Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

January 25, 2025

ATTN: WARDEN
Federal Correctional Institution McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford PA, 16701


Rejected Mail

To whom it may concern:

We are MIM Distributors, a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently had two pieces of mail returned to us after sending them to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. These two pieces of mail were copies of our newspaper Under Lock & Key (hereafter “ULK”), specifically issues 81 and 87.

Firstly, we were troubled to observe that there was no notice of censorship sent along with the rejected copies of ULK. This brazenly go against Federal Bureau of Prisons policy as found in Program Statement 5265.14 which states: “When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection.”

Most worryingly, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by policy 5265.14 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed to uphold justice in this case.

We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and future publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

January 25, 2025

ATTN: WARDEN
Federal Correctional Institution McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford PA, 16701


Rejected Mail

To whom it may concern:

We are MIM Distributors, a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently had two pieces of mail returned to us after sending them to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at your facility. These two pieces of mail were copies of our newspaper Under Lock & Key (hereafter “ULK”), specifically issues 81 and 87.

Firstly, we were troubled to observe that there was no notice of censorship sent along with the rejected copies of ULK. This brazenly go against Federal Bureau of Prisons policy as found in Program Statement 5265.14 which states: “When correspondence is rejected, the Warden shall notify the sender in writing of the rejection and the reasons for the rejection. The Warden shall also give notice that the sender may appeal the rejection.”

Most worryingly, your lack of notice goes against decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by policy 5265.14 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here. Unfortunately, these safeguards have evidently failed to uphold justice in this case.

We request the decision to withhold the censored materials be vacated and future publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

Fracisco J. Quintana, Warden
FCI McKean
PO Box 5000
Bradford, PA 16701-0950

8 December 2008

Mr. Quintana,

This letter is in response to the enclosed notification of censorship of a letter we sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX, being held at FCI McKean. You cite PS5266.10 as the reasoning for the censorship, but in your explanation you base this on the political ideas put forth in the letter to Mr. XXXXXX. Therefore I am requesting an independent review of the decision, which was mailed to us on December 4th, 2008 on the basis that it is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and does not abide to federal case law regarding the establishment of a threat to security.


Sincerely,