Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Director's Review Committee
Bill Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606

January 22, 2015

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key to XXX and YYY

Dear DRC,
MIM Distributors received letters from Mr. XXX and Mr YYY notifying us that they did not receive the publications we mailed to both of them in the past few months.

For Mr. XXX this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 41 November 2014 (mailed on December 10)

For Mr. YYY this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 35 November 2013 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 36 January 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 37 March 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 38 May 2014 (mailed on August 13)

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".

With this letter MIM Distributors requests
- Notification of all future denials of our mail to any prisoners in Bill Clements Unit
- Appeal of these specific instances of censorship
- and that future incoming mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Bill Clements 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

MIM(Prisons) protests lack of notification
Show Text
Director's Review Committee
Bill Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606

January 22, 2015

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key to XXX and YYY

Dear DRC,
MIM Distributors received letters from Mr. XXX and Mr YYY notifying us that they did not receive the publications we mailed to both of them in the past few months.

For Mr. XXX this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 41 November 2014 (mailed on December 10)

For Mr. YYY this includes:
? Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed on September 26)
? Under Lock & Key 35 November 2013 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 36 January 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 37 March 2014 (mailed on August 13)
? Under Lock & Key 38 May 2014 (mailed on August 13)

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".

With this letter MIM Distributors requests
- Notification of all future denials of our mail to any prisoners in Bill Clements Unit
- Appeal of these specific instances of censorship
- and that future incoming mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Bill Clements 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

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

January 22, 2015

RE: Failure to notify publisher of censorship of Under Lock & Key

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is to document that once again MIM Distributors was not notified by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) when its publications were impounded or 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 XX 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 has notified MIM Distributors of the censorship of multiple issues of Under Lock & Key including:

Two items sent to YYY at Dade Correctional Institution
Under Lock & Key 40 mailed 9/26/2014
Under Lock & Key 41 mailed 12/10/2014

Two items sent to ZZZ at Suwanee Correctional Institution
Under Lock & Key 40 mailed 9/26/2014
Under Lock & Key 39 mailed 8/1/2014

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.


Sincerely,



MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

IS IMPOUNDED pending review by the Department's Literature Review Committee, because another institution believes that the publication may contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401 F.A.C.

IS REJECTED and may not be received by inmates. The Department's Liberature Review Committee has reviewed the publication and determined that it contains subject matter that is inadmissible per Section (3) of Rule 33-501.401 F.A.C., Admissible Reading Material.

(3)(m) It otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

PGS:1 Gang validation: Justification for Torture and Social Control
PGS:4 Who is licked [sic] in control units? PGS:(5) Fighting STG label for notes on political History(Pennsylvania STG acronym for Oppression
PGS: 6 Prisons from Atlanta Arbitrarily labeled Gang Members (7) New Tennessee CUs Modeled Georgia torture(Beware of gang intelligence

...

Authorized Employee: Ms. Ledford

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

January 12, 2015


Re: Censorship of XXX's 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. XXX over the past year which was censored:

Under Lock & Key #40 sent 9/26/2014
Under Lock & Key 39 sent 8/1/2014

In addition we have learned that many other publications sent to Mr. XXX over the past few years also never reached him.

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 newsletters and other mail 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

Scott Crews
Mayo Correctional Institution
8784 US Highway 27 West
Mayo, Florida 32066-3458

30 December 2014

RE: Censorship of routine mail

Dear Warden Crews,

This letter is in response to an "Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt" dated 12/15/2014 addressed to MIM Distributors and signed by mail room personnel M. Engle for a letter sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX. It claims the content of the letter "Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption."

The letter in question was an essay describing the problem of LGBT youth and homelessness in this country. This subject matter is clearly not related to violence or group disruption at your facility. Therefore I am requesting that this letter be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX (a copy of which you have on file).

If you cannot complete my request to deliver this letter then please respond to me with an explanation of what portion of the letter in question you find to be a threat.


Sincerely,

We are in receipt of your letter regarding an "Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt" dated 12/15/14 involving inmate...

It would appear that you are aware of the policies and procedures of the Florida Department of Corrections based on your numerous publications that are mailed to our inmate population. As such, after review, the letter in question will not be delivered to inmate... Inmate... has the option to grieve our action by participating in the inmate grievance process.

Sincerely,
Nan Jeffcoat
Assistant Warden of Programs
Mayo Correctional Institution - Annex

I didn't receive Under Lock & Key 39 - they stated it had inflammatory content, so i appealed it to the compliance division and also treatment coordinator.

Director's Review Committee
Mark Stiles Unit
3060 FM 3514
Beaumont, TX 77705

January 12, 2015

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key to XXX

Dear DRC,
MIM Distributors received a letter dated November 24 from Mr. XXX notifying us that he did not receive one of the publications we mailed to him: Under Lock & Key 40 (September 2014). This publication was mailed to Mr XXXXXX on September 26.

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 Mark Stiles Unit
- Appeal of this specific instance of censorship
- and that future incoming mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Mark Stiles 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

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

16 June 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 37

Dear Mr. Dormire,

Warden Troy Steele recently sent a notice to MIM Distributors notifying us of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 37 at Potosi Correctional Center. He did not specify what contents triggered this censorship, except to state that he felt it could ?be used to instill violence or hatred among? prisoners. I am requesting an independent review of this decision.

