Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

I am writing with an update on the January/February 2016 issue of Under Lock & Key here on the Alfred D. Hughes Plantation. The mailroom has been holding it WITHOUT notice to recipients since you sent it out. I have been writing I-60 after I-60 (official request) to Ms. Doalston the Hughes Mailroom Supervisor. All she will say is it is still "under review." It has been 2 months [actually only over 1 month - MIM(Prisons)] so it either is a scam by TDC officials here in Texa$ OR some comrades statewide appeal a facility's blanket banned material.

I have learned since July 2015 ANY mention by other comrades of the Kalifornia - Pelican Bay State Prison hunger strike of 2012 gets these folks all excited and seething with fear in these units that house the nation's largest slave system.

Correctional Institutions Division
Director's Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099
25 February 2016

April 20, 2016

RE: Illegal censorship of Under Lock & Key Nos. 47 and 48

Dear Director's Review Committee,

This letter is regarding two publications which have been censored in Texas prisons, without notification sent to the publisher and sender, MIM Distributors. The two publications were sent via USPS Standard Mail.

Under Lock & Key No. 47 (November/December 2015) was mailed out on 12/11/2015. Prisoners in various facilities, from Hughes, to Lynaugh, to Gib Lewis, to Coffield, to Ellis, to Jester IV, and Wynne, have all reported that they did not receive ULK 47 and were not informed their mail was being held. MIM Distributors was also not notified of this censorship at any time by any facility.

Additionally, Under Lock & Key No. 48 (January/February 2016) was mailed out on 2/5/2016. This publication met a similar fate as its predecessor. Several issues were returned to sender marked “RTS” and “UTF” from Telford Unit, but no other information was provided. Prisoners in Hughes and Eastham also informed us that they never received this publication and never received notification that it was being held or censored.

Neither MIM Distributors nor the prisoners in the facilities listed above were sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding these incidents.

Per Texas DOC policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)): "V. B. Any offender, other correspondent, or sender of a publication may appeal the rejection of any correspondence or publication. They may submit written evidence or arguments in support of their appeal. An offender or a correspondent may appeal the placement of the correspondent on the offender?s negative mailing list. An offender or a correspondent may appeal to the DRC for reconsideration of the negative mailing list placement after six months." Based on this we formally request an appeal of this censorship.

In your review of this censorship, please note that your own policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) states: "Publications shall not be rejected solely because the publication advocates the legitimate use of offender grievance procedures, urges offenders to contact public representatives about prison conditions, or contains criticism of prison authorities." In order to reject these publications for content, per your policy, you must demonstrate that the publication "contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots, or STG activity".

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, 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