Director Charles L. Ryan
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

30 January 2010

Dear Director Ryan,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a letter from MIM Distributors to XXX in ASPC Central Unit, mailed on October 27, 2009. The content of the letter that was mailed to XXX was a study group that he participates in, run by MIM(Prisons). This letter was censored because it was deemed to be "obscene or a threat to security" by mailroom staff. No specifics were given as to which policies were violated or what about the letter was obscene.

We doubt that the study materials can be considered obscene or a threat to security as laid on in Turner v. Safely. 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The material we are studying is called "What is MIM?" and an essay called "On Contradiction" by Mao Tse-tung. "What is MIM?" is a pamphlet on the history of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. MIM explicitly denounces armed struggle and violence at this time in history.

In light of these facts, we request to appeal the decision made by ASPC Central Unit mailroom staff to mark this letter as "obscene or a threat to security." We also ask for an explanation as to why this letter was censored, and lastly, for the letter to be delivered to XXX.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director Charles L. Ryan
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

13 February 2010

Dear Director Ryan,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a letter from MIM Distributors to XXX in ASPC Central Unit, mailed on October 27, 2009. The content of the letter that was mailed to XXX was a study group that he participates in, run by MIM(Prisons). We recently sent you a letter regarding this issue on 30 January 2010 asking for an explanation as to why it was said that this letter "may be obscene or a threat to security." We recently received more information that answered this question, be we are still appealing the decision.

In a "Notice of Result- Publication Review" notice that was given to XXX, Sgt. D. Lakin claimed that this study group pamphlet violated DO 914.08 1.7 "Promotes racism and/or religious oppression." It is truly fascinating that your mailroom staff could find the promotion of racism and/or religious oppression in this document. Nowhere in the letter are the following words even mentioned: religious, religion, christian, muslim, baptist, KKK, white, mexican, latino, asian or arab. The word "black" is written once in the context of a reference to the Black Panther Party's education programs. How can you even talk about religion or race enough to speak against it if you don't use any of the above mentioned words? As you have notified XXX that you are holding the letter for 3 years, I am sure your department still has it and you can see for yourself that to say that this document violates DO 914.08 1.7 takes a very far stretch of the imagination.

In light of these facts, we request to appeal the decision made by ASPC Central Unit mailroom staff to mark this letter as "Excluded" We also ask for the letter to be delivered to XXX as soon as humanly possible, as it is nearly four months past due. Lastly, we request that your mailroom staff be notified of their incorrect labeling and retrained so we can avoid these errors in the future.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director Charles L. Ryan
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoeniz, AZ 85007

4 April 2010

Dear Director Ryan,

We received a letter from Karyn Klausner of your office regarding the censorship of a letter dated October 27, 2009 that was sent from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX. This censorship incident occurred at ASPC Central Unit. First I would like to say that appreciate Ms. Klausner's response, but found it inadequate and, some parts, contradictory with federal case law.

In this letter, dated March 22, 2010, Ms. Klausner asserted that MIM Distributors "does not have standing to appeal an internal decision disallowing an inmate's receipt of written material." Actually, according to Procunier v. Martinez, we do:

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800

The reason that Ms. Klausner gave for upholding this censorship was that it allegedly contains "content 'promoting racism and/or religious oppression.'" I would like to appeal this decision to a higher level of review, for reasons I will outline below. Like I wrote above, we are legally permitted to appeal these decisions, even if ADOC does not have a protocol in place for it.

It is truly fascinating that your mailroom staff, and now your General Counsel of the Office of the Director, could find the promotion of racism and/or religious oppression in this document. Nowhere in the letter are the following words even mentioned: religious, religion, christian, muslim, baptist, KKK, white, mexican, latino, asian or arab. The word "black" is written once in the context of a reference to the Black Panther Party's education programs. How can you even talk about religion or race enough to speak against it if you don't use any of the above mentioned words? As you have notified Mr. XXXXXX that you are holding the letter for 3 years, I am sure your department still has it and you can see for yourself that to say that this document violates DO 914.08 1.7 takes a very far stretch of the imagination.

