Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

This censorship violatse the grievants clearly established rights under the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution. This grievance is aimed and leveled against c/o D. Meredith and a challenge to the sufficiency of "notice" (DOC 0212 Rev-9-2006) and it's non compliance with admin code 525 230(c)(1). The "notice" in question was furnished to this grievant on 10-14-2015.

Publication in question is titled "Under Lock & Key", this publication is one based upon progressive, political, social, economic and educational. These progressive notions are a philosophical political point on socialism. In every issue of "Under Lock & Key" they publish their goals and rebuttle argument, without the specific information based upon to determine the publication should be rejected. Broad and vague statements can not and will not suffice or pass constitutional muster. Thus the notice violates admin code 525.230(c)(1) and my due process rights.

Due to the defective nature of the notice provided, the lack of an individual review of the publication in question. Also the very clear fact that every issue explicitely discourages violence and illegal activity. Any activity that is encouraged is within the scope of an in conformity and protected by the U.S. constitution's 1st amendment. The notice failure to conform to 525.230(c)(1) and its vagueness violates this grievant's due process rights. May this grievance and record reflect that this grievant received without any interuption a whole year of said publication.

Relief requested: Be provided with a detailed reason fro the denial of publicaion in question. Have DOC 0212(Rev. 9-2006) reflect and conform to admin code 525.230(c)(1). To not be disciplined for the prior issues allowed for an entire year.

Per DR 25, if any publication, or part of, depicts, describes, or ecourages activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption or it facilitates organizational activity without approval of the CAO, can be banned/unauthorized. C/O Meredith reviews individual publications unless it is on the banned list. The banned list is an administrative decision per DR504. No course of action attached.

- J. James

(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: Pages 3 & 8 contain information on a hunger strike

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Non-Appealable

DRC upheld the denial on 7/23/12

They denied ULK 45 because it said it could incite strikes by telling about others doing it.

I appealed, but it was denied anyway.

Check appropriate cause for denial and state appropriate reason:
[checked] Enclosure

DENIED: 1 oversized world map

RECEIVED: 1 invoice

Does offender wish to appeal the decision? No. 11/20/2015

Disposition: Destroy 11/20/2015

I am writing you just to inform you about the last newsletter or document you send to me in September, which I was notified by prison officials, especially mailroom, that I cannot have such paper.

It was confiscated on grounds that it contained 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 disruptions such as strikes, riots or security threat group activity.

for this reason I was not allowed to have it and it was destroyed. i didn't even have a chance to see its contents. It was on September 11 when that happened.

(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: pg 234 promotes peaceful protests, noncooperations, hunger strike and no labor

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes

Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342

November 14, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of book to Mr. xx

Dear Director Thaler,

On September 28, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a book titled Power and the Struggle for Aztlan to the above named prisoner held at Allred Unit in Iowa Park, TX. This book was not returned to MIM Distributors, and it was not received by Mr. xx. MIM Distributors was not sent any notification for this censorship, and we would not have known the book was censored except that Mr. xx informed us himself. 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 reason that was cited to censor this material to Mr. xx is invalid. The reason given was that it “promotes peaceful protests, non cooperation, hunger strike, no labor.” But the book does not promote these activities.

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