I hope you also received my recent letter regarding the difficulties we've been having in getting staff at some facilities to abide by the review decisions made by your office to allow certain issues of Under Lock & Key to be delivered to Missouri prisoners.

Thank you,

DAI Deputy Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109

16 June 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key Issue 37

Dear Mr. Dormire,

Warden Troy Steele recently sent a notice to MIM Distributors notifying us of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 37 at Potosi Correctional Center. He did not specify what contents triggered this censorship, except to state that he felt it could ?be used to instill violence or hatred among? prisoners. I am requesting an independent review of this decision.

I hope you also received my recent letter regarding the difficulties we've been having in getting staff at some facilities to abide by the review decisions made by your office to allow certain issues of Under Lock & Key to be delivered to Missouri prisoners.

Thank you,

Director S.A. Godinez
Illinois Department of Corrections Illinois Department of Corrections
1301 Concordia Court James R. Thompson Center
P.O. Box 19277 100 West Randolph
Springfield, IL 62794-9277 Chicago, IL 60601

March 25, 2014

RE: Illegal censorship of mail at Hill Correctional Center and Sheridan Correctional Center

Dear Director Godinez,

This letter is regarding the illegal censorship if mail at Hill Correctional Center and Sheridan Correctional Center. Enclosed are letters I have sent to the Wardens and Publication Review Committee at these respective facilities. We have not received responses from administrators at the facilities themselves, and hope that your office can help end their illegal practice of censoring mail without cause or process.

Do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Publication Review Committee
600 South Linwood Road
P.O. Box 1327
Galesburg, IL 61402

March 25, 2014

RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x

Dear PRC,

This letter is regarding the illegal censorship if mail to Mr. x, a prisoner housed at Hill Correctional Center. On February 16, 2014, MIM Distributors mailed Mr x an envelope via Media Mail with the USPS. This envelope contained at least one spiral-bound book, among others. The envelope was returned, unopened, to MIM Distributors with "Spiral bound book" written on the outside. We were not sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

In Title 20: Corrections, Criminal Justice, and Law Enforcement, Chapter I: Department of Corrections, Subchapter e: Operations, Part 525 Rights and Privileges, there is no mention made of spiral bound books and whether they shall be permitted or censored. The instructions that are provided in Title 20 for handling of this material are in direct conflict with the actions of the Mailroom staff at Hill Correctional Center.

Your Administrative Code Title 20, Part 525 Rights and Privileges, Section 525.140 Incoming Mail at point d) that "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband."
and at point h), "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of the decision."

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 letter in question.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the sender, 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.

Please provide us with a copy of the administrative code that dictates spiral bound books should be disallowed at Hill Correctional Center. We would appreciate if you took any necessary, appropriate and advisable measure (such as internal investigations, proper employees? training and similar) to stop this illegal ban on all mail coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of mail based on Illinois Department of Corrections policy, not superfluous, illegal restrictions.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties
Kevwe Akpore, Warden

Warden Stu Sherman
SATF-CSP
PO Box 7100
Corcoran, CA 93212

18 November 2014

RE: Refused mail for Signature Confirmation

Mr. Sherman,

On 4 November 2014 MIM Distributors sent a priority mail package to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX with USPS Signature Confirmation. This is normal practice when mail has gone missing without explanation from the facility. The mailroom staff at CSATF used the USPS Signature Confirmation to justify the censorship of MIM Distributor's mail stating, ?REFUSED: Inmate Unable to Sign for Mail at Post Office.?

It is not USPS policy that the recipient of the mail must be the person that the mail is addressed to. In the case of PO Boxes, which CSATF mail is sent through, anyone with access to the box is considered an authorized agent who can sign for the mail. Yet, the label on the mail returned to MIM Distributors seems to indicate that it is regular practice of CSATF to not sign for mail.

My question for you is whether it is CSATF's policy to refuse any mail with signature confirmation? If so, what is the best method to ensure delivery to prisoners held at CSATF when mail goes missing without notice from your staff? If not, can you assure me that this will be addressed with mailroom staff so that future Signature Confirmation mail is delivered as it should be?

Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter,

Warden Stu Sherman
SATF-CSP
PO Box 7100
Corcoran, CA 93212

4 January 2015

RE: Refused mail for Signature Confirmation (2nd attempt)

Mr. Sherman,

In mid-November I wrote you regarding the refusal of mail from MIM distributors to someone being held prisoner at your facility. The mail was rejected for the reason, ?REFUSED: Inmate Unable to Sign for Mail at Post Office.? I have not received a response to my inquiry and am unsure how to have MIM Distributors proceed in ensuring that their mail is delivered moving forward.

To reiterate, the questions that I had posed to you were: whether it is CSATF's policy to refuse any mail with signature confirmation? If so, what is the best method to ensure delivery to prisoners held at CSATF when mail goes missing without notice from your staff? If not, can you assure me that this will be addressed with mailroom staff so that future Signature Confirmation mail is delivered as it should be?

Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter,