Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Your grievance has been reviewed. The claim in your grievance #AMF[xxx] that RUM Niemi is incorrect in hiw response to the Step I grievance. Your grievance has to do with you not being given a photocopied publication.

Te Step I grievance and response have been reviewed. The Step I grievance was responed to within the time limits. The Step I respondent and an investigation indicated that the two publications received by the mailroom, addressed to you, were not from an approved vendor. These items were properly rejected and that rejection was upheld via the administrative hearing process. There has been no violation of PD 05.03.118 Prisoner Mail or PD 03.02.130 Prisoner/Parolee Grievances. Your access to the courts has not been infringed upon.

The grievance appeal has been reviewed. The investigation at Step I was appropriate and responsive to your claim. The grievant is being housed in a safe and secure manner in accordance with PD 04.05.120 Segregation Standards.

In the absence of any additional information in your appeal to support your greivance claim, nothing further is required in response.

To the publisher:

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, Jan/Feb 2017 No. 54, page 15

for the following reasons:

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promoted gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity 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, PO Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

The NOND merely says the publication is a "threat to security," without justifying that conclusion by say, for example, "it advocates violence on staff in pg. __" or "it describes how to make zip guns," or whatever in it leads Houke to believe it poses a threat to security. To satisfy due process, the NOND must do so, must say why the pub. poses a threat to security, so you and I know taht such a concern is valid. If Hanke's deeming it a "threat to security" because it's merely critical of the prison system or tells prisoners how to file lawsuits, that's not good enough to jusitfy his concerns.

Please clarify how the pub threatens security.

And, again, Hanke put the wrong address in the NOND, denying the sender notice, as due process requires. The qip code is 94140, not 841401. Please send notice to correct address.

The denied publication is "Under Lock & Key" Issue 55 March/April 2017. This publication was reviewed by the Office of the Security Chief on 4/19/17 and denied in accordance with DOC 309.04 4(c)8 b. b. Poses a threat to the security.

this examiner finds the WSPF mailroom appropriately denied this publication in accordance with the decision of the Office of the Security Chief.

It is recommended this complaint be dismissed.

Signed: W. Brown - Institution Complaint Examiner

Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221

1 May 2017

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 55

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in response to a Letter to Publisher from Doug Pardue, notifying MIM Distributors of the disapproval of Under Lock & Key No. 55, March/April 2017. The reason given for the censorship was that “”Regarding Daily Body Searches” promotes insurrection” on page 13.

The next time Mr. Pardue is downtown, perhaps he can visit the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial garden and read the inscription on the statue there. It seems contradictory that the same state that praises “massive disobedience” as serving the interests of “liberty and justice for all”, finds protest in the form of prisoners remaining in their cells to somehow be a threat to institutional security (the criteria legally required for censorship of mail sent to prisoners).

I hope that upon review of this decision that you will agree that this decision contradicts the values (and laws) of this country and that the newsletter in question will be delivered to the subscribers held by NCDPS.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter,