Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Publication Review Committee
Lawrence Correctional Center
10930 Lawrence Rd
Sumner, IL 62466-4915

April 11, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX

Dear PRC,

On March 1, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a single sheet of paper to the above-named prisoner held at Lawrence Correctional Center. The contents of this paper was a list of mail that we had sent to Mr. XXX, and a brief letter asking him if he received it. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "Return to Sender" stamped on the envelope. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Dating back to 2011, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. We have documentation that two (2) letters inquiring about receipt of mail have been returned in this same way, and a letter we sent to a prisoner informing him/her of legal means of appealing censorship was also censored in the same exact way. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.

Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:

1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.

2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."

As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also 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, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were 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