Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Director's Review Committee
Connally Unit
899 FM 632
Kenedy, TX 78119-4491

January 22, 2015

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key to XXX

Dear DRC,
MIM Distributors received a letter dated January 12, 2015 from Mr. XXX notifying us that he did not receive the publications we mailed to him: Under Lock & Key 40 September 2014 (mailed 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".

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

see 2/3/15 documentation

Cuase for denial: Content
Denied: DRC letter/contains another offender's information
Received: MIM Censorship pack

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

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

January 12, 2015

RE: Impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 41 at FSP

Dear Ms. Morrison,

This letter is in response to a notification received by Mr. XXX at Florida State Prison of the impounding of Under Lock & Key No. 41. The purpose of this letter is to appeal this decisions and have the newsletter delivered to Mr. XXX.

The Supreme Court decision governing the First Amendment in prisons in the United States (Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14) is clear that regulations barring writings that "express 'inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views'" were not sufficiently "neutral" or "unrelated to the suppression of expression" to be legally allowable.

The Florida State Prison notice cites multiple articles on several pages as justifying the denial because "It otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person." All of the articles listed discuss the history of prison control units and gang validation. There is nothing in these articles that present a threat to security or safety. It may be the case that those reviewing this publication disagreed with the perspective presented in these articles, but the rejection of publications that one finds disagreeable is a violation of the Constitution of the United State, which your department is bound to uphold. Certainly no ones safety is being threatened in any of these articles reporting on conditions in prisons and gang validation policies. Stating these articles are ?inflammatory? does not pass the standard set by Thornburgh for censoring mail to prisoners.

I am requesting that you allow Mr. XXX to receive Issue 41 of Under Lock & Key.


Sincerely,

Kathryn Graves, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

The Literature Review Committee met on January 14, 2015. Based on the material supplied to us by Florida State Prison, the Committee voted to reject issue 41 of Under Lock & Key.

In response to your appeal, I will put this issue on the agenda for the next scheduled meeting of the Literature Review Committee. We will discuss your comments and look at the copies we have once again. I will advise you of the Committee's action after the January 28 meeting.

Sincerely,
Martha Morrison