We would like for an administrator in a superior position to Ms. Klausner to review this erroneous decision that was made by Sgt. D. Laken, and upheld by Ms. Klausner. Additionally, we would like the material to be delivered to Mr. XXX without further delay.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director Charles L. Ryan
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

28 August 2010

Dear Director Ryan,

This letter is responding to a series of correspondences between you and my colleague [COLLEAGUE] from January to April 2010. The issue you and [COLLEAGUE] were discussing was a letter sent to Mr. XXX on October 27, 2009. I know [COLLEAGUE] is already working with you on a number of more recent incidents as well.

In your April 22, 2010 letter, you make three main claims, none of which are true as can be seen in the enclosed documents.

1) You claim Ms. Klausner did not uphold the decision to censor, yet her letter from March 22, 2010 clearly states "I reviewed the materials sent by MIM Distributors and find the decision to exclude this publication due to content… was appropriate." (see enclosed) Despite the fact that the topics of racism and religion were not even mentioned in the letter, multiple staff members have upheld this reason to censor the October 27 mail. This was the basis of [COLLEAGUE]'s appeal, which was denied.

2) You claim that there was no review made because Mr. XXX did not request one. Yet the enclosed documents show that he received notice of the censorship on November 17, 2009, requested an explanation on December 7, 2009 and requested a second review on January 1, 2010. It seems you have not thoroughly investigated the facts in this case by stating otherwise. This is why we are insistent that a legitimate, independent review occur and not just a parroting of the original decision.

3) You claim that MIM Distributors has no rights to appeal the censorship of their mail. While we are not lawyers, and may have put too much weight on the Procunier case, we still uphold that we have First and Fourteenth Amendment rights according to federal law. As employees of the state you may not deny anyone their rights to free speech and association arbitrarily and without due process. In fact, if you read Thornburgh v. Abbot, 490 U.S. 401, which you referred [COLLEAGUE] to, you will see that its procedural protection was provided because the publisher was notified of the censorship and given the right to independent review. A number of U.S. Court of Appeals decisions have upheld the right of the publisher in such instances (Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), Trudeau v. Wyrick, 713 F.2d 1360, 1366 (8th Cir.1983), Martin v. Kelley, 803 F.2d 236, 243-44 (6th Cir.1986) ).

In light of these issues, we are once again requesting that Mr. XXX be given the letter in question or that an independent review of the material take place. Random, unsubstantiated accusations of "promoting racism and/or religious repression" do not fulfill the Turner reasonableness standard that you recognize as governing our rights in this decision.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Mr. XXX

Director Charles L. Ryan
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

25 August 2010

Director Ryan:

This letter is regarding the censorship of several articles of mail that were sent from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX who is housed at ASPC Central Unit. For all of these articles of mail, we have not been sent any notifications from ASPC Central Unit mailroom staff as to why they were censored. This has been an ongoing issue, that you have been aware, of for nearly a year.

The first item I'd like to discuss is a magazine titled MIM Theory 2/3: Revolutionary Feminism (1992). This magazine was censored on 25 June 2010 per DO 914.08 policy #1.1.1 "Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance." The Notice of Result - Publication Review did not provide a specific page number on which riots/work stoppages/resistance are supposedly mentioned, nor how the mention of these things legitimately affects the penological interests at ASPC Central Unit. Please refer me to the page number where this information can be found so that I may investigate the issue further. If this claim cannot be substantiated, please deliver the magazine to Mr. XXX without further delay.

Surely there is not a practice of censoring all major newspapers at ASPC Central Unit, or perusing them each day for mentions of riots/work stoppages/resistance. I doubt that a mention of any of these things would be related to the legitimate penological interests of the institution such that MIM Theory 2/3 should be censored.

The next two items were censored from Mr. XXX with no reasons given; the envelopes were simply returned to MIM Distributors from mailroom staff. One was a 1-page letter that outlined the prisoner-support legal work that MIM(Prisons) does and ways that prisoners can participate. The second letter was a study group response that Mr. XXX is a participant in. May I remind you that in October 2009 a prior study group response was arbitrarily censored from Mr. XXX and no sound answer was given as to why. I wrote you multiple letters regarding the October censorship and it was never resolved to my knowledge.

The fourth and final article of mail I'd like to address is the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 14 (May/June 2010). As of 24 June 2010 this publication was still pending review. Please inform me of the final decision whether to censor Under Lock & Key issue 14 or not, and if so, please be explicit as to why.

In summary, the mailroom staff at ASPC Central Unit has been arbitrarily and illegally denying Mr. XXX mail that is sent from MIM Distributors for nearly a year. Furthermore, per Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), the mailroom staff is granted the right to censor mail to the extent that they do so in a manner reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Randomly checking one of thirty boxes is neither a thorough nor superficial explanation of how an item relates to the legitimate penological interest of the institution.

As an employee of the State of Arizona, you are obligated to respect both Mr. XXX's and MIM Distributors' First Amendment right to free speech. In your 22 April 2010 letter to me, you made it clear that you have no interest in doing this unless forced by a court. This is a serious and illegal situation that your staff is creating, and you are enabling, at ASPC Central Unit. I have several requests that I hope you can fulfill to remedy the issue:

1) The immediate end to interference of mail intended for Mr. XXX from MIM Distributors by ASPC Central Unit mailroom staff.

2) Explanation of why MIM Theory 2/3: Revolutionary Feminism (1992) allegedly violates DO 914.08 policy #1.1.1 "Riots/Work Stoppages/Resistance" and how this relates to the legitimate penological interests of the institution.

3) The results of the pending review of Under Lock & Key issue 14 (May/June 2010) and, if censored, a detailed explanation of why.

4) Reasons for why the study group response and legal letter mentioned above were returned to MIM Distributors with no explanation or notice.

We appreciate your timely response and efforts to resolve this illegal practice.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden
USP Atwater
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301

21 August 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

On 22 February 2010, I wrote to you to inquire about why the publication Under Lock & Key was denied delivery to several prisoners at USP Atwater. On 2 April 2010 Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist M. Fischer wrote to tell me that it was an error with the post office and that MIM Distributors should resend the publication.

However, we are facing a similar situation, months later. Issue 15 (July/August 2010) of Under Lock & Key was denied delivery to prisoners at USP Atwater, with no explanation as to why. The returned publications are marked "UTF", but according to the BOP website these prisoners are still housed at USP Atwater. We doubt that the USPS is making the same error again.

As I wrote in my 22 February letter to your office, I will reiterate that we are sure you are aware of the following case law:

“When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner’s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800

What is happening at USP Atwater with mail from MIM Distributors is completely illegal. We appreciate your timely response and efforts to resolve this illegal practice.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Tim Virga, Warden
P.O. Box 290002
Represa, CA 95671-002

1 June 2010

Dear Warden Virga,

A publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was sent to several prisoners held at your facility. It was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA by standard mail on 30 March 2010. This publication was returned to MIM Distributors with no explanation and denied delivery to the following prisoners:

XXX

This letter is to inquire about why this publication was censored from CSP-Sac. The envelopes were stamped with "Return to Sender" and a list of options for the mailroom staff to check to explain the denial. However, none of the options were checked. I have included a copy of an envelope so you can see what I am describing.

As you know, there must be a legitimate penological interest in the censorship of incoming mail. In addition to the ambiguous stamp on the envelopes, they were all returned unopened. How could your mailroom staff determine that the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13 should be censored at CSP-Sac if they did not view it?

We are requesting (1) a detailed explanation of why this publication was denied delivery to the above mentioned prisoners, (2) an investigation into the validity of the claim that it should be denied, so that it may be overturned, (3) prompt delivery of the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13, and (4) an end to the interference to the communication between MIM Distributors and prisoners held at CSP-Sacramento. We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation
PO Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283

24 August 2010

Dear Director,

This letter is to inform you of the illegal censorship that MIM Distributors is experiencing at California State Prison - Sacramento and to ask for your assistance in resolving this issue. In February 2010, Warden Tim V. Virga began instituting a ban against all publications and letters going into California State Prison - Sarcamento sent from MIM Distributors.

In the most recent response we have received from Warden Virga, dated 22 June 2010, he refers to the outdated ban imposed by Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan to validate this practice. We are familiar with this 2006 ban. However, we are also familiar with the settlement between Prison Legal News and CDCR, with its accompanying list of banned publications and 21 October 2008 memo that reads, “The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.” As I tried explained to Warden Virga in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

If you have an updated list of banned publications that includes MIM Distributors, please send it to me at the address below. If not, then please advise Warden Virga of his illegal activity and see to its immediate reversal. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Tim Virga, Warden
P.O. Box 290002
Represa, CA 95671-002

28 June 2010

Dear Warden Virga,

This letter is much the same as the one sent to your office on 1 June 2010 regarding the censorship of a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 13 (March/April 2010) was sent from MIM Distributors to several prisoners held at your facility. In our last letter we asked for an explanation as to why Under Lock & Key issue 13 was censored, and to inform you that your mailroom staff are censoring publications without viewing their contents.

