Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Mike McDonald
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127-0750

November 15, 2009

Warden McDonald,

In October, MIM Distributors sent a magazine titled MIM Theory no. 8: Revolutionary Nationalism to prisoner XXX. It was returned to sender with "Disallowed Item" stamped on the envelope.

In July 2009 we wrote to you regarding the apparent ban on MIM literature that your facility was enacting. We did not receive a response from your office, but since then it seemed as though the ban was lifted. So we wonder, why is it that this publication is "disallowed?"

We would like to request an independent review of this decision to censor MIM Theory no. 8, and upon overturn of this denial, we request that XXX be allowed to receive this publication.

We appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: Affected parties.

Warden Mike D. McDonald
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127-0750

7 May 2010

Dear Warden McDonald,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 23 April 2010. I would like to thank you for your response, and especially for your acknowledgment that MIM Distributors is not a banned publisher at High Desert State Prison.

In your letter you stated that "High Desert State Prison has been receiving MIM Publications from your company which contains information that could pose a threat to the safety of staff and inmates. This publication is in violation of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 15 and the Department Operations Manual (DOM)."

You failed to state or describe which publication(s) you are referring to, and instead say that all publications coming from MIM Distributors "could pose a threat to the safety of staff and inmates." Although you write later in your letter that "All MIM publications . . . will be reviewed on an issue-by-issue basis," it seems to be in direct contradiction to the above statement. Please clarify which publication(s) you are referring to that you allege violate CCR Title 15 and the DOM.

You also fail to state or describe what about the publication "could pose a threat to the safety of staff and inmates." I ask you, does the content pose a threat or not? Any publication could pose a threat, which are not grounds to censor a publication. Either it poses a threat or not, and either it is censored or not. It is your job, and by proxy the job of your mailroom staff, to determine whether an item poses a threat or not. I ask you to decide if the publication poses a threat or not.

Additionally, you cite the entire 230 pages of California Code of Regulation Title 15, as well as the Department Operations Manual, as the "rule" that this unnamed publication is in violation of. This is hardly a satisfactory citation of violation. According to United States case law, when dealing with a prisoner's right to free speech, it is valid only if it is related to legitimate penological interests. I kindly ask you to explicitly cite which legitimate penological interests this publication is supposedly in violation of.

As a reminder, the publication I wrote to you about in November of 2009 was a magazine titled MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism. It is a magazine that is published and distributed by MIM Distributors. This magazine was censored without any explanation, except for a stamp on the envelope that said "Disallowed Item." I wrote to you nearly six months ago to ask for further explanation as to why this magazine is "disallowed," and to request an independent review of this censorship.

In the past year, MIM Distributors has limited the mail we send into High Desert State Prison because of the illegal and irrational censorship carried out by the mailroom staff. Since you have stated in your letter from April 2010 that your staff will now review them on an issue-by-issue basis, we look forward to seeing your allegiance to state law in action.

I am still requesting an independent review of the censorship of MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism that was denied delivery to Mr. XXX in September of 2009, without notification to either party as to why.

We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties
Mailroom Supervisor Sergeant M. Keating

Literature Review Committee
2601 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

24 April 2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 13 April 2010, Florida State Prison Mail Room Personnel K. Ferguson rejected a letter from MIM Distributors P.O. Box 40799, San Francisco, CA 94140 to Mr. XXX. This letter is to appeal the decision to deny this letter by K. Ferguson. I have attached a copy of the letter in question for your reference. The reason K. Ferguson for this censorship was that the "mail establishes or conducts business."

On the FDC website there is a page titled "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Writing to an Inmate." On this page there is one rule about "business."
J. Incoming mail shall be disapproved for mailing or delivery to an inmate if any part of it:
xii. It contains an advertisement promoting any of the following where the advertisement is the focus of, rather than being incidental to, the publication or the advertising is prominent or prevalent throughout the publication.
* Three-way calling services;
* Pen-pal services;
* The purchase of products or services with postage stamps; or
* Conducting a business or profession while incarcerated

As you can see from the content of the letter, there is no advertisement for conducting business or developing a profession for prisoners. On the contrary, the main focus of the letter is an invitation to join a study group.

We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

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

4 April 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

On 16 March 2010 mailroom staff at Clinton Correctional Facility censored an unnamed document to Mr. xxx, who is a prisoner held at Clinton. Not only is there no indication as to what the letter was that was censored from Mr. xxx, but no explanation is given as to what was "unauthorized" about the material contained in the envelope. I have included with this letter a copy of the memorandum I am speaking of.

