Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Reason: 1. Not specifically authorized by DOC 450.100 Mail for Prison Offenders or any other policy or applicable Operational Memorandum

36. The eMessaging videogram (i.e. pre-recorded video attached to an eMessage) does not comply with DOC 450.100 Mail for Prison Offenders or otherwise contains any display of nudity, behavior or actions that are sexual in nature, drugs/alcohol or related paraphernalia, weapons, graphics or paraphernalia associated with any Security Threat Group, or unlawful activity.

1 book rejected as it's [sic] content pertains to Security Threat Groups & promotes the overtrow [sic] of government all throughout.

Pages: 10-13, 19, 71-77, 104-105, 168-169

Mailroom Employee Name
H. Guerrero

Reason: 19, 20

19. Advocates violence against others and/or the overthrow of authority.

20. Advocates that a protected class or group of individuals is inferior and/or makes such a class/group the object of ridicule and/or scorn, and may reasonably be thought to precipitate a violent confrontation between the recipient and a member(s) of the target group.

1 book rejected as it's[sic] content pertains to rallying and organizing groups that encourage the overtrow of government.

Pages 10-13, 19, 71-77, 104-105, 168-170

Superintendent: Jeffrey A. Uttecht
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
1301 N Ephrata Ave
PO Box 769
Connell, WA 99326

April 14, 2016

RE: Illegal censorship of book Power and the Struggle for Aztlan
to xxx held at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center

Dear Superintendent,

On October 19, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed the book Power and the Struggle for Aztlan to the above named prisoner. The book was mailed in brand new condition, from the publisher/distributor, via USPS Media Mail.

In November 2015, Coyote Ridge Mailroom notified Mr. xxx that the book would not be delivered for reasons wholly unapplicable to the book in question. (See attached “Exhibit A”) The book does not violate DOC 450.100, and was not an eMessage. There is a note contained on this first form, which states “contents pertains to Security Threat Groups & promotes the overtrow[sic] of government all throughout.” So it is evident that even this erroneous and odd Rejection Notice had political intent. Mr. xxx questioned the censorship for reasons 1 and 36, and was then issued a new form (yet with the same date as the previous form) citing reasons 19 and 20.

There are a number of problems with this censorship incident.

1. The sender, MIM Distributors, was not notified of the censorship at any time by Coyote Ridge Mailroom Staff or any administrator at Coyote Ridge or within the Publication Review Committee.

Your own mail rules state Policy DOC 450.100 IX. Rejecting/Returning Mail A.
When rejecting mail, mailroom employees will provide written notice to the offender and sender/recipient using DOC 05-525 Rejection Notice, or an equivalent automated notice through JPay for rejected eMessages.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

2. The falsification of the censorship document which was given to Mr. xxx. Mr. xxx was not notified of the censorship for reasons 19 and 20 on 11/19/15. As you can see in the enclosed Rejection Notices, the same file number and date are used on both forms.

3. The reasons cited, on either form, are not applicable to the book in question. The first form delivered simply makes no sense relative to the book. The second form is clearly a rejection for political reasons. There are a number of relevant precedents which have been set by the courts regarding the right for prisoners to receive political content through the mail. I have included a few citations below.

"The 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

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately." Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401

“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).

"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

4. The practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination. We mailed this book to Mr. xxx nearly six months ago. As of March 31, Mr. xxx has not received a determination from the Publication Review Committee on the disposition of this censorship.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,



CC: Affected parties
Publication Review Committee
C/O Department of Corrections Correspondence Unit
PO Box 41118
Olympia, WA 98504-1118

I am in receipt of your letter dated April 14, 2016 regarding books that are being denied into the facility.

The Coyote Ridge Corrections Center (CRCC) Mailroom is not holding the publication indefinitely without providing notice, a mail rejection was generated and sent to the offender and to the sender (MIM) as is evident with the attached exhibits A and B.

the publicaiton has been reviewed at the facility level and is now beign reviewed at the Headquarters level by their Review committee. Because it was not an E-Message it should not have been rejected as such. The request for the change of rejection reason was because rejection reason 19 and 20 better clarified why Mr. Guerrero initially rejected the publication and clarification was needed by the DOC review committee. The rejections reasons are stated below:

19. Advocates violence against others and/or the overthrow of authority.
20. Advocates that a protected class or group of individuals is inferior and/or makes such class/group the object of ridicule and/or scorn, and may reasonably be thought to precipitate a violent confrontation between the recipient and a member(s) of the target group.

Once a decision is made the offender will be notified. If the final decision is to reject the publication he has the right to an appeal.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey A. Uttecht, Superintendent
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center

Publication Review Committee
C/O Department of Corrections Correspondence Unit
PO Box 41118
Olympia, WA 98504-1118

June 25, 2016

RE: Ongoing illegal censorship of at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center

Dear Publication Review Committee,

On April 14, 2016, CC'ed your office on a letter to Superintendent Uttecht of Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. We did not receive a response from your office to this letter, even though it contained information directly pertaining to your office.

