Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Director's Review Committee
Jordan Unit
1992 Hilton Rd
Pampa, TX 79065-9655

November 27, 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key to XXX

Dear DRC,
MIM Distributors received a letter dated November 20 from Mr. XX notifying us of the denial of two publications mailed to him: Under Lock & Key 40 (September 2014) and Under Lock & Key 39 (July 2014). These publications were all mailed to Mr XXXXXX on September 26 and August 1 respectively.
Per your policy BP03.91 IVD: "The offender and the sender or addressee shall be provided a written statement of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within three business days after receiving the correspondence. The notice shall be given on Correspondence Denial Forms. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected correspondence to permit effective use of the appeal procedures." In violation of this policy, we did not receive any notification of this mail rejection.

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, MIM Distributors was not 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 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.

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". Although these publications do include articles calling on prisoners for a day of solidarity activity, this is specifically focused on building peace between prisoners. The call is issued by the United Front for Peace in Prisons, and asks prisoners to work together for 24 hours to cease all violence and prisoner-on-prisoner hostility while fasting or engaging in other peaceful demonstrations of solidarity. This is not something that could be construed to cause the breakdown of the prison, in fact it should have the effect of decreasing prisoner-on-prisoner violence in the long run, presumably a goal of the prison itself.

With this letter MIM Distributors requests
- Notification of all future denials of our mail to any prisoners in Jordan Unit
- Appeal of these specific instances of censorship
- and that future incoming mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Jordan Unit be handled in accordance with TDCJ policies and procedures, and federal and state law.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

..was rejected in its entirety because it jeopardizes a legitimate penological interest including, but not limited to, material which meet one of the following criteria:
6. It encourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity
8. Other: Altered

..was rejected in its entirety because it jeopardizes a legitimate penological interest including, but not limited to, material which meet one of the following criteria:
8. Other: Altered

..was rejected in its entirety because it jeopardizes a legitimate penological interest including, but not limited to, material which meet one of the following criteria:
5. It depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption.

..was rejected in its entirety because it jeopardizes a legitimate penological interest including, but not limited to, material which meet one of the following criteria:
8. Other: Altered

Superintendent Robert Gilmore
State Correctional Institution Greene
175 Progressive Dr
Waynesburg, PA 15370-8090

November 17, 2014


Re: Censorship of XXX mail; and special mail regulations via 28 CFR 540-20(a); 28 CFR 540.70(4)(b)



Superintendent Gilmore,

Our organization publishes a newsletter known as Under Lock & Key (ULK). We publish news on various topics concerning the treatment of prisoners and politics. It has come to our attention that our mail to Mr. XXX is being censored: it is not being provided to him though it poses no threat to the safety or security to your facility.


28CFR 540.70(4)(b) states in relevant part:

"The warden may reject a publication only if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity. The warden may not reject a publication solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social or sexual, or because its content is unpopular or repugnant?"


Below is a list of the mail we sent to Mr. Hill over the past year which was censored:


Under Lock & Key #40 sent 9/26/2014
Form letter: How to send a check sent 8/11/2014
Palestine USW petition 8/11/2014
Censorship guide 8/2/2014
Under Lock & Key 39 8/1/2014
Form letter: how to send a check 6/20/2014
Under Lock & Key 38 5/30/2014


We request to receive notice and specific reasoning (if any) for the censorship or nondelivery of any of our mail or publications sent to Mr. XXX pursuant to BOP policy. We request that Mr. XXX be notified as well (see 28 CFR 540.13). This notification will enable us to appeal and pursue litigation.

Moreover, we are requesting that our correspondence with Mr. XXX be treated and processed as "special mail" which mandates that said mail be signed for by Mr. XXX and logged into a special mail log book, see 28 CFR 540.20(a): "An inmate may write through "special mail" to representatives of the news media specified by name or title (see, 540.2(b))."

We make this formal request after repeated nondelivery of mail, newsletters and other documents sent to Mr. XXX. Because of this censorship we make this formal complaint in hopes you will address this problem decisively and expeditiously so that no other action is necessary.


To summarize we request:
- A review of the censorship of mail sent to Mr. XXX
- To be provided with details on the nature of the material that was found to violate prison policy and merit censorship
- Notification of censorship of all future mail be provided to both MIM(Prisons) and Mr. XXX in a timely manner
- Processing as "special mail" our correspondence with Mr. XXX in the future.


Thank you for your time and consideration in this most important matter.


Respectfully,


MIM(Prisons)
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

13 October 2014

RE: censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 39 (July/August 2014)

Dear Assistant Director,

This letter is in response to a 3 October 2014 letter from Fay Lassiter, Chair, Publication Review Committee regarding the publication titled Under Lock & Key No. 39 (July/August 2014). We received this letter on 8 October 2014.

The letter states that the publication was disapproved for delivery to prisoners in North Carolina because it allegedly violates North Carolina Division of Prisons policy D.0100. The only reason indicated on page 1 of the form was '?D? Code Violation.' As we have repeatedly pointed out, this vague reasoning makes it hard for MIM Distributors to address your department's concerns.

Additionally, in your Policy & Procedures D.0100 Publications Received/Posessed by Inmates, at .0103 (b), it states ?Descriptions and justifications should be specific enough to enable the Publication Review Committee (if there is an appeal) to turn to each listed page and immediately identify which words or images were disapproved and why.? I know this Procedure relates to the notes the Warden makes when referring the publication to the Publication Review Committee. Yet, page 2 and 3 of the Letter to Publisher form, where the page numbers and comments indicating what is objectionable, are consistently left blank. We are requesting that in the future that the Chairperson complete the standard paperwork according to your department's policies to facilitate our communications.

The repeated censorship of whole publications without the information we are requesting does not sufficiently articulate the reasoning for banning publications in order to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

At this time we can only appeal based on our knowledge of the whole content of that publication, that it does not advocate ?violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist/gang activities.?
We did receive your letter from 8 September 2014 upholding the censorship of issue #38 of Under Lock & Key. In that letter you specified the content that you used to justify that censorship as we are requesting here, however this was received over three months after we first received notice from a prisoner that your department was holding that publication and after you had closed any opportunities to redress the censorship of MIM Distributors mail.

We would appreciate assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

4 November 2014

RE: continued censorship of approved literature

Dear Ms. Bostic,

After writing you in mid-March and mid-May about the censorship of Under Lock & Key 36, you notified MIM Distributors in a June 4 letter that Under Lock & Key 36 will be allowed in North Carolina prisons. When my colleague requested that all copies of this issue of the newsletter be delivered to the prisoners they were mailed to, you informed her that MIM Distributors must resend the newsletters at their own cost. Since then, numerous copies have been resent, and we have confirmed that at least 2 have been censored (see enclosed delivery confirmation).

I am cc'ing the wardens of Scotland Correctional Facility and New Hanover Correctional Center to notify them that their mailroom staff has not been following the decisions of your office. The two prisoners affected are:

WWW ZZZ #AAA
XXX YYY #BBB

We are requesting that your office deliver copies of Under Lock & Key 36 to the prisoners above in order to ensure delivery. We have found in the past that administrative intervention can help remedy these problems at the local level and hope you will assist us in this matter.

Sincerely,

Assistant Section Chief
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

4 November 2014

RE: continued censorship of approved literature

Dear Ms. Bostic,

After writing you in mid-March and mid-May about the censorship of Under Lock & Key 36, you notified MIM Distributors in a June 4 letter that Under Lock & Key 36 will be allowed in North Carolina prisons. When my colleague requested that all copies of this issue of the newsletter be delivered to the prisoners they were mailed to, you informed her that MIM Distributors must resend the newsletters at their own cost. Since then, numerous copies have been resent, and we have confirmed that at least 2 have been censored (see enclosed delivery confirmation).

I am cc'ing the wardens of Scotland Correctional Facility and New Hanover Correctional Center to notify them that their mailroom staff has not been following the decisions of your office. The two prisoners affected are:

WWW ZZZ #AAA
XXX YYY #BBB

We are requesting that your office deliver copies of Under Lock & Key 36 to the prisoners above in order to ensure delivery. We have found in the past that administrative intervention can help remedy these problems at the local level and hope you will assist us in this matter.

Sincerely,