Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Correspondence Review Committee
Hoke Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 700
Raeford, NC 28376

16 August 2009

Dear Madam/Sir,

We recently received your ?Censorship & Appeal/Waiver Form? regarding the censorship of issue #9 of Under Lock & Key that was mailed to Mr. XXXX and Mr. YYYY from MIM Distributors. The attachment #1 listing reasons .0310 A-I was not filled out, nor were any of the reasons indicated as being violated. Therefore it is unclear what the reasoning was for this censorship. The description of the contents did mention ?a letter from a crip leader.? But reading this letter there is nothing in it that violates any of the reasons described in D.0310(c).

Is the department attempting to censor the newsletter because of the identity of one of the authors, regardless of the content of the writing? If so, please clarify so that we can work to remedy this problem. Otherwise, I expect that the copies of ULK 9 will be passed along to Mr. XXXXXX and Mr. YYYYY.


Thank you for your time,

Linda Hollman, Director of Education
Building 2
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12226-2050

16 August, 2009

Dear Madam,

I thank you for responding to my last letter to the Committee regarding the history of censorship of mail from MIM Distributors at Cayuga Correctional Facility. Yet, after numerous letters to the Central Office and to the Cayuga Media Review office over the last year, mail is still being returned stamped ?Not on approved correspondence list,? including mail sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX in late July.

Both you and Martin Raftis from Cayuga assured me that MIM Distributors is not a disapproved correspondent and that mail from MIM Distributors will be reviewed for approval on a case-by-case basis. Would it be possible for mailroom staff at Cayuga to be informed of the rules and the policies that you are telling me are in place? Or should I just assume that after a year of writing that the Department has no intention of following the rules?

I sincerely hope to resolve this issue, but will not continue to waste my time.

Thank you,

I am, in this instance, appealing a rejection of a incoming publication for not having met a specific requirement of "Turner v. Safley, 482 US 78 (1987). Specifically - "A neutral government interest." The publication in question was rejected by mailroom staff on Aug. 9th, 09, and dated and signed by (interim) Warden Black R. Davis on Aug. 10th, 09. Title of rejected publication is entitled "Under Lock & Key". And the mailroom staff's opinion regarding the rejection is also being challenged.

First & foremost, there is no "Administrative Concern" being addressed in the rejection notice, only the mailroom staff's opinion (personal) [Administrative concern="detrimental to security, good order, discipline, etc.] This is not to suggest that the mailroom's staff's opinion has no merit, but that on its own is only descriptive of what that staff member has purported. The fact of the matter is there is no definitive material evidence to support the basis of the opinion only the mailroom staff's "cited reason" that the rejected publication "...could instigate further conflict...", which is little more than voodoo being paraded as science. What next? Bug's Bunny's feet as the barometer to gauge empirical data, or, urban legend as the predicate in categorizing observable phenomena. Simply stated: I'm neither questioning the fact of the "riot" at that complex or the few pages of the rejected publication that are in dispute in this instant action. It is the mailroom staff's opinion who rejected the publication who I take exception to.

So, having neither qualified [failed to link the "riot" and objectionable pages] the position in the rejection notice with anything more substantial than, "could instigate further conflict," as a legitimate concern, or by, establishing a definitive "Administrative concern," it is the stated objective of this remedy to reverse the decision of the rejection by allowing the publication "Under Lock & Key" to come in my personal possession.

Respectfully submitted,

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

24 July 2009

Mr. McDonald,

This letter is to request an explanation of the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at High Desert State Prison.

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.

In late November 2008, a month after this list was released, the mailroom at High Desert returned a couple of dozen unopened pieces of mail containing issue # 5 of Under Lock & Key, mailed by MIM Distributors. Since then, MIM Distributors has sent hundreds of pieces of mail to prisoners at High desert and only 3 have been confirmed received. A number of prisoners have confirmed that Under Lock & Key has not been delivered to them in that time and they have not been notified of any censorship. MIM Distributors has not received notification of this censorship either.

It is a violation of rules set forth in the CCR as well as federal case law to not notify senders/receivers when you censor their mail. It is also a violation of the CCR and case law to censor mail if it does not threaten the prison in some way. Thirdly, I am questioning the legality of the mailrooms apparent destruction of this mail without notification to either the sender or receiver.

In light of these incidents I am requesting an explanation of what is being done with mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners at High Desert, and what the justification is for such actions.



Thank you for your time,

Dwight Correctional Center
Attn: Publication Review Officer
23813 E. 3200 North Road
Dwight, Il 60420

Publication Review Officer,

We recently have been notified of the "ban" of mail from MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA from being delivered to prisoners in Dwight Correctional Center. The reason cited for mail being denied is it is "disapproved publication." We have received two of these notices, and both articles were mailed to XXX.

We are confused about why a pamphlet that outlines the history of the organization MIM would be considered a "disapproved publication. Please shed some light on this issue. Please also refer to the following case law in review of this supposed "ban" on mail from MIM Distributors.

?First, the regulation or practice in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. Such interests include security, order, and rehabilitation. Second, the challenged action must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of that interest." Koutnik v. Brown, 456 F.3d 777, 784 (7th Cir. 2006) referring to standards set in Procunier v. Martinez 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800.

Also, we would like to notify you that we have been dealing with the same censorship issue at Menard Correctional Center. Recently they have overturned the ban and are now reviewing our mail on a case-by-case basis. This means that we have been getting a lot more mail into Menard, which seems to imply that a complete ban of MIM literature is "greater than necessary or essential to the protection" of prison interests.

Please send us more documentation regarding the censorship of MIM Distributors mail. What policies is this abiding by? What is on this list of "banned" mail? Is it all mail from MIM Distributors, or just some literature?

We appreciate your consideration.

Mim(Prisons)

Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office
Attn: Caddo Correctional Center Mailroom Manager
505 Travis Street 7th Floor
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101

August 9, 2009

Dear Mailroom Manager,

This letter is on behalf of MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA, who recently received a notification that mail they sent into Caddo Correctional Center was rejected. We appreciate that you notified us of this censorship. The mail in question is their newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 9, which was sent to Mr. X. It was rejected because "No material may pose a threat to the safety, security and good order of the facility" and "No material that effects the positive rehabilitation of the inmate population."

As you may already know, there is case law that states that "[t]he decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards against arbitrariness or error." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800. If issue 9 of Under Lock & Key is truly a "threat to the safety, security and good order of the institution" then please send us documentation to support that claim. You can send it to the address listed below.

If, after further review of this matter you decide that your assertions of the danger of Under Lock & Key are unsupported, then we request that you notify us and Mr. X.

Thank you for your cooperation,

MIM(Prisons)