Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

no notification to MIM Dist. from admin

On 12-10-19 I wrote a request slip (informal grievance) to mail room L. Chambers: "On 12-4-19 I had mail confiscated from "MIM Distributors." I have been receiving mail from "MIM Distributors" for several months. I am asking to receive the confiscated mail from "MIM Distributors" and that future mail will not be delayed. Thank you for looking into this.

On 12-11-19 I filled out an Offender Grievance Form: On 12-4-19 I had mail confiscated from "MIM Distributors." I have been receiving mail from "MIM Distributors" for several months. I wrote an informal complaint to the mail room on 12-10-19 (see attachment). On 12-4-19 I wrote an informal complaint to I.I (Internal Investigations) asking, what was confiscated and why cannont I receive it? I have not received a response. I am asking to receive the confiscated mail from "MIM Distributors" and that future mail will not be delayed.

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


January 25, 2020

Indiana Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
302 West Washington St E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Appeal of Censorship of unnamed item
XXX #XXX



To Whom It May Concern:

We have been notified that an unnamed item has been censored by the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC). We received this information from the above-named prisoner and we received no notice from IDOC. Mr.XXX has indicated the item was censored based on “safety and security” reasons on 12/4/19, and Mr. XXX’s appeal of this censorship was denied on 1/16/20.

CLAIM 1:
IDOC MAIL POLICY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACCORDING TO FEDERAL LAW

Federal case law is clear: the publisher must be notified by prison authorities of any censorship of publications and must be given a meaningful opportunity to appeal the censorship. It is clear IDOC policy 02-01-103 provides no such option and is unconstitutional on its face.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones,
“Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

Setting aside the unconstitutionality of the IDOC Offender Correspondence policies and procedures, there were still failures of IDOC staff at multiple levels regarding this censorship incident.

CLAIM 2:
POLICY 02-01-103 WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN RE: XIII. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON CORRESPONDENCE

Policy and Administrative Procedure 02-01-103 states:
XIII. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON CORRESPONDENCE (See Operational
Procedure):
Whenever a decision is made to delay, censor, copy, or withhold any correspondence, the offender is to be informed within two (2) working days of the action, except as indicated in Procedure VIII. D or Procedure IX D State Form 11984, NOTICE AND REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN ON CORRESPONDENCE, shall be used for this purpose. The staff person completing this form shall ensure that the following information is contained in the notice:
A. A complete description of the article being withheld;
B. The specific reason for the action;
C. The name of the sender;
D. The date of any postmark;
E. The date the correspondence was received or deposited at the facility or program;
F. The proposed disposition to be made of the correspondence;
G. The name of the person who made the decision; and,
H. The fact that the action may be challenged through the grievance procedure.

Yet Mr. XXX was not informed of A. A complete description of the article being held. To our knowledge, Mr. XXX was only told that the item was called “MIM Distributors March 2012.” This is not the title of any publication of MIM Distributors. To the best of our knowledge, the item being censored is titled “Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons,” yet we don’t know for sure. The lack of description of the item being censored causes unnecessary confusion and obstructs Mr. XXX’s access to the grievance process.

This not only is a violation of IDOC policy, it also is a violation of not only Mr. XXXX’s First Amendment rights to communication with society outside of prisons, as well as Mr. XXX’s Eighth Amendment right to due process. This is grounds for legal suit against your Department.

CLAIM 3:
POLICY 02-01-103 WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN RE: CENSORSHIP BASED ON POLITICAL VIEWS

I trust you are already aware of your Department’s own mail policies, yet I will reiterate them here for your convenience. According to Policy 02-01-103, there are specific reasons why incoming mail may be censored. MIM Distributors does not believe its material violates any mail rules of IDOC, and the censored item does not fit the list of permissible censorship.

Section “VIII. OPENING OF CORRESPONDENCE” states, in part:
Incoming correspondence is not to be censored, copied, withheld, disclosed to another person or otherwise interfered with in regard to its prompt delivery unless:
A. The Department has reasonable grounds to believe the correspondence:
1. Poses an immediate danger to the safety of an individual or a serious threat to the security of the facility or program;

Section “XIV. INTERFERENCE WITH AN OFFENDER'S CORRESPONDENCE” states, in part:
An offender's correspondence may not be censored, copied, delayed or disallowed for delivery solely on the basis of the sender's or receiver's apparent moral, political, ethical, ethnic or religious values or attitudes, veracity or choice of words.

