Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225

3 October 2016

RE: Disapproval of Publication

Ms. Seibel,

A week ago I had written to appeal the censorship of a publication, Under Lock & Key #51. Today I am writing to inquire about other mail that is going missing. From the reports we are receiving, no one at Chuckwalla Valley has received any mail from MIM Distributors in at least a month and a half.

Specifically, Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (XXXXXX) has reported the last letter he received from MIM was from August 22. The list of mail sent to Mr. XXXXXX since then is:

8/26/2016 - #10 envelope
9/24/2016 - large manila envelope
10/3/2016 - #10 envelope

Mr. XXXXXX has filed an Inmate 22 form, and in his interview was told by A. Salas that the mailroom has not received any mail from MIM Distributors.

I’m writing to find out what is happening to the mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Chuckwalla Valley? And if it is being censored why is there no notification from your department of this censorship?


Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,

Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225

26 November 2016

RE: Failure to Deliver Mail at Chuckawalla Valley SP

Ms. Seibel,

I received your letter from 31 October 2016, in which you state that “All of Mr. AAAAA’s mail that has arrived at the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Mailroom, with the exception of [SF Bayview Newspaper Vol 41 Number 9] has been routed to him in a timely manner.” Yet I have personally sent mail to Mr. AAAAA as outlined in my previous letter that he reports not receiving. I also have signed statements from Mr. AAAAA, Mr. BBBBB and Mr. CCCCC stating that they have not received Under Lock & Key #52, mailed out on 10 October 2016. Neither MIM Distributors, nor the above mentioned subscribers have received notification of censorship of any of these pieces of mail.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, you continue to assert that the mailroom is delivering our mail to subscribers being held prisoner at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. Meanwhile, Mr. AAAAA is having his 602 appeals related to these incidents rejected for bogus reasons. Therefore, I am forwarding documentation regarding these incidents to the addresses below in hopes of getting a satisfactory resolution to these barriers to our ability to speak, communicate and associate freely without state censorship.

I will also be contacting individuals held at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison with this information and request that you ensure that mailroom staff deliver these letters to their intended recipients.


Sincerely,
XXXXX

cc: affected parties
Board of State and Community Corrections
Prison Law Office
Office of Internal Affairs, CDCR

Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225

3 October 2016

RE: Disapproval of Publication

Ms. Seibel,

This letter is in response to the “DISAPPROVAL OF PUBLICATION” notice sent to MIM Distributors dated 16 September 2016 in regards to Under Lock & Key Issue # 51.

First, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your 5 July 2016 letter addressing previous mail censorship issues at your facility and working to make sure that we do not have those problems again. However, since then we have received reports from prisoners at Chuckwalla that the word is that the mailroom is returning all mail from MIM Distributors as of early September. Shortly after that the aforementioned disapproval notice for ULK 51, was received from Mailroom Lieutenant P. Fuller.

The reasoning given by Lt. Fuller for the disapproval was that “This publication contained Disturbing and Offensive content in the entire publication.” Government officials censoring correspondence because it disturbs or offends them is a violation of the First Amendment. Also see:

?"Government cannot regulate speech because it disagrees with the message conveyed." - Gentala v. City of Tucson, 213 F3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2000)

?"Government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys." - Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp., 164 F3d 757 (2nd Cir. 1999)

In this light, I hope you will agree to reverse this decision, and to subsequently deliver Under Lock & Key 51 to each of the subscribers at Chuckwalla Valley State Prison.


Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,

I have a regular subscription to both the San Francisco Bay View Newspaper as well as to various MIM Distributors publications. I have not received mail from both distributors in months. I know these publications are frequently censored by CDC&R mailrooms. I would like to know if there is any ban on these publicaitons currently in effect.

Bay View is currently under review and awaiting disapproval. If the newspaper is not disallowed then they will be issued to you, and if disallowed will be witheld and you will be issued an 1819 form.

Is Bay View currently under Division of Adult Institutions review or CVSP review? Is BAy View under review for the Centralized List of Dissapproved Publications as a whole or only for individual issues? How come I never received 1819? What is the status of MIM Distributors? Where are my 1819s for MIM?

Bay view is currently under Division of Adult Institutions review for all issues to be placed on the list of Dissaproved Centralized list. If a publication was recevied with your name on it then you would have been issued an 1819, so if you haven't recevied an 1819 then you haven't received a newspaper. MIM Distributors is also under review by DAI to be put on the Centralized Disapproved publications list.

I have attempted to file this 602 on two occassions. The first time I sent it in the Appeals Coordiantor returned it back to me saying that he was unable to accept it for review because the initial issue I included in the appeal (the disallowment of ULK 51) happened over 30 days ago, and according to CCR Title 15 I am only able to appeal something within 30 days of the incident. I then sent it back to him pointing out that the Title 15 specifically says that I can appeal something within 30 days of the incident or within 30 days of my first knowledge of its occurrence. Therefore I am well within my right since the mailroom never notified me and I only found out about this incident because I received your Unconfirmed Mail Form. I also pointed out how I'd already addressed all this in my appeal. Clearly then he must have either (a) not actually read the appeal (b) glossed over this in the appeal, or (c) most likely, he's just trying to illegally screen me out.

He subsequently returned it to me again stating that I am correct, however "...upon reviewing your note on teh CDC form 695, you are indicating the initial issue happened on 8/8/16 and did not have knowledge of it until later. Therefore, due to the fact that you have noted two separate issues on one appeal, you will have to rewrite to appeals per issue. Please correct your appeal so that it may be processed and ensure it is received in the Appeal's Office by 11/23/16..."

The Appeals Coordinator is referring to the fact that my 602 concerns ULK 51 and three other separate envelopes from you which I never received. I am also appealing the fact that I never received notification of the dissallowment. All this can be considered one issue and I am appealing it as such. I am also appealing the illegal censorship of Bay View. This is a second issue included.

The Title 15 says I cannot appeal two or more unrelated issues on a single appeal, but I can appeal a *related set of issues on a single appeal*. And this is what I"m doing. The AP knows this but he is obviously trying to screen me out. I will exsplain all this to the AP on Monday when I re-submit. Hopefully by then I will have more copies of the 602 so you can see what I'm talking about.

Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225

26 June 2016

RE: Unauthorized Vendor Mail

Ms. Seibel,

I am writing to inquire about a number of pieces of mail recently returned to MIM Distributors that were unopened and stamped, “RETURN TO SENDER UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR.” All of the mail in question were letters enclosed in #10 envelopes. This practice seemed to begin around May 2016. Two letters sent to Mr. XXX YYY (#123456) were returned in this manner; one from mid-May and one from mid-June. One letter from mid-June to Mr. AAA BBB (#246810) was also returned in this manner. Yet Mr. BBB reports not receiving a number of letters from MIM Distributors since his transfer to Chuckwalla in April. These other letters were not returned, nor was a notification of censorship sent to MIM Distributors, nor to Mr. BBB.

My questions are: What is the significance of this stamp “UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR”? And why were the letters in question not delivered to their intended recipients?

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this matter,

letter read in part:

"Mailroom staff have been made aware of the situation and will do everyting possiblbe to ensure this does not happen again."

"[CDCR] encouranges correspondence with persons outside the correctional facility. CVSP apologizes for the error and any inconvenience this may have caused."