Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

10/2/15 - (c) It contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots or security threat group activity.

Remarks: page 1 + 16 contains prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Non-appealable

DRC upheld the denial on 10/1/15

According to my paperwork, ULK 45 was denied due to articles written on pages 1 and 16 (one and sixteen) allegedly the article dealing with a strike.

I was NOT given an opportunity to appeal. My paperwork stated that the Director's Review Committee (DRC) upheld the denial on 10/1/15. I received (or allegedly received) my ULK 45 on October 2nd. I believe this date recorded as "received on" is a misrepresentation (or in other words, a creation of a fraudulent or misleading official government record!) of an official government record. Willing to bet that it was done to keep me out of the appeal process!

(c) It contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots, or security threat group activity.

Remarks: Reason c: Page 3 advocates a hunger strike

Director's Review Committee
Bill Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606

August 7, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of mail at Bill Clements Unit to Mr.

Dear Director's Review Committee,

On January 22, 2015 I mailed you a letter on this same problem. I never received a response from your office.

We were recently made aware that mail we have been sending to the above named prisoner is being withheld and denied. The above named prisoner has been sending us documentation on this censorship. But our office has not been notified by the mailroom staff at Clements Unit directly.

Two specific items that we are aware of this happening with are
Under Lock & Key No. 27 (July/August 2012), mailed via First Class mail with USPS on 6/2/15
and
Under Lock & Key No. 35 (November/December 2013), mailed via First Class mail with USPS on 3/31/15
There may be additional items which have been withheld and denied in this manner which we are not aware of.

MIM Distributors was not sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Per Texas DOC policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)): "V. B. Any offender, other correspondent, or sender of a publication may appeal the rejection of any correspondence or publication. They may submit written evidence or arguments in support of their appeal. An offender or a correspondent may appeal the placement of the correspondent on the offender?s negative mailing list. An offender or a correspondent may appeal to the DRC for reconsideration of the negative mailing list placement after six months." Based on this we formally request an appeal of this censorship.

In your review of this censorship, please note that your own policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) states: "Publications shall not be rejected solely because the publication advocates the legitimate use of offender grievance procedures, urges offenders to contact public representatives about prison conditions, or contains criticism of prison authorities." In order to reject these publications for content, per your policy, you must demonstrate that the publication "contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots, or STG activity".

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.

In addition, 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.

Sincerely,



CC: Affected parties

Jennifer XXXXXX, Program Supervisor
Mail System Coordinators Panel
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
October 25, 2015

RE: Continued censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 27 and No. 35 to Mr. xxx

Dear Supervisor XXXXXX,

This letter is in response to yours from September 3, 2015. Thank you for providing some insight into why our mail is being returned to us with no explanation of censorship.

In your letter you state that Under Lock & Key No. 27 was denied by the Director's Review Committee on September 9, 2012. With this letter I have enclosed a copy of the Director's Review Committee decision to REVERSE the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 27 on September 4, 2012. Please send me the documentation you have which supposedly upholds the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 27 because we have never seen it.

In your letter you allude to lists which contain Director's Review Committee decisions on publications. You allude to an Approved Publication List, and I assume there is a Disapproved Publication List based on the information provided about the censorship process in TDCJ. With this letter I would like to respectfully ask for these lists to be sent to me at the address above.

Regarding these lists, you state that once the Director's Review Committee renders a decision on a publication that it can never be appealed. However, according to Texas DOC Policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) (which I also included in my last letter of August 7, 2015):

"V. B. Any offender, other correspondent, or sender of a publication may appeal the rejection of any correspondence or publication. They may submit written evidence or arguments in support of their appeal. An offender or a correspondent may appeal the placement of the correspondent on the offender's negative mailing list. An offender or a correspondent may appeal to the DRC for reconsideration of the negative mailing list placement after six months."

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.

In summary, with this letter I am requesting:
1. You stop censoring Under Lock & Key No. 27, because it was already approved by the Director's Review Committee on September 4, 2012.
2. You allow us to appeal the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35, because per BP-03.91, we are permitted to appeal the Director's Review Committee's decision after six months.
3. That you send us copies of the Approved and Disapproved Publications Lists, or their equivalent.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties