Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

.... has been rejected in accordance with KDOC regulations, specifically KAR 44-12-601.

The publication has been rejected because: the contents of this magazine pose a threat to the safety and security of correctional facilities. Examples on pages: throughout the whole magazine

This magazine teaches readers about the psychological problems that are going on in American society and the U.S. government. It is no different than the programs that the Mental Health at this facility are offering.

The response rendered by the mail review officer is appropriate; the evidence presented by the review officer supports the decision to withhold this publication from distribution ton inmates housed in the Kansas Department of Corrections Facilities.

Warden
Smith State Prison
PO Box 726
Glennville, GA 30427-0726


August 18, 2015


RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr.xxx at Smith State Prison

Dear Warden,

In February 2015, my office sent you a similar letter to the one below, for a similar problem, but affecting a different prisoner at Smith State Prison. My office has reason to believe that an innumerable number of prisoners at Smith State Prison are being affected by illegal censorship of our materials. We keep close documentation of our outgoing mail and the censorship notifications we receive. We have not received any censorship notifications for mail that has been sent to Smith State Prison, to any prisoner held there. We also know our mail is not being received. This blanket ban on mail from MIM Distributors and MIM(Prisons) is completely illegal.

In 2015, MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner several articles of mail which were never delivered to him. These items were not returned to MIM Distributors, and neither MIM Distributors nor the intended recipient (prisoner) received notifications regarding the censorship of these items. Below is a list of the items in question, the dates they were sent, and the way in which they were mailed to Mr. cxxx.

1/9/2015 Unconfirmed Mail Form (letter) via USPS First Class Mail
1/30/15 Under Lock & Key No. 42 (January/February 2015) via USPS Standard Mail
03/04/2015 letter via USPS First Class Mail including:
Unconfirmed Mail Form (letter)
Guide to fighting censorship
3/27/15 Under Lock & Key No. 43 (March/April 2015) via USPS Standard Mail
5/29/15 Under Lock & Key No. 44 (May/June 2015) via USPS Standard Mail

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors



CC: Affected parties

Ombudsman
Georgia Department of Corrections
300 Patrol Road
Forsyth, GA 31029

sent via Certified Mail, arrived April 1

Rick Thaler, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division
P.O. Box 99
Huntsville, Texas 77342

August 6, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of pubilcation to Mr.xxx

Dear Director Thaler,

On March 22, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a letter titled “Unconfirmed Mail Form” to the above named prisoner held at Coffield Unit in Tennessee Colony, TX. This newsletter was not returned to MIM Distributors, it was not received by Mr. , and no notification was given to either party (the sender or the intended recipient) that this item was going to be intercepted from delivery to Mr. . Neither MIM Distributors nor Mr. Kessler were sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident. We sent this letter in with delivery confirmation and it was confirmed delivered by USPS on April 1, 2015. I have enclosed a copy of this tracking information with this letter.

Since June 2014 we have not been able to confirm receipt of any mail MIM Distributors has sent to Mr. . We are concerned because he has continued to write to us to request our services but he does not appear to receiving our mail.

Per Texas DOC policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)): "V. B. Any offender, other correspondent, or sender of a publication may appeal the rejection of any correspondence or publication. They may submit written evidence or arguments in support of their appeal. An offender or a correspondent may appeal the placement of the correspondent on the offender?s negative mailing list. An offender or a correspondent may appeal to the DRC for reconsideration of the negative mailing list placement after six months." Based on this we formally request an appeal of this censorship.

In your review of this censorship, please note that your own policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) states: "Publications shall not be rejected solely because the publication advocates the legitimate use of offender grievance procedures, urges offenders to contact public representatives about prison conditions, or contains criticism of prison authorities." In order to reject these publications for content, per your policy, you must demonstrate that the publication "contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots, or STG activity".

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,


CC: Affected parties