Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden David Michael McCall, Jr.
Perry Correctional Institution
430 Oaklawn Road
Pelzer, SC 29669

4 January 2011

Dear Warden McCall,

I wrote to your office in November 2010 regarding the censorship of several articles of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Perry Correctional Institution. I have yet to hear a response from your office, and the censorship is ongiong.

In addition to requesting a response to my 15 November 2010 letter, I would like to request a copy of the policy governing the mail room staff at Perry CI, SCDC Policy PS-10-08, "Inmate Correspondence Privileges." Unfortunately I could not locate this policy on the SCDC website. Please send it to the address below.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Wayne C. McCabe, Warden
Lieber Correctional Institution
136 Wilborn Avenue
P.O. Box 205
Ridgeville, SC 29472

21 November 2010

Dear Warden McCabe,

This letter is to protest the decision and procedure of mailroom staff at Lieber Correctional Institution. In the past several months there have been multiple instances of censorship of mail coming from MIM Distributors to prisoners at Lieber CI, which I will outline below, but I am primarily concerned with the most recent incident: blind censorship of the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September/October 2010), which was returned, unopened, with "Ref" or "Refused" written on the outside.

Why exactly were these pieces of mail refused delivery? Why wasn't MIM Distributors, the publisher and distributor of Under Lock & Key, notified of the reason this newsletter was refused? Were the intended recipients notified of this censorship, and offered a chance to appeal the decision, as required by United States law?

I do not believe there is a valid penological reason why Under Lock & Key issue 16 should be denied delivery at Lieber CI, and I would like to appeal this erroneous decision made by mailroom staff to a higher and independent authority than the original censor.

In addition to the censorship of Under Lock & Key issue 16, on multiple occasions, the mailroom staff at Lieber CI has refused delivery of a 6 page (3 sheet) letter to prisoners held there. The contents of this letter is an overview of the prisoner support services offered by MIM(Prisons). In May 2010 it was returned stamped "Unauthorized Item," unopened. In March 2010 it was returned with a notification stating that "newsletter or newspaper not allowed in max," yet this introductory letter is neither a newsletter nor a newspaper. In December 2009 this same introductory letter was returned, citing "SCDC Policy PS-10.08 'Inmate Correspondence Privileges,'" but there was no indication of what about this letter was in violation of Policy PS-10.08.

Based on the examples I outlined above regarding the nonsensical censorship of the introductory letter about MIM(Prisons), I would also like to request that you retrain your mailroom staff to properly handle mail coming from MIM Distributors in the future.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden David Michael McCall, Jr.
Perry Correctional Institution
430 Oaklawn Road
Pelzer, SC 29669

15 November 2010

Dear Warden McCall,

Since 2007 MIM Distributors has sent many articles of mail to prisoners held at Perry Correctional Institution. Generally we receive some indication from the prisoners we correspond with that they have gotten mail from us. However, we have never received this confirmation from prisoners at Perry CI, and in fact many prisoners have written to us repeatedly asking to be put on our mailing list, indicating that they have never received mail from MIM Distributors. MIM Distributors has sent in the newsletter titled Under Lock & Key as well as many letters to prisoners at Perry CI.

MIM Distributors has only once received notification from the mailroom staff at Perry CI that our mail would not be delivered to its intended recipients. However, according to United States law, as set in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, "The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Except for this single piece of returned mail, the mailroom staff have not been notifying MIM Distributors of their decision to censor our mail. Based on the mail we've received from prisoners at Perry CI, they are also not being notified of this censorship. This is a completely illegal practice of your mailroom staff.

The article of mail that was recently censored was issue 16 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key, which is published and distributed by MIM Distributors. The reason given for this denial was that there are to be "no periodicals on lock-up unit," (see the attached paper, a copy of the "rejection notice"). As you probably well know, according to United States law, "when a prison regulation restricts a prisoner's First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is related to legitimate penological interests," per Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). What is the penological interest that is being used to uphold this policy that no periodicals should be allowed on the lock-up unit?

In addition to requesting (1) that your mailroom staff start notifying senders and intended recipients of decisions to censor incoming mail, in accordance with U.S. law, (2) an explanation of the penological interests behind the policy that no periodicals should be allowed at Perry CI, I am requesting (3) the mail rules for Perry CI and (4) any other information you may have regarding the censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Perry CI.

I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties