MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
(15)(g) encourages, provides instruction on, or facilitates the commission of a crime; (15)(h) depicts, describes or encourages activities that may lead to the use of physical violence on another person; (via prisoner, they did not notify publisher)
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Notice of Rejection for the publication Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated September 1, 2023.
Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the fact that we did not receive notice of censorship from your institution but from Mr. XXXXXX himself. This is patently unacceptable as it violates the long-standing legal precedent of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) wherein the courts found that that “the author of [censored mail] be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision.” This finding has been upheld for nearly five decades, including in Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) where the courts held that “publishers are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when their publications are disapproved for receipt by inmate subscribers.”
The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(g), (15)(h), and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material for either facilitating “the commission of a crime”, encouraging activities leading to physical violence, or presenting a threat to the security of the prison.
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
page(s) _13_ that mentions custody staff by name, institution, and assigned post location. This information could place custody staff open to any form of violence.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
California City Correctional Facility
Attn: D. Stump
22844 Virginia Blvd
P.O. Box 2626
California City, CA 93505
Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 81
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 81 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notice cites page 13 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder,; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material contains information which “could place custody staff open to any form of violence.”
We have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria laid out in the California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1). Nor do we believe that the airing of grievances against specific prison officials at a separate facility places them “open to any form of violence.”
In fact, in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, the Supreme Court held that the censorship of statements which “magnify grievances” is unconstitutional.
As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request the decision to withhold issue 81 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
08/18/2023
Letter from Division of Adult Institutions in Sacramento putting ULK 81 on ban list
Show Text
"Under Lock and Key, Summer 2023, No. 81, has been placed on the Centralized List of Disapproved Periodicals by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation..."
"...This Decision is based on the violation of the CCR, Title 15, Section 3006(c)(16) Contraband, which states in part, "Material that is reasonably deemed to be a threat to legitimate penalogical interests." Page 13 of the publication violates this policy section."
Willie Anthony Dobie III
Chief
Office of Policy Standardization
08/18/2023
Letter from CCCF mailroom stating Publication Disallowed
Show Text
responding to MIM Distributor's appeal, restating reasons given in original notification
09/21/2023
Follow up from MIM Distributors
Show Text
September 21, 2023
LeAnna Lundy
California City Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2626
California City, CA 93505
Re: Publication Disallowed
Dear Ms. Lundy:
We are in receipt of your institution’s notification regarding the continuing censorship of issue 81 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notification again alleges that page 13 of ULK contains material which tends to incite violence among prisoners. We must again assert that, upon review, we do not believe it meets the criteria laid out in CCR Title 15 Section 3006(C)(1). We would also direct your attention to the following quote of ours page 2 of ULK: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” Furthermore, holding public officials and government employees accountable for their actions in the press is a constitutional right protected by the First Amendment.
Again, we request the decision to withhold issue 81 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.
This publication has been impounded or rejected on 8/9/23, title: Under Lock & Key from MIM Distributors PO Box 40799, San Francisco, CA 94140. I am appealing this impoundment. I've been receiving this newspaper for over a year and have never had a problem. I should be allowed to receive a newspaper.
09/21/2023
MIM Distributors appealed
Show Text
September 21, 2023
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Notice of Rejection for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated August 9, 2023.
Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the fact that we did not receive notice of censorship from your institution but from Mr. XXXXXX himself. This is patently unacceptable as it violates the long-standing legal precedent of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) wherein the courts found that that “the author of [censored mail] be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision.” This finding has been upheld for nearly five decades, including in Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) where the courts held that “publishers are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when their publications are disapproved for receipt by inmate subscribers.”
The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment
under sections (15)(j), (15)(o), and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material for either including “signs, symbols, or other identifies of a security threat group”, advertising a set of prohibited services, or presenting a threat to the security of the prison.
As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in our publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.
Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
2727 E. Beecher St
Adrian, MI 49221
Re: Notice of Mail/Package Rejection
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notice cites pages 4 and 6 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates Michigan Department of Corrections PD.05.03.118. Page 4 is alleged to contain material advocating for “group insurrection” while page 6 is alleged to contain material which “Advocate[s]/Promote[s] Violence or Unrest.”