I am writing to you with three concerns.

1. What is the status of the censorship of the book Power and the Struggle for Aztlan? This book was mailed to Mr. xxx in October 2015. Superintendent Uttecht informed us that it is presently being reviewed by the Publication Review Committee. What is the status of this review?

2. There is ongoing illegal censorship at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. In April 2016 we informed Superintendent Uttecht that we (MIM Distributors, the publisher and sender of this book) were not notified of the censorship of Power and the Struggle for Aztlan when it was censored by Coyote Ridge mailroom staff. Superintendent Uttecht's response was to write a letter saying the proof of notifiying the sender was attached, yet failed to enclose any attachments with his letter to us.

There was recently another similar incident at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. A publication titled Under Lock & Key No. 50 (May/June 2016) was censored in this facility. The intended recipient was Mr. xxx. MIM Distributors was not notified by the facility mailroom that this newsletter was being censored. We only heard about it from the prisoner.

There are no doubt countless other incidents of censorship that were not carried out in line with constitutional and state law, or DOC procedures. Unfortunately since we are not being notified by the facility of these incidents, we have no way of knowing how many have occurred.

3. The reason cited for the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 50 (May/June 2016) is unfounded and also an illegal reason for censorship. An intended recipient of this newsletter informed us, the sender, of the reason provided by CRCC mailroom staff for this censorship. The reason given was “Entire tone of paper seeks to gain opinions/actions against the criminal justice system. Encourages/uses derogatory remarks against law enforcement in statements such as 'pigs' and 'fuck the police' (Pages 4 & 8). This paper also calling for 'organized; strikes/movements against the prison system. Pages 17 & 18.” We apologize if this reason cited is inaccurate. Unfortunately it has been provided to us by a third party, since we were not notified of the censorship as I explained above.

As you can see, the “reasons” cited for censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 50 are vague and not directly related to the penological interests of the institution. We believe there is much relevant case law to support our claim that this publication is being censored for political reasons, in direct opposition to protections of the United States Constitution.

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately." Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401

“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).

"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 look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

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

CC: Affected parties
Superintendent: Jeffrey A. Uttecht
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
1301 N Ephrata Ave
PO Box 769
Connell, WA 99326

Superintendent: Jeffrey A. Uttecht
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
1301 N Ephrata Ave
PO Box 769
Connell, WA 99326

June 25, 2016

RE: Ongoing illegal censorship to xxx at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, no notification to sender

Dear Superintendent,

We received your letter from April 21, 2016. Thank you for your response.

One of our complaints from our April 14 letter was that the sender (MIM Distributors) was not notified of the censorship of the above named book to the above named prisoner. In your letter from April 21, you state “a mail rejection was generated and sent to the offender and to the sender (MIM) as is evident with the attached exhibits A and B.” Yet your letter did not include any attachments. We still contend that we never were sent a rejection notice from your facility.

Additionally, we were recently informed that Under Lock & Key No. 50 (May/June 2016) was censored at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. Yet we have not received notification of this censorship. You were already made aware of this problem of lack of notification in our letter to you from April 2016. That your mailroom is still violating constitutional and state law, as well as your own department's policies, is grounds for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit.

Some facilities send their rejection notices via Certified Mail with the USPS. I would recommend to do this with your mail. Also someone should double-check your letters to ensure the attachments you intend to send in fact are included with your outgoing mail.

We look forward to your response and the remedy of this problem at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Publication Review Committee
C/O Department of Corrections Correspondence Unit
PO Box 41118
Olympia, WA 98504-1118

F-11-334-15 of the book Power and the Struggle for Aztlan.

In response to your previous letter dated April 14, 2016 we informed you about the process for rejected publications, this publication is being reviewed at this time by the Publication Committee at Headquarters. The Coyote Ridge Corrections (CRCC) Mailroom mailed the book in for further review and are waiting for a final decision.

Once we receive the final decision from the Publication Committee we will either forward the publication to offender [x] or send him a notice with the denial of the publication and he will have 30 days from the date of the final decision to let the mailroom know how he would like to dispose of this publication.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey A. Uttecht, Superintendent
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center

I received your letter dated June 25, 2016 regarging Publication Mail Rejections for [x].

Publications, Power and the Struggle for Aztlan, and Under Lock & Key were both rejected for the following:

1. Contains plans for activity that violates state/federal law, the Washington Administrative Code, Department policy, and/or local facility rules.
2. Advocates violence against others and/or the overthrow of authority
3. Advocated that protected class or group of individuals is inferior and/or makes such class/group the object of ridicule and/or scorn, and may reasonably be thought to precipitate a violent confrontation between the recipient and a member(s) of the target group.

Publications that were rejected by the facility and upheld by the Publication Review Committee are appealable per DOC Policy 450.001. Offenders may submit their appeal through the facility mailroom sergeant. The appeal request will be forwarded to me through a pre-established process.

