Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

December 21, 2018

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock and Key Issue 64
Censorship Guide

Prisoner XXX


To Whom It May Concern:

On November 2, 2018 we mailed the Censorship Guide, in letter form, to Smart Communications in Florida per the PADOC guidelines addressed to Mr. XXX. The letter was returned to us, stamped “Return to Sender” and had been opened and taped shut. There was no notice of censorship or reason for the return of the letter.

We also mailed Under Lock and Key (ULK), issue 64, to Mr. XXX directly to the prison as was the policy until the end of 2018. ULK 64 was returned to us marked “Refused” with no other explanation.

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).

At this point we are unable to communicate with Mr. XXX, in violation of our First Amendment rights. Your policies as listed on the FAQ portion (https://www.cor.pa.gov/family-and-friends/Pages/Mailing-Addresses.aspx) of the PADOC website are vague and failed to list the Secure Processing Center. Though it does appear the SPC address is now listed on other sections of your website.

Nonetheless, your policies, in the current manner they have been carried out, are an ongoing violation of our rights. You must immediately process our mail to all PADOC inmates and provide censorship notices, if applicable. Failure to do so may result in litigation to enforce our rights.

Please govern yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

Enclosed you should find a copy of a publication denial form concerning Under Lock & Key No. 63 which I have initiated a formal grievance process.

It consists of asserting due process violation because of not providing me an opportunity to appeal (witin two (2) weeks) the denial decision of Director's Review Committee (DRC).

It should not be a surprise hearing what mailroom personnel explained when I asked why they took short cuts: When the Unit mailroom is delivered "Under Lock & Key" and "Prison Action News" publications, DRC had instructed mailroom personnel to use none of their discretion but rely on DRC to determine that status of those two publications.

You'll notice on the denial form where it asks "Does Offender wish to appeal the denial?" D. Warren marked "x" indicatating Non-Appealable. That prompted me to conspicuously sign under duress so I could get a copy of the denial form.

I received your magazine Under Lock & Key. I appreciate the magazine and the helpful information inside. I did have a small problem at first with the mailroom here, who at first withheld the magazine, for 7 days claiming pages 1 and 5 advocates prison disruption and strike.

After much prayer and filing a grievance, seven days later the mailroom here gave your magazine to me.