Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

(15)(p) otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

Page 8 - CA Silences Reports of Drug Trade in Prisons/The Stoopid Epidemic of K2 in Nevada Prisons

Page 9- We Want Security, They Want Control/Suboxone Pushed Willy-Nilly By CDCR Medical Staff

Page 10-Challenging Constitutionality of Digital Mail, Reports from TX

Page 11 - How the prison war looksin Texas Ad-Segs/ ULK83 Correction; murders weren't about drugs

Page 13 - Some Thoughts on S.O.'s and Sexual Orientation/In Their Way They Expect Violence

February 28, 2024

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 84
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX [#XXXXXXX], dated February 8, 2024, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which either “encourages riot, insurrection, rebellion, organized prison protest,” or “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

The Literature Review Committee reviewed the material contained in Under Lock and Key 2024/Winter No. 84.

And it was determined that it meets the specific criteria contained in Section (3) Rule 33-501.401 F.A.C. admissible reading material for disapproval.

...

Mailroom Staff
Santa Rosa Correctional Institution

A. Johns/Z. Culpepper signed 3/18/2024, stamped as mailed/filed 3/27/2024

reiterating that Literature Review Committee has determined ULK 84 is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(15)(i)(p) so appeal is denied

Staff responds saying: “All mail except legal is going to be returned to sender. All mail is to be sent to TextBehind.”

Mail not received includes publications that cannot be sent to TextBehind.

September 21, 2023

Mr. [X],

Enclosed you will find a letter from XXXXXX D. XXXXXX OPUS# XXXXXX, a prisoner at the Tabor Correctional Institution, as well as a request form sent from Mr. XXXXXX to the mail room at the Tabor CI. Within the letter, Mr. XXXXXX states that he never received, among other mail sent to him, his copy of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of ULK.

As Mr. XXXXXX points out, section .0107 under chapter D.0100 of the Policy and Procedure Manual published by the NC Division of Prisons requires that notice of censorship is sent to the publisher of the censored publication. The Supreme Court lays out a similar requirement in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). Seeing as neither we nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice of this censorship, the NC Division of Prisons which you preside over is violating both ours and Mr. XXXXXX’s First Amendment rights as secured by the U.S. judicial system.

Furthermore, the request form we have included from Mr. XXXXXX states that: “All mail except legal is going to be returned to sender. All mail is to be sent to TextBehind.” When the mail which is sent to TextBehind is not getting through to prisoners, this is patently unconstitutional. We would advise you to look at cases defining the past 60 years of legal precedence concerning the First Amendment rights of prisoners, such as Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), Procunier v. Martinez as mentioned above, and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

We request the decision to withhold ULK as well as other mailed items immediately be vacated and the items be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. In absence of such a decision, you must provide reasoning for this censorship. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

PG#4-6, 12 - PROMOTES REBELIOUS, HOSTILITY, SEDITIOUS AND DISLIKE [sic]

December 17, 2023

Director of Operations
North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, Division of Prisons
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

Re: Letter to Publisher


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to prisoners in NCPDS, dated November 7, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the violation of code I, which alleges that ULK contains “materials which are used or appear reasonably likely to be used to intimidate or sexually harass facility staff or visitors.” We are at a loss as to how a newsletter consisting of illustrations, discussions on contemporary politics, and letters from our readers could possibly be used to “intimidate or sexually harass” anyone. We have gone ahead and reviewed the listed pages in the letter to be safe and we emphatically disagree with the Publication Review Committee’s decision to censor ULK on these grounds.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to subscribers held by NCPDS. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

letter from Christina Fox, Chief of Security

no response as of November 2

from chairperson of Publication Review Committee [no name or signature]

memo attached saying "Per the Publication Review Committee in Raleigh, NC this publication has been disapproved. There are twon names on the memo: A Ms. Poteet and a Mr. Newton. Neither of which are on the Publication Review Committee. Ms. Poteet is administartive assistant to associate warden Mr. Netwon here at Foothills Corr Institution. That being said there's no way of knowing if the disapproval letter is really from the publication review committee in Raleigh of if this is simply a letter printed off computers here at the facility.

December 17, 2023

Director of Operations
North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, Division of Prisons
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

Re: Letter to Publisher


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to prisoners in NCPDS, dated November 7, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the violation of code I, which alleges that ULK contains “materials which are used or appear reasonably likely to be used to intimidate or sexually harass facility staff or visitors.” We are at a loss as to how a newsletter consisting of illustrations, discussions on contemporary politics, and letters from our readers could possibly be used to “intimidate or sexually harass” anyone. We have gone ahead and reviewed the listed pages in the letter to be safe and we emphatically disagree with the Publication Review Committee’s decision to censor ULK on these grounds.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to subscribers held by NCPDS. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

letter from Christina Fox, Chief of Security

notice to publisher was only a list of guidelines for censorship with D and E circled. Prisoner reports ey was told pages 10 and 12 advocate acts of violence

p. 10 and 12 were objectionable so ey got ULK 84 without pages 9-12

March 1, 2024

Mohawk Correctional Facility
ATTN: Facility Media Review Committee
6514 Rte 26
PO Box 8450
Rome, NY 13442

Re: Sender Disapproval Notice


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Sender Disapproval Notice for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to one XXXXXX James XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. We are the publishers of ULK. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly satisfies guidelines D and E of the Sender Disposition Notice Guidelines which state that a “publication which advocates and presents a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority is unacceptable” and that publications should not “advocate, expressly or by clear intention, acts of disobedience.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. In order to fulfill our due diligence, we specifically reviewed pages 10 and 12 as we were informed by Mr. XXXXXX that the FMRC took particular issue with these pages. The only parts of these pages which bear any relation to violence are a piece of art on page 10, which is protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression, and a book review of Tip of the Spear on page 12. The book review does discuss violence, but this is in a particular historical context. We firmly hold that discussing history and an author’s perspective on this history is in no way “advocating violence” simply because the history includes violence. If such a standard were generally applied, any discussion of major historical events like the Civil War, the Holocaust, or the Civil Rights Movement would be similarly censored.