Lawfully, the prisoner and the sender of the material must be informed of what is being censored, and specifically why it is deemed a threat to the safety and security of the prison, prisoners, and staff. This censorship is therefore completely illegal.

As we are sure you are aware,

?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

and,

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800

This letter is to (1) request more information about this censorship, namely WHAT and WHY. We would also like to (2) appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that material from MIM Distributors is "unauthorized material."

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020

18 August 2009

Director Lowell Clark,

This letter is to inquire about the continued blanket censorship of mail from MIM Distributors without any review of the mail and without notification of why the mail was returned. In February, my colleague, AAAA BBBB, wrote you regarding this matter and Angie Stevens responded requesting a copy of one of the envelopes returned. Ms BBBB responded to Ms Stevens with one of the envelopes and never received a response. To date your office has not addressed these concerns.

On July 29, 2009 numerous copies of the newsletter Under Lock & Key Issue 9 were returned to sender unopened and with no indication as to why. I understand there is a rule that prisoners must notify the staff of any subscriptions they may have in order to receive them. However, I know at least some of the subscribers whose mail was returned have notified the mailroom of their subscriptions (and all others should be doing so soon).

In the past not only was MIM Distributors not notified of the reasons for censorship, but neither were the subscribers to Under Lock & Key. The lack of inspection, lack of notification, and lack of response to our inquiries all seem to be outside of standard practice for the Department. Your explanation of these events will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your attention,

XXXX YYYY

p.s. I have enclosed a photocopy of one of the envelopes for your reference. All envelopes were unopened.

Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020

20 September 2009

Director Lowell Clark,

I received your letter from September 9, 2009 and appreciate your response. I do have the two previous letters that you mentioned, however, there is some confusion about our understandings of those letters (and others from your department) that led to my last letter. My understanding of rules cited in the November 17, 2008 letter from Capt. Robert Jensen is that Standard Mail will be rejected unless it is mail that the prisoner has subscribed to or other exceptions that are listed. The letter goes on to state that once the administration is notified of the subscription then the mail will no longer be returned. After multiple letters from MIM Distributors and notification of our subscribers we thought this question of the subscriptions was cleared up. Yet again, our mail was returned.

In your most recent letter you imply that ?Standard mail will be refused?. Period. This is not what Fdr03 says, nor would it be in compliance with established case law (see Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2001)). Furthermore, this matter has already been cleared up at CUCF, so there is some discrepancy as to how the rules are being applied at Utah State Prison.

Are you saying that there is no way for prisoners at USP to receive a normal subscription to Under Lock & Key because it is sent Presorted Standard mail? Or is there just something else that subscribers must do to get their subscriptions approved for delivery?

Thank you for your clarifying this matter for us,

Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020

26 October 2009

Director Lowell Clark,

We have received your October 14th letter stating that pre-sorted mail will be delivered to prisoners in Utah prisons as long as prisoners have notified the administration of their subscriptions. Thank you for clarifying this matter for us and for the staff in the mail room there. It may be a good idea to publicize this policy more generally so that other prisoners don?t have unnecessary problems joining mailing lists such as ours in the future.

As far as sending you a list of our subscribers, this would be against our confidentially policy for our readers. Instead I will cc individuals who have subscribed so that they may contact you themselves to obtain any information. If there are any problems obtaining this information, MIM Distributors will be happy to put anyone in contact with you at their request.

One question that remains, is that recent First Class mail was returned stating that prisoners in Intensive Management cannot receive magazines. If this is true, can you provide me with a copy the regulation that sets this standard. If not, then I am requesting that this censorship be stopped as well.

Thank you again for looking into this for us,

Records Bureau
Utah Department of Corrections
14717 S. Minuteman Dr.
Draper, UT 84020

8 April 2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is to request a copy of the policies that dictate mail to/from prisoners held in the Intensive Management Unit at Utah State Prison. We have been going back and forth with Director Lowell Clark's office regarding the censorship of mail from MIM Distributors. When we ask them to tell us what rules we are violating, they respond that it is confidential information. However in one letter Mr. Clark's office advised us to write to this address to request the policies. This information would be extremely helpful for us in our attempts to properly comply with IMU policies at Utah State Prison.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

See documentation for "Prisoner appeals censorship" above

Carl Ross, Mailroom Supervisor
Folsom State Prison
P.O. Box 910
Folsom, CA 95763

4 April 2010

Dear Supervisor Ross,

On 19 March 2010 you sent a letter to MIM Distributors saying that "MIM Publications will not be delivered to inmate XXX housed at Folsom State Prison." This implies that all mail to Mr. XXX will be censored in a complete ban of MIM.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, 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. In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2009 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.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at Folsom State Prison, 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. Also, for your reference:

"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385

"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties