Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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

July 27, 2009

Warden Grounds,

This letter is to inquire about a serious mistake that your mailroom has made at Hughes Unit in sorting mail. A newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue #8 (May 2009) was mailed to Mr. XXX, from MIM Distributors.

This piece of mail was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened with "RTS - discharged" written on the envelope. However, according to the TDCJ website, Mr. XXX isn't even eligible for parole until 2030. We find it difficult to believe that he has been discharged, especially because the newsletter was mailed to Mr. XXX in May, and he wrote to us from Hughes in early July. Additionally, this is not the first time the Hughes mailroom has tampered with Mr. XXX's mail.

We insist that you stop harassing Mr. XXX, and comply with your legal obligation in delivering MIM Distributors' mail to its rightful recipient. Included with this letter is the envelope that was returned to us, so that you can see exactly what I'm referring to.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: affected parties

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

29 June 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

I appreciated your response from April 28, 2009 and was pleased that you acknowledged that publications from MIM Distributors were not banned in California prisons, after months of mail be returned to sender from your facility. We have yet to receive confirmation as to whether your statements in that letter prove to be true in practice.

However, we have received one letter returned with the usual stamp used by SVSP staff saying that MIM Distributors is not on the addressee?s ?approved mailing list.? Since you acknowledge that none of the publications distributed by MIM Distributors are on the banned publication list, what ?list? is being referred to here. Furthermore, the mail in question was not a publication, but material addressed to a particular person at SVSP. This person, Mr XXXXXX XXXXXX, seems to have had particular restrictions applied to his mail. Is it now policy for the CDCR to return unopened mail, rather than applying the California Codes to judge whether such mail is a threat to security?

Sir, this problem has been ongoing for many months, with no signs that you are following the department?s rules, nor legal precedent. I am requesting that immediate action be taken to remedy this problem.

Thank you again for your time in this important matter,

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

30 June 2009

Publication Review Officer,

This letter is to object to the notifications of denial to deliver mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners X, Y, Z, and P. The mail in question is MIM's newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 8 (May 2009), that was denied because it supposedly is "detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline," and a threat to the "good order of the institution."

We appreciate that you notified us of this censorship. However, we disagree that it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," as required by U.S. law under Turner v. Safley. For example, in every issue of Under Lock & Key, violence and illegal activity are distinctly discouraged. You can see for yourself at the bottom of page 2 of issue 8, in the "What is MIM(Prisons)?" box, quoted here for your convenience:

"Our current battles in the United States are legal ones. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts."

We don't only say this as a disclaimer on the second page, but uphold that perspective throughout all the articles in Under Lock & Key. We fail to see how a newsletter with a nonviolent perspective can "advocate or encourage violence," or how a newsletter that only advocates legal means of acquiring justice can "facilitate criminal activity," as the censorship notice from Menard Correctional Center states.

We appreciate you investigating further into this error and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

Warden Fernando Gonzalez
California Correctional Institution
PO Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581

22 June 2009

Mr. Gonzalez,

This letter is to request a review of the decision by a staff member at California Correctional Institution to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX.

According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?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.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

When Mr. XXXXXX appealed the decision to censor MIM mail, the decision was denied citing a memo from Scott Kernan from 2006, which has been superseded by the list cited above. Therefore, I am requesting that the Under Lock & Key newsletter and subsequent mail from MIM Distributors be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX and any other prisoners being held at CCI. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal.


Thank you for your time,

"I finally received issue 8 (May). The prison staff sent it to me 7-9-09-Friday."

As of 12/6/2008 there has been no response to this appeal.

Mail Room Supervisor
Stafford Creek Corrections Center
191 CONSTANTINE WAY
Aberdeen, WA 98520-9504

14 December 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

We recently obtained copies of a rejection notice for mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX). It was regarding a copy of a newsletter published by MIM called MIM Notes. The rejection notices gave the reason for censorship as ?Over a year past publication date.? We were informed that this rule was applied to 2 issues of MIM Notes as well as an issue of the journal MIM Theory, but MIM Distributors was not notified of any of this censorship by your department as is generally required.

MIM has distributed numerous copies of MIM Theory and other literature to prisoners at Stafford Creek over the years that were published over a year prior to the mailing date and it was never a problem.

I am requesting a review of these mail restriction notices, as I believe this to be an unreasonable and overly burdensome restriction on MIM?s mail, whereas literature that was published more than a year ago is not a threat to the legitimate penological interests of the institution.

Sincerely,

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,