We have reviewed ULK and believe these descriptions are inaccurate and thusly the refusal to forward the publication to Mr. XXXXXX is unjust.
Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship],” as you have done so here.
We would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly lay out our opposition to both violence and group insurrection, quoted here for your convenience: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time.”
Additionally, we would like to refer you to Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800 where the Supreme Court held that the censorship of statements which “magnify grievances” is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, we will remind you that PD.05.03.118 itself lays out that “Mail shall not be prohibited solely because its content is … political, social, …, [or] unpopular.”
As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)
We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
Please govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
08/30/2023
Warden upholds censorship
Show Text
A hearing was conducted on August 15, 2023. This hearing concluded that the publication in question would be rejected.
Page 4 - Aftermath Tears, Page 5 - Law and the Court of Late (racist) The Lynching Continues, Page 6 - Cheimcal Suicide in Michigan Prisons, Page 6 - Programming/Mental Health Denied as Drug Cartel Runs CA Prison, Page 10 - Power to New Afrika Ignores Rac
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Notice of Action Taken for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82 (hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated August 8, 2023.
The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which is “dangerously inflammatory” or “presents a threat to … security.” You further list articles found in pages 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 15 as containing objectionable material under the aforementioned criteria.
As the publishers of ULK, we know that none of the listed articles contain material which fits the descriptions you allege that it does. We would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly lay out our opposition the claims made, quoted here for your convenience: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time.”
Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship].” Merely citing the titles of articles in the newsletter is not sufficient explanation for its censorship on the basis of security concerns.
As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason” (emphasis added). Should you decide censor ULK on different grounds, we expect to be notified.
We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
California City Correctional Facility
22844 Virginia Blvd
California City, CA 93505
Re: Publication Withheld Pending Review
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.
The notice cites page 6 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3006 (1) in that it allegedly contains “matter of a character tending to incite murder; arson, riot; or any form of violence or physical harm to any person, or any ethnic, gender, racial, religious, or other group.” You specifically note that the material “depicts violence by suicide with the use of a gun.”
Aside from the fact that this is an inaccurate description of the artwork in question, we contend that the mere depiction of a violent act is not “tending to incite … violence” as laid out in the aforementioned Section 3006 (1). Instructive are the court’s rulings in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987). We quote from this ruling the following: “there must be a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. … Thus, a regulation cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.”
We would put forth that there is no such logical connection between the purported goal of preventing access to material which is “tending to incite … violence” and such a wide-reaching ban of any artistic expression depicting violence. Furthermore, we would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly discourage any forms of violence, quoted here for your convenience: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time.”
We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
CENTRAL OFFICE LEGAL SERVICES
302 W Washington St W 341
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
Re: Notice of Action Taken on Correspondence
To Whom It May Concern:
We are in receipt of your Notice of Action Taken for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 81 (hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated July 17, 2023.
The listed reason for censorship is “DENIED OII STG FRONT PAGE NEW AFRIKA, LAST BLACK PANTHERS.”
Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns prison, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship],” as you have done so here.
As the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason” (emphasis added). Should you decide censor ULK on different grounds, we expect to be notified.
We request the decision to withhold issue 81 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.
Your previous refusal to detail the terms of censorship is patently unconstitutional. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.
PG 5: support incarcerated citizens of ECI, PG 9: Ad-seg Drives Self-Mutilization; PG 9 Staff bring in fentanyl laced drugs; PG 12: Filing suit against TDCJ staff for setup; PG 13: New Lawsuit Against San Mateo Co Prison Mail Surveillance System
...On August 03, 2023, the Literature Review Committee reviewed the subject matter content in question submitted by the institution. It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(15)(j)(n)(p).
Page 4 - Aftermath Tears, Page 5 - Law and the Court of Late (racist) The Lynching Continues, Page 6 - Chemical Suicide in Michigan Prisons, Page 6 - Programming/Mental Health Denied as Drug Cartel Runs CA Prison, Page 10 - Power to New Afrika Ignores Rac
