Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

I received notice on the impoundment of the publication entitled Under Lock & Key Jan/Feb 2013 No. 13. I patiently waited on the "so-called" Literature Review Committee to do the review to decide if the publication would be rejected, but on the 8th of March 2013 I received notice that the publication is being rejected. The reason is: due to page 13 describes situation for protest of Department rules.

I assume that you too may have received some sort of notice, but I also appealed the decision, as well as filed a grievance seeking to simply have that page removed so it could be mailed out (home) by me through property.

Sender appeals are to be mailed to:
Department of Corrections
ATTN Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

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

September 10, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of publication to Mr. XXX at Polk Correctional Institution

Dear Library Service Administrator,

On March 8, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 30 (January/February 2013) to the above-named prisoner held at Polk Correctional Institution. On March 18, 2013, Mr. XXX notified MIM Distributors that the newsletter was being censored. The mailroom staff failed to directly notify MIM Distributors of this censorship incident.

FDOC's own mail rules state in Rule 33-201.101 Routine Mail, F.A.C.:
"(14)(a) When an inmate is prohibited from sending a letter, the letter and a written and signed notice stating one of the authorized reasons for disapproval and indicating the portion or portions of the letter causing disapproval will be given to the inmate. When an inmate is prohibited from receiving an item of mail, the inmate and the sender will be given notice in writing that the mail has been disapproved stating one of the authorized reasons for disapproval. Form DC2-521, Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt, will be placed in the original envelope with the correspondence and returned to the sender. However, if an incoming mailing is rejected because it does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (15)(a) or subsection (20) of this rule, Form DC2-521 shall not be prepared. Instead, staff shall write or stamp the reason for rejection on the mailing and it shall be returned to the sender unopened.
(b) If the incoming mail is disapproved for one of the reasons listed in subsection (7), (8), or (9), paragraph (11)(a) through (l) or (o), subsection (12) or (13) of this rule, the institution shall make a copy of the correspondence before returning it to the sender with Form DC2-521, Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt, included. If an institution receives identical correspondence from the same individual or entity that is addressed to more than 10 inmates, and the correspondence is disapproved for one of these reasons, the institution shall make only one copy of the correspondence and shall mail the sender only one Form DC2-521. The mailings shall be returned to the sender and may be returned together in a single package. The institution is not required to copy incoming correspondence disapproved pursuant to subsection (7) if the return address on the envelope was the reason for determining that the mail was sent from an inmate at another penal institution.
(c) The copies shall be retained by the institution for 30 days, not including any time that a grievance appeal is pending, provided the inmate has initiated the process by filing a formal grievance within 15 days of notice of the mail rejection. The inmate is not required to file an informal grievance of the mail rejection."

As you are certainly aware, 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 both the prisoners and 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.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Warden Eduardo Rivero, Polk CI
10800 Evans Road
Polk City, Florida
33868-6925