Section “XIX. PRINTED MATTER” states, in part:
Printed matter which threatens the security of the public, facility, or program, contains multiple copies, or has an invoice indicating an amount due shall be considered prohibited property. Examples of the types of materials that are considered prohibited property and shall be excluded include, but are not limited to, those:
A. Depicting or describing procedures for the construction or use of weapons, ammunition, bombs or incendiary devices;
B. Depicting, describing or encouraging methods of escape from correctional facilities, or contains blueprints, drawings or similar descriptions of correctional facilities;
C. Depicting or describing procedures for the brewing of alcoholic beverages or the manufacture of drugs;
D. Written in code;
E. Depicting, describing or encouraging activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption;
F. Encouraging or instructing in the commission of criminal activity; or,
G. Any printed matter that features nudity or any other material depicting nudity.
H. Containing sexually explicit material which by its nature or content poses a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the facility or facilitates criminal activity.

We believe that upon thoughtful review of the censored material, you will see that IDOC staff and administration are fact obstructing Mr. XXX’s Constitutionally protected rights, and ignoring IDOC’s own policy and procedures.

We request a response to this letter within fifteen (15) days of receipt. Failure to do so may result in litigation against the IDOC. Alternatively, the decision to censor the material intended for Mr. XXX from MIM Distributors may be reversed and the material delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

Sincerely,


B Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Indiana Department of Correction
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
PO Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838-1111

October 25, 2019

To whom it may concern,

We recently became aware that Mr. XX has appealed the rejection of the magazine MIM Theory #6 “The Stalin Issue” which we sent to him 8/19/2019. Your institution rejected this magazine as “used.” But we are not sending Mr. XX used magazines. The magazine may appear a bit old, as it was published over 20 years ago. It has certainly aged a bit, but it is not used. We are sending Mr. XX new magazines, therefore there should be no reason for the rejection.

We also note that on 9/11/2019 the response to Mr. XX’s Informal Complaint #2 (Request for Interview) was responded to by “A Waller” with this note: “I am still looking into this, having some difficulty getting a hold of the vendor.” We, the vendor, were never contacted by anyone in the Indiana DOC regarding this publication denial. Please feel free to reach out to us directly for further clarification.

As this matter has now been clarified, please supply Mr XX with the new magazine we sent. A new copy of this magazine was mailed to Mr. XX on October 15 for your convenience.

On 8/23/2019 you seized a MIM publication (The Stalin Issue) because you claimed it was "used. It is not "used", it is just old. It's been in stock for over 20 years, so it may look old, but it is not "used."

"I am still looking into this, having some difficulty getting a hold of the vendor" [no attempt to contact MIM(Prisons) was ever made]

May 15, 2018

Indiana Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
302 West Washington St E334
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key March/April 2018 Issue 61


To Whom It May Concern:

We have been notified the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) has been censored by the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC). The notice was received from a prisoner and no notice has been received from IDOC. Mr. XXXXXX has indicated the issue of ULK was censored based on inmate to inmate correspondence. IDOC policy 02-01-103 (V) is clear on its face that the publication does not constitute offender to offender correspondence.

Federal case law is clear, the publisher must be notified by prison authorities of any censorship of publications and must be given a meaningful to appeal the censorship. It is clear IDOC policy 02-01-103 provides no such option and is unconstitutional on its face.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

We require the IDOC to provide notice of censorship, with reference to the specific content which is allegedly objectionable within fifteen (15) days of this letter. Failure to do so may result in litigation against the IDOC.

In the alternative, the decision to censor the issue referenced above may be vacated and delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

This is a history book to the Aztec culture and Latino struggle in the United States. This is not no threat to anyone and this facility! Mail room is always having something to either confiscate or say about my mail.

As stated on the 11984 the book was DELAYED to STG. They will determine if the book is to be confiscated or not. The offender needs to wait until a decision is made before filing a grievance