[x] was informed of both publication rejections and the Publication Review Committee's decision. If he wishes to appeal, he must follow the pre-established process listed above.

There are three minimum procedural protections for mail:
1. Notice of the rejection
2. A chance to appeal the rejection
3. Review of the appeal by someone other than the person who initiated the appeal

The above procedures have been ranted to [x]. The procedures we have in place satisfy the constitutional requirements; the minimum procedural protections have been met.

Sincerely,
Roy G...?[signature illegible]
Prisons Division
Correctional Manager

The publication was denied due to referencing criminal misconduct or facility misconduct. I have personally reviewed pages seventeen and eighteen of the publication and can state that there is specific references related to facility misconduct, specific to unauthorized group activity.

Based upon what is noted above, it is my decision to uphold the review committee's decision. I find that the grievance has no merit and is therefore denied.

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

The complainant contend that the contents contained in the publication "Under Lock and Key May/June 2016 No. 50" doesn't cause disorder or violence, nor will it hurt his rehabilitation. he also contends that his "Under Lock and Key" publications are being denied because they are communist in text. However, prison officials must abide by the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws to all citizens. This means that, for example, prison officials cannot ban access to materials targeted to a communist audience, if they do not ban similar materials popular among other political parties.

Your administrative appeal has been reviewed and evaluated. You appeal the impoundment of the following publication: Under Lock and Key, May/June 2016, issue 50.

On July 6, 2016 the Literature Review Committee reviewed teh subject matter content in question submitted by the institution. It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(3)(g)(m).

The department may prohibit admission of materials or publication sif they are determined to be detrimental to the safety, security, order or rehabilitative interests of a facility or would create a risk of disorder at that facility. Chapter 33-501.401, requires that publications be reviewed and a determination made by one institution .The determination made by that institution affects all other institutions; however, as a result of an individual institution's determination, all impounded publicaitons are reviewed and either approved or rejected by the department's Literature Review Committee as required by rule. Therefore, the final determination is made by the department's Literature Review Committee and not by an individual institution or warden.

Based on the above information your administrative appeal is denied.

Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225

26 June 2016

RE: Unauthorized Vendor Mail

Ms. Seibel,

I am writing to inquire about a number of pieces of mail recently returned to MIM Distributors that were unopened and stamped, “RETURN TO SENDER UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR.” All of the mail in question were letters enclosed in #10 envelopes. This practice seemed to begin around May 2016. Two letters sent to Mr. XXX YYY (#123456) were returned in this manner; one from mid-May and one from mid-June. One letter from mid-June to Mr. AAA BBB (#246810) was also returned in this manner. Yet Mr. BBB reports not receiving a number of letters from MIM Distributors since his transfer to Chuckwalla in April. These other letters were not returned, nor was a notification of censorship sent to MIM Distributors, nor to Mr. BBB.

My questions are: What is the significance of this stamp “UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR”? And why were the letters in question not delivered to their intended recipients?

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this matter,

letter read in part:

"Mailroom staff have been made aware of the situation and will do everyting possiblbe to ensure this does not happen again."

"[CDCR] encouranges correspondence with persons outside the correctional facility. CVSP apologizes for the error and any inconvenience this may have caused."

Step 1 respondent fails to address, thus concedes: 1) the unsigned notice of Peggy Haywood, who also falsely told M/O she was the "reporting staff member" for a "date of notice: 4/26/15" that did not exist in violation of 18 U.S.C 1519; and 3) if Haywood's hearsay is taken as credible then a decision was made in Lansing that effectively denied grievant's right to due process and a fair hearing in violation of Mich. Const. 1963, art. 1, 17 and U.S. const. Am. XIV. Moreover, the statement by a Georgia prisoner, "It looks as if we will be forced to participate in a hunger strike to get help..." is not advocacy, but a simple plea to the public for help in ending the brual repression of prisoners in control units that the UN, among others, has recognized as a form of torture, nor does it meet the 4-prong test set forth in Truner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Wherefore, remedy requested at Step 1 must be granted.

The mail rejection was properly completed by P. Haywood

As shown by the attached, hereto, Notice of package mail/rejection (CSJ-316), Under Lock & Key, No 43, March/April 2015, T. Bates, 4/13/15, Step II respondent lied when she stated "Teh mail rejection was properly completed by P. haywood," as it was not "properly completed by" T. Bates and is unsigned. If P. haywood completed another CSJ-316, then she violated 18 U.S.C. 1519 and 18 U.S.C 242, as part of a conspiracy with respondents to deprive grievant of his civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241. Moreover, while stating "we will be forced" into a non-violent hunger-strike is not advocacy, Step I and II responses are advocacy for solitary confinement which is "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment [of prisoners]...[that] amounts to torture," as stated by U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, August 2013, wherefore, remedy requested at Step I must be granted, as well as applied to respondents, G. Wilson and J. DeAngelo.