Additionally, we include the following disclaimer in every issue of ULK on page 2: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We fail to see how ULK is purportedly “advocating violence” while simultaneously and explicitly disavowing violence.

We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 84 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

March 1, 2024

DAI Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
P.O. Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re: Censorship Notification

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 83 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX. We are the publishers of ULK. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.

The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly “contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population.” The majority of information we provide to prisoners via ULK is in the form of news articles, book reviews, and prisoner art. We fail to see how this could possibly “be used to instill violence or hatred” in such a manner as to constitute a security risk to your facility. Additionally, we include the following disclaimer in every issue of ULK on page 2: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.”

Furthermore, we hold that this rationale is so unacceptably vague as to enable the MO DOC to arbitrarily censor whatever material it desires. Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that, when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” Your censorship notice lacks any explanation of how ULK specifically could “be used to instill violence or hatred” and as such it is impossible for us to dispute such a claim.

We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 83 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

(15)(p) otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

Page 8 - CA Silences Reports of Drug Trade in Prisons/The Stoopid Epidemic of K2 in Nevada Prisons

Page 9- We Want Security, They Want Control/Suboxone Pushed Willy-Nilly By CDCR Medical Staff

Page 10-Challenging Constitutionality of Digital Mail, Reports from TX

Page 11 - How the prison war looksin Texas Ad-Segs/ ULK83 Correction; murders weren't about drugs

Page 13 - Some Thoughts on S.O.'s and Sexual Orientation/In Their Way They Expect Violence

February 28, 2024

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 84
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX [#XXXXXXX], dated February 8, 2024, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which either “encourages riot, insurrection, rebellion, organized prison protest,” or “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 11, 2024

Mohawk Correctional Facility
ATTN: Facility Media Review Committee
6514 Rte 26
PO Box 8450
Rome, NY 13442

Re: Sender Disapproval Notice

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Sender Disapproval Notice. A copy of this notice is enclosed within.

First and foremost, the notice which was sent to us includes essentially no information. It does not include what material is being censored, who this material was sent to, when this decision of censorship was made, or when the notice was written. This is all patently unconstitutional seeing as we, the senders and publishers of the censored material, have a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, we would remind you that we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications, and that this First Amendment right is violated when we are not provided the information needed to appeal cases of censorship. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

Thankfully, we have our records to rely on and have deduced that this censorship notice is likely regarding prisoner XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX to whom we sent both Under Lock & Key Issue 83 (Fall 2023) and Power to New Afrika on January 10, 2024.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publications allegedly satisfy guidelines D and E of the Sender Disposition Notice Guidelines which state that a “publication which advocates and presents a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority is unacceptable” and that publications should not “advocate, expressly or by clear intention, acts of disobedience.”

As the publishers of ULK and distributors of Power to New Afrika, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in either publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request both that your facility begins to adhere to the findings of the courts to respect our due process rights and that the decision to withhold ULK Issue 83 and Power to New Afrika be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 11, 2024

California State Prison, CSP (LAC)
44750 60th St. West
Lancaster, CA 93536

Re: Publication Withheld Pending Review


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 83
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX, dated January 24, 2024, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the alleged violation of CCR Title 15 Section 3006(c)(16) which states that prisoners are not allowed to possess material which is deemed a “threat to legitimate penalogical interests.” The notice alleges that the the material on page 11 of ULK constitutes such a “threat” when it describes “accusations of staff punishing inmates.”

The Supreme Court held in Turner v. Safley 482 U.S. 78 (1987) that to legally censor incoming mail sent to prisoners, there must be a “valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest.” The Court further explained that the “logical connection” between the asserted goal and the act of censorship must not be “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational,” and that “the governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.”

We contend that there exists no such logical connection and as such the objective stated (of censoring “threat[s] to legitimately penalogical interests”) is not legitimate, rendering this act of censorship illegal and unconstitutional. This can be seen by simply noticing that the number of disruptions to “penalogical interests” that have occurred as a result of prisoners across the country reading ULK is exactly zero. This number remains zero in light of the fact that ULK is read by hundreds of prisoners at dozens of facilities which have the same desire to censor any “threat[s] to legitimate penalogical interests” as your facility.

Moreover, your facility’s decision to censor reports of abuse in prison is in no way “neutral,” as is required by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Turner. The California Office of the Inspector General has released multiple reports concerning the CDCR’s failure to adequately handle and process reports of abuse within the facilities they oversee. The decision to censor reports of abuse and misconduct cannot possibly be neutral when the CDCR, which oversees your facility, has both a vested interest in and a history of repressing these reports.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Additionally, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 83 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,