MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Item delivered to prison according to USPS Certified Mail
Show Text
Your item was delivered at 10:59 am on February 13, 2012 in CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531.
05/01/2013
MIM Distributors notifies Warden of ongoing censorship
Show Text
. . .
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive Crescent City, CA 95531
May 1, 2013
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of publication sent to xxx
Dear Warden Lewis,
I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents that has been ongoing at Pelican Bay State Prison. Mr. XXX has recently informed MIM Distributors that several items which we have sent him have not reached him. In fact, one of the items was sent via Certified Mail with the USPS, and was confirmed as delivered. The primary concern is that neither Mr. XXX nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship of any of the materials listed below.
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Book Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook sent February 8, 2012 via USPS First Class with
Certified Mail Service
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 25 (March/April 2012) sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012) sent June 1, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Magazine MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture and Newsletter Under Lock & Key 27 (July/August 2012) sent July 27, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.
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.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
- to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
- in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
- and that adequate notice be provided to Mr.XXX of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response. I have enclosed copies of the Certified Mail Receipt and confirmation of deliver for the Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook. If course we would have liked to appeal this censorship in a more timely fashion, but having not afforded the courtesy of notification of censorship, there was of course a delay between when the items were censored and when we discovered the censorship.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
05/29/2013
Warden says no record of mail being received at facility, so no censor documentation sent Download Documentation
05/26/2014
MIM Distributors responds to Warden letter denying censorship
Show Text
Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive Crescent City, CA 95531
May 26, 2014
RE: Censorship incidents at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of mail sent to XX
Dear Warden Lewis,
I am writing this letter about a series of censorship incidents at Pelican Bay State Prison, following up to our correspondence last year. Mr. XX has recently informed MIM Distributors that all items which we sent him in 2013 did not reach him. We have enclosed a list of these items below for your reference. In your letter to us dated May 29, 2013 you claimed that the mail which did not reach Mr. XX never made it to PBSP and so you conclude that these items were not denied. But you ignored the fact that one of the items was sent via USPS Certified Mail, and was confirmed as delivered to your prison. We sent you the proof that the mail was received and you still claimed "PBSP has no record of these publications ever being denied to the inmate?" This is not an acceptable response to proof that your prison has lost track of mail that never reached Mr. XX. Our concern is both with the ongoing denial of all mail to Mr. XX, and failure to notify both MIM Distributors and Mr. XX.
In our last letter to you we raised the censorship of the materials listed below:
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Book Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook sent February 8, 2012 via USPS First Class with
Certified Mail Service
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 25 (March/April 2012) sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012) sent June 1, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Magazine MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture and Newsletter Under Lock & Key 27 (July/August 2012) sent July 27, 2012 via presorted standard mail
We now add to this list the following items:
Pamphlet Guide to Fighting Censorship sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 31 sent March 26, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Delivery confirmation for Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook and copy of letter to Warden regarding censorship sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 32 sent May 28, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 33 sent July 30, 2013 via presorted standard mail
California campaign update sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 34 sent September 27, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 35 sent December 6, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.
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.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
- to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications from 2013;
- in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
- an investigation into the individuals responsible for disposal of the USPS Certified Mail that was received by your prison but not delivered to Mr. XX, and a full report on the findings of this investigation
- and that adequate notice be provided to Mr. XX of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response. Of course we would have liked to appeal this censorship in a more timely fashion, but having not been afforded the courtesy of notification of censorship, there was of course a delay between when the items were censored and when we discovered the censorship.
Sincerely,
XX, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CC: Affected parties
06/05/2014
Warden (A) says to resend mail through special channels to resolve censorship Download Documentation
06/29/2014
MIM Dist. asks again about Certified Mail, comments on Warden's "special channels"
Show Text
Warden C.E. Ducart
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95532
29 June 2014
RE: Censorship with xxx
Warden Ducart,
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 2014. I appreciate you looking into this matter. With this present letter, I have complied with your instructions to re-send our mail (at our expense) to Captain Patton, ISU. While we have complied with your instructions, I feel compelled to comment. Firstly, while we appreciate any opportunity to resolve censorship in Pelican Bay State Prison, this is an expensive and time-consuming process for us. If your Mailroom Staff were handling incoming mail in accordance with your own Department's policies and procedures, you would not need to invent special ?channels? to get mail to prisoners.
Regarding your statement that ?during the time frame, you identified inmate xx was housed in four different facilities at two separate institutions.? On the contrary, we did not make this claim in our prior letters. All the mail listed was sent to Mr.xx at Pelican Bay State Prison.
