that mail from MIM Distributors is received by prisoners at Cayuga in the future?


Thank you for your time,

K. Brandon, Correctional Captain
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

29 May 2009

Dear K. Brandon,

In late April you sent a memo signed by you on 4/21/2009 stating that 3 letters from MIM Distributors had been censored due to the statewide ban. Subsequently, a 5/4/2009 letter from you acknowledges that said ban was overturned 6 months prior. Finally, we received a new ?Stopped Mail Notification?, presumably for the same 3 pieces of mail stating that they were ?contraband? and a ?threat to penalogical interests.? The explanation reads ?CONTENT INCITES REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGIES.?

The three pieces of mail sent to the prisoner during the period in question were an introductory letter to MIM(Prisons) work with prisoners, issue 7 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key and a copy of the letter sent to the warden on 4/6/2009 by our office explaining that you were operating on an outdated department memo. So you are saying that a letter to the warden about CDCR policies is a threat to penalogical interests? The main point made in issue 7 of Under Lock & Key is that it is against the interests of prisoners to encourage violent confrontations with others when facing frustrations (the intro letter echoes this belief). ULK 7 also argues that the prevention of legal rights and avenues for redress of complaints to prisoners is a strategy to promote violence in prisons. Are these expressed ideas in ULK 7 a threat to the interests of the CDCR as you see them?

Finally, your justification for the censorship given on the notification dated on 4/15/2009, but mailed 5/13/2009 after acknowledging MIM Distributors is not banned by CDCR, assumes a role for the IGI that is threatening to Constitutional rights. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14 is clear that political ideology cannot be used to verify a written document as a ?threat to penalogical interests.?

If you cannot cite a specific action in each of the three pieces of mail in question that poses a threat then your actions are not based in U.S. law.

If, on the other hand, you see the promotion of non-violent behavior in prisons and legal action on behalf of prisoners? rights as a threat to penalogical interests, then we will take our concerns elsewhere. Either way, we will appreciate your response so that we can address our concerns through the appropriate avenues.

Thank you for your time,

T. Walser, Asst. Supt. of Custody and Operations
Polk Correctional Institution
PO Box 2500
Butner, NC 27509

28 May 2009

Asst. Supt. Walser,

We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #7 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX from MIM Distributors. You first cite D.0310( C ) as the reason. That rule states that the mail concerns sending contraband such as stamps, cash or stickers. The newsletter is mailed to thousands all over the country in the same format and I can assure you that it contained no such contraband.

The disapproval reason page also has text entered in reason D.0310(E). This text claims that ULK 7 could be a threat to safety and security if distributed. I think that upon review, if you read the content of the newsletter you will find that the whole message of ULK 7 is to promote defending human rights via legal avenues while opposing the use of violent or illegal retaliation for abuse within prisons.

It is confusing because the reason states that it ?could be detrimental to the safety and security of the information.?, perhaps this is a typo? If so what exactly is it a threat to the safety and security of? Can you cite the paragraph, article and page that could pose such risk?

The main message of ULK 7 is to promote peaceful means of dealing with conflicts and abuse within prisons, so I find it odd that the department chose to censor this publication for the reason given. If upon review you are not convinced that Mr. XXXXXX should receive ULK 7, please notify us of such decision and your reasoning behind it.


Thank you for your time,

Mr. Michael Thurmer, Warden
Waupun Correctional Institution
PO Box 351
Waupun, WI 53963-0351

27 April 2009


Dear Mr. Thurmer,

Thank you for addressing my concerns from the March letter I sent regarding censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#XXXXXX). Unfortunately, we seem to be facing the same problem. Only this time, the reasoning for the censorship seems to be disagreements that Capt. Muraski has with the content of the newsletter. The captain?s problem with page 2 is regarding a factual statement about history. Then on page 10 the cite is of an article that is critical of practices carried out by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

As I pointed out in my last letter XXXXXX v. Raemisch, (W.D.W.I. 2008), re-established that it is illegal for prison administrators to censor publications because they are critical of the actions of the department they work for. Therefore, it would follow that you cannot censor materials for being critical of the practices of another state?s department.

I hope that you can once again ensure that Mr. XXXXXX receives Under Lock & Key issue 7. In addition, I request that staff that are responsible for reviewing mail coming into Waupun CI be briefed on the current laws and regulations applying to their job so that we can avoid this problem in the future.

Thank you,

Dawn Grounds, Warden
Hughes Unit
Rt 2 Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597-0001

19 January 2009

Warden Dawn Grounds,

In October I had written to you regarding a number of pieces of mail from MIM Distributors that were returned to sender from Hughes Unit with no reason given. Just recently, it has been brought to my attention that another stack of returned mail has come back from Hughes Unit more than a month after it was sent out. To date no reason has been given to MIM Distributors or to any of the prisoners that our office has been in contact with to explain this censorship. None of the mail has been opened, so it seems it is not based on the content of the mail, but many, if not all, of the prisoners are still being housed at Hughes Unit.

Can you please look into this and let me know what is happening with MIM?s mail that is causing it to be returned like?

Sincerely,