Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Today I received a rejectio notice for ULK 50, for the "Legacy and Lib" article. The reasons they cite are: "Entire tone of paper seeks to gain opinions/actions against the criminal justice system. Encourages/uses derogatory remarks against law enforcement in statements such as 'pigs' and 'fuck the police' (pages 4 & 8). This paper also calling for "organized" strikes/movements against the prison system. Pages 17 & 18."

As you see, there are no credible armed or violent threats mentioned in the reasons cited for rejection. Instead they vaguely talk about "movements" and "opinions" against the criminal injustice system. I believe these are thinly veiled politically-motivated actions. They should be addressed.

Superintendent: Jeffrey A. Uttecht
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
1301 N Ephrata Ave
PO Box 769
Connell, WA 99326

June 25, 2016

RE: Ongoing illegal censorship to xxx at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, no notification to sender

Dear Superintendent,

We received your letter from April 21, 2016. Thank you for your response.

One of our complaints from our April 14 letter was that the sender (MIM Distributors) was not notified of the censorship of the above named book to the above named prisoner. In your letter from April 21, you state “a mail rejection was generated and sent to the offender and to the sender (MIM) as is evident with the attached exhibits A and B.” Yet your letter did not include any attachments. We still contend that we never were sent a rejection notice from your facility.

Additionally, we were recently informed that Under Lock & Key No. 50 (May/June 2016) was censored at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. Yet we have not received notification of this censorship. You were already made aware of this problem of lack of notification in our letter to you from April 2016. That your mailroom is still violating constitutional and state law, as well as your own department's policies, is grounds for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit.

Some facilities send their rejection notices via Certified Mail with the USPS. I would recommend to do this with your mail. Also someone should double-check your letters to ensure the attachments you intend to send in fact are included with your outgoing mail.

We look forward to your response and the remedy of this problem at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center.

Sincerely,

, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Publication Review Committee
C/O Department of Corrections Correspondence Unit
PO Box 41118
Olympia, WA 98504-1118

Publication Review Committee
C/O Department of Corrections Correspondence Unit
PO Box 41118
Olympia, WA 98504-1118

June 25, 2016

RE: Ongoing illegal censorship of at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center

Dear Publication Review Committee,

On April 14, 2016, CC'ed your office on a letter to Superintendent Uttecht of Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. We did not receive a response from your office to this letter, even though it contained information directly pertaining to your office.

I am writing to you with three concerns.

1. What is the status of the censorship of the book Power and the Struggle for Aztlan? This book was mailed to Mr. xxx in October 2015. Superintendent Uttecht informed us that it is presently being reviewed by the Publication Review Committee. What is the status of this review?

2. There is ongoing illegal censorship at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. In April 2016 we informed Superintendent Uttecht that we (MIM Distributors, the publisher and sender of this book) were not notified of the censorship of Power and the Struggle for Aztlan when it was censored by Coyote Ridge mailroom staff. Superintendent Uttecht's response was to write a letter saying the proof of notifiying the sender was attached, yet failed to enclose any attachments with his letter to us.

There was recently another similar incident at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. A publication titled Under Lock & Key No. 50 (May/June 2016) was censored in this facility. The intended recipient was Mr. xxx. MIM Distributors was not notified by the facility mailroom that this newsletter was being censored. We only heard about it from the prisoner.

There are no doubt countless other incidents of censorship that were not carried out in line with constitutional and state law, or DOC procedures. Unfortunately since we are not being notified by the facility of these incidents, we have no way of knowing how many have occurred.

3. The reason cited for the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 50 (May/June 2016) is unfounded and also an illegal reason for censorship. An intended recipient of this newsletter informed us, the sender, of the reason provided by CRCC mailroom staff for this censorship. The reason given was “Entire tone of paper seeks to gain opinions/actions against the criminal justice system. Encourages/uses derogatory remarks against law enforcement in statements such as 'pigs' and 'fuck the police' (Pages 4 & 8). This paper also calling for 'organized; strikes/movements against the prison system. Pages 17 & 18.” We apologize if this reason cited is inaccurate. Unfortunately it has been provided to us by a third party, since we were not notified of the censorship as I explained above.

As you can see, the “reasons” cited for censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 50 are vague and not directly related to the penological interests of the institution. We believe there is much relevant case law to support our claim that this publication is being censored for political reasons, in direct opposition to protections of the United States Constitution.

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately." Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401

“When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner’s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385

"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Superintendent: Jeffrey A. Uttecht
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
1301 N Ephrata Ave
PO Box 769
Connell, WA 99326

This is a grievance pursuant to 33-501.401(13)(6) ("publication...impounded...file grievances direct to the Secretary") of the impoundment of my March/April 2016 issue of Under Lock & Key #49. See notice attached dated 5-18-16 received 6-2-16.

An extension of time should be granted to consider this appeal pursuant to 33-103.011(b) where I did not receive the impoundment Notice until 6-2-16 to be able to know of the official action taken concerning this issue of Under Lock & Key.

The Notice locks the due duress notice requires in regard to the infringement of my first amendment right to receive this issue of Under Lock & Key in regard to any specific "details" of amendment "the specific written or pictorial matter this is believed to be inadmissable" due to subject matter... [33-501.401](3)(g)... dangerously inflamatory in that it advocates or encourages riot, insurection, disruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules" and "(3)(m) it otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of teh correctional system or the safety of any person" where the articles noted appear to simply report news or a point of fiew and the "gang sign" is not specified or put in any context.

This issue of Under Lock * Key should be delivered to me.

On May 24, 2016 the Literature Review committee reviewed the subject matter content in question submitted by the institution. It wa sdetermined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(3)(m).

The department may prohibit admission of materials or publications if they are determined to be detribmental to the safety, security, order or rehabilitative interests of a facility or would create a risk of disroder at that facility. Chapter 33-501.401 requires that publications be reviewed and a determination made by one institution. The determination made by that institution affects all other institutions; ohowever, as a result of an individual institution's determination, all impounded publications are reviewed and either approved or rejected by the department's Literature Review Committee as required by rule. Tehrefore, the final determination is made by the department's Literature Review Committee and not by an individual institution or warden.

All publications that have suspeted gang related bheavior are forwarded to the Seurity Threat Group Unit for review and input to the Literature Review committee.

An issue with what is or is not noted on the DC5-101 form is not an Admissible Reading Material issue and should be initiated at the institutional level.

Based on the above information your administrative appeal is dened.

S. Milliken

Denied: Promoting violence
(no other info given)

My mail has been withheld from me. I was told it promotes violence. You can see that I had a mailroom pass on the 10th. Well on the 13th I went to talk to the mailroom lady. I was told my mail was a bunch of garbage, trash, filth, and a waste of ink. I asked to appeal the denial and was told NO. I got told to come back and talk to the one who is over her. I finally got the chance today (6/21).

Now Ms. Orsak was the one who made comments about the item being garbage, trash, filth, and a waste of ink. Today Ms. Hall held up her decision. It goes to the DRC for their decision. Now it was not denied in TDC nowhere else, why here? Please help me out or let me know something. Just another day in the system.