Again, MIM Distributors sent in mail to several prisoners held at your facility. And again, they were returned to MIM Distributors in exactly the same manner as Under Lock & Key issue 13. The envelopes were stamped with "Return to Sender" and a list of options for the mailroom staff to check to explain the denial. However, none of the options were checked. Please refer to the envelope that I included in my last letter to you for a visual representation of what I am describing.

The contents of the letter most recently returned by CSP-Sac mailroom staff was copies of the 1 June letter I sent to you (with the names and CDCR #s of the prisoners removed) and a copy of our guide to fighting censorship, which describes that prisoners should file appeals and the necessary steps to filing a court case, if necessary.

As you know, there must be a legitimate penological interest in the censorship of incoming mail. In addition to the ambiguous stamp on the envelopes, they were all returned unopened. How could your mailroom staff determine that the publication Under Lock & Key issue 13 should be censored at CSP-Sac if they did not view it?

It is clear that your mailroom staff is enacting a blind ban of mail from MIM Distributors. According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually. In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2010 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at CSP-Sac, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely.

We are requesting (1) a detailed explanation of why this publication was denied delivery to the above mentioned prisoners, (2) an investigation into the validity of the claim that it should be denied, so that it may be overturned, (3) prompt delivery of the publications Under Lock & Key issue 13 and our Censorship Guide, and (4) an end to the blind ban of communications between MIM Distributors and prisoners held at CSP-Sacramento. We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation
PO Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283

21 August 2010

Dear Director,

This letter is to inform you of the illegal censorship that MIM Distributors is experiencing at California State Prison - Sacramento and to ask for your assistance in resolving this issue. In February 2010, Warden Tim V. Virga began instituting a ban against all publications and letters going into California State Prison - Sarcamento sent from MIM Distributors.

In the most recent response we have received from Warden Virga, dated 22 June 2010, he refers to the outdated ban imposed by Undersecretary of Operations Scott Kernan to validate this practice. We are familiar with this 2006 ban. However, we are also familiar with the settlement between Prison Legal News and CDCR, with its accompanying list of banned publications and 21 October 2008 memo that reads, “The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.” As I tried explained to Warden Virga in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

If you have an updated list of banned publications that includes MIM Distributors, please send it to me at the address below. If not, then please advise Warden Virga of his illegal activity and see to its immediate reversal. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

21 August 2010

Dear Warden Hedgpeth,

On 8 March 2010, I sent you a letter inquiring about the ongoing censorship of publications and letters from MIM Distributors to prisoners at your facility. On 23 March 2010, you wrote that there was temporary staff in the mailroom, and were not trained how to properly handle mail from MIM Distributors and the censorship may have been their error. You also wrote that the mailroom staff was retrained to allow mail from MIM Distributors, per law and the PLN/CDCR settlement.

However, we are still having all of our mail returned from your facility. The only difference is that now they are returned with no explanation at all, whereas before we corresponded in March they were being stamped as "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item." It is obvious that the mailroom staff at Salinas Valley State Prison have no idea how to comply with federal law, specifically Procunier v. Martinez which states:

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800

One item being subjected to a blanket censorship is an informational letter about how to fight censorship of mail, which advocates filing appeals, keeping records, and taking the case to court if necessary. This was sent in to several prisoners at your facility in March along with the 8 March 2010 letter that I sent you (with any prisoner-identifying information removed). There are no grounds that this letter could have been censored on, which is probably why the mailroom staff returned it to us without giving a reason.

This letter is to (1) ask again why Under Lock & Key and informational letters from MIM Distributors are being banned from Salinas Valley State Prison, (2) request an immediate, accurate, and thorough retraining of the mailroom staff in how to legally handle mail from MIM Distributors, (3) enforcement of the law in handling mail by the upper management and administrative staff of your facility, and (4) the immediate end of illegal tampering with mail from MIM Distributors. We appreciate your expedience in this matter and hope that it doesn't need to become more complicated by a lawsuit.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties