Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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

3 October 2016

RE: Disapproval of Publication

Ms. Seibel,

This letter is in response to the “DISAPPROVAL OF PUBLICATION” notice sent to MIM Distributors dated 16 September 2016 in regards to Under Lock & Key Issue # 51.

First, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your 5 July 2016 letter addressing previous mail censorship issues at your facility and working to make sure that we do not have those problems again. However, since then we have received reports from prisoners at Chuckwalla that the word is that the mailroom is returning all mail from MIM Distributors as of early September. Shortly after that the aforementioned disapproval notice for ULK 51, was received from Mailroom Lieutenant P. Fuller.

The reasoning given by Lt. Fuller for the disapproval was that “This publication contained Disturbing and Offensive content in the entire publication.” Government officials censoring correspondence because it disturbs or offends them is a violation of the First Amendment. Also see:

?"Government cannot regulate speech because it disagrees with the message conveyed." - Gentala v. City of Tucson, 213 F3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2000)

?"Government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys." - Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp., 164 F3d 757 (2nd Cir. 1999)

In this light, I hope you will agree to reverse this decision, and to subsequently deliver Under Lock & Key 51 to each of the subscribers at Chuckwalla Valley State Prison.


Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,

The Director's Review Committee (DRC) has rendered a decision regarding your appeal of the Unit rejection of 12 pg letter advocates prison disruption mailed to you[prisoner] from

MIM Distributors

It is the decision of the DRC to REVERSE the Unit denial of the above-mentioned item(s); you will be allowed to receive the item(s).

I have a regular subscription to both the San Francisco Bay View Newspaper as well as to various MIM Distributors publications. I have not received mail from both distributors in months. I know these publications are frequently censored by CDC&R mailrooms. I would like to know if there is any ban on these publicaitons currently in effect.

Bay View is currently under review and awaiting disapproval. If the newspaper is not disallowed then they will be issued to you, and if disallowed will be witheld and you will be issued an 1819 form.

Is Bay View currently under Division of Adult Institutions review or CVSP review? Is BAy View under review for the Centralized List of Dissapproved Publications as a whole or only for individual issues? How come I never received 1819? What is the status of MIM Distributors? Where are my 1819s for MIM?

Bay view is currently under Division of Adult Institutions review for all issues to be placed on the list of Dissaproved Centralized list. If a publication was recevied with your name on it then you would have been issued an 1819, so if you haven't recevied an 1819 then you haven't received a newspaper. MIM Distributors is also under review by DAI to be put on the Centralized Disapproved publications list.

I have attempted to file this 602 on two occassions. The first time I sent it in the Appeals Coordiantor returned it back to me saying that he was unable to accept it for review because the initial issue I included in the appeal (the disallowment of ULK 51) happened over 30 days ago, and according to CCR Title 15 I am only able to appeal something within 30 days of the incident. I then sent it back to him pointing out that the Title 15 specifically says that I can appeal something within 30 days of the incident or within 30 days of my first knowledge of its occurrence. Therefore I am well within my right since the mailroom never notified me and I only found out about this incident because I received your Unconfirmed Mail Form. I also pointed out how I'd already addressed all this in my appeal. Clearly then he must have either (a) not actually read the appeal (b) glossed over this in the appeal, or (c) most likely, he's just trying to illegally screen me out.

He subsequently returned it to me again stating that I am correct, however "...upon reviewing your note on teh CDC form 695, you are indicating the initial issue happened on 8/8/16 and did not have knowledge of it until later. Therefore, due to the fact that you have noted two separate issues on one appeal, you will have to rewrite to appeals per issue. Please correct your appeal so that it may be processed and ensure it is received in the Appeal's Office by 11/23/16..."

The Appeals Coordinator is referring to the fact that my 602 concerns ULK 51 and three other separate envelopes from you which I never received. I am also appealing the fact that I never received notification of the dissallowment. All this can be considered one issue and I am appealing it as such. I am also appealing the illegal censorship of Bay View. This is a second issue included.

The Title 15 says I cannot appeal two or more unrelated issues on a single appeal, but I can appeal a *related set of issues on a single appeal*. And this is what I"m doing. The AP knows this but he is obviously trying to screen me out. I will exsplain all this to the AP on Monday when I re-submit. Hopefully by then I will have more copies of the 602 so you can see what I'm talking about.

(sent to MIM(Prisons) from prisoner)

The item(s) of mail is being returned for you for the reason(s) indicated:

E. Other: The publication shall be treated as having been found to be detrimental to the security, order, disciplinary or rehabilitative interest of tehe Dept.

F. Inmate Appeal for Rejection of Publication (see section VI.J of SOP) [state reason for appeal of rejection] Per Legal Dept in Atlanga, GA (this was handwritten in by GDC staff)

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

MIM Theory, Nov. 14, 2001, Vol. 6 No. 1, page 98.

for the following reasons:

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related actiity or association.

you may obtain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Under Lock & Key, MIM, Mar/Apr 2016 No. 49

for the following reasons:

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related actiity or association.

you may obtain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

The following is an appeal against the infringement of my rights by the above specified state prison unit and it’s M.S.C.P. (mail system coordinating panel) which has denied my July/August 2016 issue No 51 of Under Lock and Key.

Said denial came on or about: 30 August 2016 by the TDCJ – CID’s MSCP department who failed to notify me of the interception and denial at that time, rather than ½ ma month later, of its arrival via the United States Postal Service.

When I was finally informed, it was half a month after TDCJ-MSCP received, then denied it. Their supposed reason for denial was that “The issue on page one promotes work stoppage – and prison disruption.”

On the other hand, should one or more of the states captives, simply decided, of their own free will, not to work with no prompting by teaching one of his supposed constitutionally protected rights? What or whom else is and will be the party to blame? And for peacefully assembling to petition the states government for a redress of grievances. How else could or would the states prison injustice justify the mistreatment of its prisoners in the denial of our due process and right to be secure in our both persons and papers.

Finally, it is obvious that "if" one choses to participate in the peaceful assembling to petition the states government? It is denied. However, TDCJ-CID clearly has no problem in demanding of its captives to: work or labor, free of payment (or get a disciplinary report) rather than hands on physical job training, as well as, money to sufficiently learn to manage money for a successful rehabilitation and transition into the working class of citizens. Who is monitoring and censoring that? Is the state and it's employees above justice?

I request that the July/August 2016 issue of No. 51 of Under Lock and Key be removed from the state-wide banning. And said publication is rerouted to its proper recipient for whom they were sent to by mail.

Grievance response: The issue presented is not grievable
(no signature or name)

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

MIM, Under Lock and Key, #48, Jan/Feb 2016, pages 9 and 18.

for the following reasons:

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related actiity or association.

you may obtain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee