Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

January 21, 2018

Washington Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
File No. 18346

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a letter from Mr. XX for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The letter indicates Issue 59 was rejected for “[i]ncoming newsletter containing indepth information on the drug problems and values of drugs within the correctional setting which is a security issue.” Currently, MIM(P) has received no notice of censorship as is required by Washington Administrative Rules and federal case law.

The limited information provided does not show a reasonably objectionable or rational basis for rejection of the publication. The information does not show any means to breach security of the institution or introduce contraband.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).


Further, failure to provide notice of this censorship does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and notice with a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

We require the decision to censor issue 59 be vacated and delivered to Mr. XX.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

To whom it may concern:

I'm in receipt of your two correspondences appealing the rejection of the above two notices for inmates XXX and YYY dated January 21, 2018.

Per Washington State DOC policy 450.100 all publications rejected by any DOC correctional facility will be reviewed by the Publication Review Committee at DOC Headquarters. Mail Rejection Notice number 18346 was reviewed on January 8, 2018 and was overturned by the committee. The publicaiton issue has since been forwarded to each offender. A copy of the final decision notice should be forthcoming to you from Stafford Creek Correctional Center (SCCC).

Sincerely,

Roy Gonzalez, Correctional Manager
Prisons Division
SEC - 15320, 15321; rg