MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Contains prominent or prevalent advertising for three-way calling services, pen pal services, or the pruchase of products or services with postage stamps[Download Documentation]
MIM appeals censorship and repeated failure to notify publisher of censorship
Show Text
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
23 February 2014
RE: Failure to notify publisher of censorship of Under Lock & Key 35
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is to document that once again MIM Distributors was not notified by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) when one of its publications was impounded nor when it was later rejected. I am requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In September 2013, my colleague Bailey Clarke wrote to you regarding this same matter and Susan Hughes responded explaining that only one facility will notify the publisher of censorship. However, once again, no FDOC staff from any facility has notified MIM Distributors of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35, which was mailed to prisoners on 6 December 2013. We have only recently become aware of this censorship due to a number of letters from prisoners in Polk Correctional Institution, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Florida State Prison. Some of them were notified of the censorship by your department, some were not. I have enclosed the documentation for those who were provided with it.
I hope that you will honor my request for an appeal of this decision to censor, since the FDOC failed to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship and therefore the 15 days within receiving notice has not yet been passed. The notice of rejection from Santa Rosa CI states that your office has deemed ULK 35 banned because it ?otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline? of FDOC. If you uphold this decision, please provide evidence that this literature poses an immediate threat to the safety of your institution as is required by federal case law.
MIM appeals censorship and repeated failure to notify publisher of censorship
Show Text
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
23 February 2014
RE: Failure to notify publisher of censorship of Under Lock & Key 35
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is to document that once again MIM Distributors was not notified by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) when one of its publications was impounded nor when it was later rejected. I am requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In September 2013, my colleague Bailey Clarke wrote to you regarding this same matter and Susan Hughes responded explaining that only one facility will notify the publisher of censorship. However, once again, no FDOC staff from any facility has notified MIM Distributors of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35, which was mailed to prisoners on 6 December 2013. We have only recently become aware of this censorship due to a number of letters from prisoners in Polk Correctional Institution, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Florida State Prison. Some of them were notified of the censorship by your department, some were not. I have enclosed the documentation for those who were provided with it.
I hope that you will honor my request for an appeal of this decision to censor, since the FDOC failed to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship and therefore the 15 days within receiving notice has not yet been passed. The notice of rejection from Santa Rosa CI states that your office has deemed ULK 35 banned because it ?otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline? of FDOC. If you uphold this decision, please provide evidence that this literature poses an immediate threat to the safety of your institution as is required by federal case law.
MIM appeals censorship and repeated failure to notify publisher of censorship
Show Text
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
23 February 2014
RE: Failure to notify publisher of censorship of Under Lock & Key 35
Dear Sir/Madam,
This letter is to document that once again MIM Distributors was not notified by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) when one of its publications was impounded nor when it was later rejected. I am requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).
In September 2013, my colleague Bailey Clarke wrote to you regarding this same matter and Susan Hughes responded explaining that only one facility will notify the publisher of censorship. However, once again, no FDOC staff from any facility has notified MIM Distributors of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35, which was mailed to prisoners on 6 December 2013. We have only recently become aware of this censorship due to a number of letters from prisoners in Polk Correctional Institution, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Florida State Prison. Some of them were notified of the censorship by your department, some were not. I have enclosed the documentation for those who were provided with it.
I hope that you will honor my request for an appeal of this decision to censor, since the FDOC failed to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship and therefore the 15 days within receiving notice has not yet been passed. The notice of rejection from Santa Rosa CI states that your office has deemed ULK 35 banned because it ?otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline? of FDOC. If you uphold this decision, please provide evidence that this literature poses an immediate threat to the safety of your institution as is required by federal case law.
Superintendent Keith Butts
1000 Van Nuys Road
PO Box E
New Castle, IN 47362
February 6, 2014
RE: Illegal censorship of publication to Mr. xxx
Dear Superintendent Butts,
On March 1, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 35 (November/December 2013) to the above-named prisoner held at New Castle Correctional Facility. The publication was mailed via Presorted Standard mail. The publication was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed" on the outside.
The prisoner's address is correct according to the Indiana Department of Correction Offender Search, and this prisoner has since written to MIM Distributors from New Castle. Yet, this returned publication was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned.
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
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons... page 6 has material of a racial nature[Download Documentation]
MIM Distributors protests ongoing censorship
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
Sheridan Correctional Center
4017 E. 2603 Road
Sheridan, IL 60551
February 6, 2014
RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x
Dear PRC,
Mr. x is a prisoner housed at Sheridan Correctional Center. Recently MIM Distributors has sent Mr. x multiple pieces of mail, and they have been returned to MIM Distributors without following proper procedures for censorship.
On September 27, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a publication titled Under Lock & Key No. 34 (September/October 2013) via Presorted Standard mail with the USPS. The publication was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "not allowed" written on the envelope, and no other information provided. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
On October 21, 2013, MIM Distributors mailed Mr. x a letter weighing less than one ounce, via First Class Mail with the USPS. This letter was returned to MIM Distributors with "not allowed" written on the envelope, and it was also unopened. Again, no information was provided as to why this letter was "not allowed" and no Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 was sent to MIM Distributors.
The common thread is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.
Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:
1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.
2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."
As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also 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
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c4768.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c4658.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c4723.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c4711.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c4622.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c4653.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c4722.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info//docs/c5576.jpg){kind=link}
