Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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:

MIM Distributors, September 9 Day of Peace and Solidarity Study Pack

for the following reasons:

D. Material, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure.

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

I have reviewed your grievance appealing the decision of the Publication Review Committee to disapprove publication "MIM Prison - September 9 Day of Peace and Solidarity Study Pack".

In accordance with Operating Procedure #803.2-Incoming Publications, approval to order or subscribe a publicaiton is not a blanket approval to receive the publication; each issue will be reviewed at the facility prior to delivery to offenders. The Warden or his desinee should disapprove any publicaiton for receipt and possession by the offender if it is on the Disapproved Publication List or it can be documented to contain material that violates Operating Procedure #803.2, as specifically listed in 803.2 Section IV (D).

River North Correctional Center denied the publication and the decision was sustained by the Publication Reivew Committee on September 14, 2016, which based its decision on a violation of Operating Procedure #803.2, IV, Section H (D):

D. Material, documents, or photographs that emphasize depiction or promotion of violence, disorder, insurreciton, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure.

I have considered your appeal of the Committee's decision and determined the Publicaiotn review committee disapproved the publication in accordance with Operatin gProcedure #803.2, Incoming Publications. Therefore, I am upholding the Committee's decision. Your grievance is UNFOUNDED. You have exhausted all administrative remedies.

Signed: A. David Robinson, Chief of Corrections Operations

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

3 October 2016

RE: Disapproval of Publication

Ms. Seibel,

A week ago I had written to appeal the censorship of a publication, Under Lock & Key #51. Today I am writing to inquire about other mail that is going missing. From the reports we are receiving, no one at Chuckwalla Valley has received any mail from MIM Distributors in at least a month and a half.

Specifically, Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) has reported the last letter he received from MIM was from August 22. The list of mail sent to Mr. XXXXXX since then is:

8/26/2016 - #10 envelope
9/24/2016 - large manila envelope
10/3/2016 - #10 envelope

Mr. XXXXXX has filed an Inmate 22 form, and in his interview was told by A. Salas that the mailroom has not received any mail from MIM Distributors.

I’m writing to find out what is happening to the mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Chuckwalla Valley? And if it is being censored why is there no notification from your department of this censorship?


Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,

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

26 November 2016

RE: Failure to Deliver Mail at Chuckawalla Valley SP

Ms. Seibel,

I received your letter from 31 October 2016, in which you state that “All of Mr. AAAAA’s mail that has arrived at the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Mailroom, with the exception of [SF Bayview Newspaper Vol 41 Number 9] has been routed to him in a timely manner.” Yet I have personally sent mail to Mr. AAAAA as outlined in my previous letter that he reports not receiving. I also have signed statements from Mr. AAAAA, Mr. BBBBB and Mr. CCCCC stating that they have not received Under Lock & Key #52, mailed out on 10 October 2016. Neither MIM Distributors, nor the above mentioned subscribers have received notification of censorship of any of these pieces of mail.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, you continue to assert that the mailroom is delivering our mail to subscribers being held prisoner at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. Meanwhile, Mr. AAAAA is having his 602 appeals related to these incidents rejected for bogus reasons. Therefore, I am forwarding documentation regarding these incidents to the addresses below in hopes of getting a satisfactory resolution to these barriers to our ability to speak, communicate and associate freely without state censorship.

I will also be contacting individuals held at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison with this information and request that you ensure that mailroom staff deliver these letters to their intended recipients.


Sincerely,
XXXXX

cc: affected parties
Board of State and Community Corrections
Prison Law Office
Office of Internal Affairs, CDCR

Told all grievances were lost by prison officials

The appealant is ppealing the decision of impoundment of his Under Lock & Key no 52 that was impounded at FSP on Octoer 18, 2016.

The aforementione dpublicaiton was impounded at Florida State Prison on October 18th, 2016 for the following reasons: [see censorship record]. Under lock & key publicaiton promotes solidarity among oppressed, repressed and misled/undereducated prisoners. ULK is not a threat to any prisons security measures or daily function sof operations! On the contrary , ULK publications promote peace and justice! Clearly the articles have been misinterpreted by whatever prison staff was assigned to read it.

Form of remedy being sought: The appelant seeks to have the aformentioned publicaiton approved by the department's Literature Review committee

On November 15, 2016 the Literature Review Committee reviewed the subject matter content in question submitted by the institution. It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(3)(i)(m).

The department may prohibit admission of materials or publication sif they are determined to be detrimental to the safety, security, order or rehabilitative interests of a facility or would create a risk of disorder at that facility. Chapter 33-501.401, requires that publicaitons be reviewed and a determination made by one institution. The determination made by that institution affects all other institituions; however, as a result of an individual institution's determination, all impounded publications are reviwed and either approved or rejected by the department's Literature Review Committee as required by rule. Therefore, the final determination is made by the depratment's Literature Review committee and not by an individual institution or warden.

It is not within the inmate's scope of responsibility to determine what is a ivolation of Ch. 33-501.401, determine a credible threat to the security of a compound/facility or decide if an impoundment/rejection is friviolous.

Based an the above information your your administrative appeal is denied.

Signed SM