If Mr. xx had been moved during the time period listed, we are easily able to locate Mr. xx's current address on CDCR's Inmate Locator website. Even if the listed information is incorrect, your Department Operations Manual (DOM) states at 54010.6 Recipient's Address that ?The receiving institution is required to update any mail piece that does not reflect accurate housing or institutional location.? So while we make every effort to properly address our mail, even if the information online is incorrect or we made an administrative mistake, this is a moot point. The staff at the receiving facility are obligated to correct the intended recipient's address. If Pelican Bay Mailroom Staff were in fact properly handling our mail, an incorrect address could not have been the cause for this problem.
More concerning, we have never received a response from yourself or former Warden Lewis regarding the Certified Mail that was not delivered to Mr. xx. In May 2013 we wrote to your office regarding this blatant violation of Mr. xx's right, afforded by the U.S. Constitution as well as your own DOM at 54010.1, to communicate with the outside world. At Section 54010.11 Certified Mail, your DOM states ?the person to whom the Certified mail is addressed must sign for delivery before receiving the mail piece.? The USPS reports that the Certified Mail piece was delivered on February 13, 2013. Are you able to provide verification that Mr. xx did in fact sign for this mail piece upon receipt? I would appreciate your effort in investigating this specific issue.
In your recent letter you ?surmise that inmate xx received the publications and/or is being deceptive with his claims.? As the recent heir of a long standing problem in your facility, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the historical illegal practices of the Mailroom Staff at PBSP, and I hope you will take a proactive approach to remedy this ongoing problem. The Mailroom Staff at Pelican Bay State Prison have a years-long, documented history of improperly handling incoming mail from MIM(Prisons) and MIM Distributors, dating back at least to 2006. The illegal practice is not just in censoring mail without providing notice to prisoners and publishers, but also in blatantly disregarding legal settlements that directly impact how they are supposed to handle our mail. Considering this history, it is difficult for me to imagine Mr. xx would lie about whether he received his mail. See: http://prisoncensorship.info/data?state=CA&fac=29
Attached is a list of mail we have sent to Captain B. Patton, ISU, per your instructions. Again, we would not need to use special channels to have our mail received by their intended recipients if PBSP staff were processing mail properly. We look forward to Captain Patton's affirmation, and your response to this letter.
Sincerely,
Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected Parties
06/29/2014
MIM DIst letter to Captain Patton (special channel)
Show Text
Captain B. Patton, ISU
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7200
Crescent City, CA 95531
29 June 2014
Captain Patton,
We were recently notified by Warden Ducart that you will be assisting us in resolving a censorship issue between our organization and Mr. xx. I have attached a copy of Warden Ducart's letter for your reference. We look forward to resolving this issue, and we appreciate your effort to assist us in this important matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions, and we are eagerly awaiting your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
LIST OF ENCLOSED MAIL
All of the mail pieces listed below were originally sent to
xx Pelican Bay State Prison, PO Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95531-7500.
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012)
sent January 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Book Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook
sent February 8, 2012 via USPS First Class with Certified Mail Service
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 25 (March/April 2012)
sent March 30, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 26 (May/June 2012)
sent June 1, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Magazine MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture
and Newsletter Under Lock & Key 27 (July/Aug. 2012)
sent July 27, 2012 via presorted standard mail
Pamphlet Guide to Fighting Censorship
sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 31
sent March 26, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Delivery confirmation for Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook
and copy of letter to Warden regarding censorship
sent March 9, 2013 via USPS First Class mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 32
sent May 28, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 33
sent July 30, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 34
sent September 27, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Newsletter Under Lock & Key 35
sent December 6, 2013 via presorted standard mail
Notes from prisoner regarding illegal handling of ULK by mailroom staff
Show Text
It usually takes between 5-16 days for me to receive mailings after the date you send the item. I just three days ago received the unconfirmed mail form (dated 6/25/14) concerning ULK 36's approval for receipt by me from you. No I still have not received ULK 36 and I'm not going to ever receive ULK 36 from NCDPS because NCDPS mailroom staff never presented me with neither a disapproval waiver/appeal nor statewide ban notification form. In other words, NCDPS mailroom staff just threw away/tossed that issue.
"...facilitates or otherwise presens a risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy or rebellion against governmental authority..." [Download Documentation]This was overturned
"...facilitates or otherwise presens a risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy or rebellion against governmental authority..." [Download Documentation]This was overturned
"...facilitates or otherwise presens a risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy or rebellion against governmental authority..." [Download Documentation]This was overturned
![[Download Documentation]](http://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c5355.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](http://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c3855.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](http://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c3861.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](http://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c3866.jpg){kind=link}