MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
In 2006, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) instituted a ban on educational material within prisons,
categorically censoring all literature sent by MIM’s prisoner education
program. This ban was mandated by Scott Kernan, Director of the Division
of Adult Institutions for California, in a memorandum issued December
13, 2006 “directing an immediate ban on the receipt, possession, or
distribution of literature/publications from MIM to or by inmates in the
custody of the CDCR.” This ban has been interpreted by prison
administrators to include dictionaries and history books as well as
MIM Theory magazine, MIM Notes newspapers, and our own
Under Lock & Key. In some prisons the ban has been
interpreted to also include all letters from MIM(Prisons).
In April 2007,
Prison
Legal News (PLN) reached a settlement with the CDCR regarding their
oppressive censorship practices towards their publication and mail to
prisoners in California in general. However the CDCR was very slow to
abide by the actions it promised to take in that settlement, leading
prisoners and legal assistants helping MIM Distributors to spend years
appealing the blanket ban on MIM mail.
In October 2008, the CDCR released its list of banned publications as it
promised to do a year and half earlier in the PLN settlement. At that
point comrades had to report each prison to the CDCR administration in
Sacramento repeatedly to get them to comply with the new policies. It
has now been years since any CDCR staff has used the 2006 ban as a
justification for censoring MIM Distributor’s
mail (last
incident in Pelican Bay, September 2011).
The battle against the ban was an important victory for the prison
movement in California, which has used Under Lock & Key as
one of the important publications in the humyn rights struggle that has
been advanced in recent years with a series of
hunger
strikes. However, censorship in California is still a regular
occurrence, especially in Security Housing Units and for mail sent to
comrades who are very politically active. We will continue to post
updates on the battle against censorship in California on this page.
Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531
January 7, 2014
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letters and publications sent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors
Dear Warden Lewis,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison. On November 6, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed Mr. xxx a letter, under one ounce. It was returned to MIM Distributors without justification or proper procedure. The letter was returned to sender with a stamp reading "Not approved correspondence" and "Contents unacceptable at Pelican Bay State Prison." This envelope was unopened. How could the mailroom staff determine if the letter is not approved or unacceptable without viewing its contents?
Your DOM states at Sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered.
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.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
and that adequate notice be provided to Mr. xxx of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Mailroom says all MIM mail sent to "Squad" (Gang Investigation)
Show Text
see 1/22/14 documentation
02/10/2014
Prisoner interviewed by mailroom, all mail from MIM going through gang investigation
Show Text
Recently I received a letter you sent to the prison about a letter you sent me back in November 2013 where this place "returned to sender" a letter you wrote me without even opening the envelope to inspect it. I filed a 602 requesting to either know who did this OR to get the names of all those working the week in question. Today the folks from the mailroom came to interview me concerning the 602. They told me that IGI was the one who did it, NOT them. They also wrote it down on the request form.
During the interview I found out a couple of things. 1) The folks from the mailroom told me that for the past 2 years Squad (IGI) requested that ANY MIM mailings be sent directly to them. And that the mailroom never opens MIM mailings. They said the ONLY people that have the stamp that was on the rejected envelope you sent me without being opened is IGI. They told me the names of the IGI who requested MIM mailings and who work Monday - Friday, thus who have been resoinsible for rejecting said envelope. They are Dickerson, Hernandey, and Cleary.
They clearly want no part of what the IGI is doing, and they (mailroom) see it as illegal. My 602 is going forward with requested names.
It seems since the first hunger strike, all MIM mailings have been going straight to them. I think this hampers many things.
I suspect that I will be experiencing MUCH more repression now because I'm challenging them. For example, two days after I filed a 602 for this, IGI raided my cell at 6am.
02/13/2014
Captain admits censorship is not per policy, plus lots of DOM definitions
03/06/2014
MIM Distributors protests unconstitutional practice of not notifying senders, only publishers
Show Text
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Secretary Jeffrey Beard
1515 S. St., Ste. 330
Sacramento, CA 95811
6 March, 2014
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison on September 9, 2013; exclusion of letter sent to Mr. xxx by MIM Distributors
Dear Secretary Beard,
I am writing this letter regarding two similar censorship incidents that occurred in Pelican Bay State Prison, on September 9, 2013 and November 6, 2013. While there has already been a significant exchange of correspondence between the Department and MIM Distributors on this topic, it is desirable at this point to place in focus the precise questions that now are before us.
I. Background.
The relevant facts can be summarized as follows:
? At the time the incident occurred, Mr. xxx was detained (and is still detained) at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP);
? MIM Distributors sent Mr. xxx a letter on September 9, 2013 via First Class mail. This piece of mail is defined as First Class Mail per CDCR Department Operations Manual (DOM), Section 54010.4, Definitions of Classes of Mail;
? On September 12, 2013 Mr. xxx was given a CDCR Form 1819 disapproval regarding the September 9 letter;
? On September 12, 2013 Mr. xxx appealed this censorship;
? On October 28, 2013 Mr. xxx was given the letter requested;
? MIM Distributors was never notified via CDCR Form 1819 of the censorship of this letter.
Separately:
? At the time the incident occurred, Mr. xxx was detained (and is still detained) at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP);
? On November 6, 2013, MIM Distributors sent Mr. xxx a letter via First Class mail. This piece of mail is defined as First Class Mail per CDCR DOM Section 54010.4, Definitions of Classes of Mail;
? On January 7, 2014, MIM Distributors sent a letter to Warden Greg Lewis asserting that MIM Distributors should have been notified by PBSP mailroom staff of this censorship;
? On January 16, 2014, Mr. xxx submitted a 602 Grievance Form protesting this censorship;
? On January 22, 2014, Mr. xxx submitted an Inmate/Parolee Request for Interview, Item or Service to request information on the censorship incident;
? On January 24, 2014, Mr. xxx was informed by C. Williams, OSSI, that this letter had been forwarded from them to "Squad" (IGI) and that they had no knowledge of the outcome of the letter in question;
? On February 13, 2014, a letter was sent from Warden (A) C.E. Ducart to MIM Distributors in response to our letter from January 7.
The February 13 letter from Warden Ducart raises the legal question of whether notification via CDCR Form 1819 needs to be given to senders of censored mail who are not publishers. A careful, unbiased and comprehensive review of the relevant case law and of any applicable regulation strongly suggests to respond affirmatively to this question, for several reasons that I will try to explain below in greater detail.
II. First Amendment rights in the prison context
It has been the constant teaching of the U.S. Supreme Court that a prison inmate retains only those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system. Procunier v. Martinez, 416, U.S. 396 (1974).
Not equally consistent has been the view that the Supreme Court has displayed on what standard of jurisdictional review Courts should apply to prison regulation that curb prisoners? (and publishers?) First Amendment rights. The matter was in fact examined for the first time in Procunier v. Martinez and the Court?s perspective on it has been subject to some variations since then.
In Procunier v. Martinez, the Court seemed to apply a strict scrutiny standard to regulations aimed at compressing an inmate?s constitutional right. The Court stated that ?the censorship of direct personal correspondence involves incidental restrictions on the right to free speech of both prisoners and their correspondents, and is justified if the following criteria are met: (1) it must further one or more of the important and substantial governmental interests of security, order, and the rehabilitation of inmates, and (2) it must be no greater than is necessary to further the legitimate governmental interest involved?.
The standard of review was later re-examined in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and in Thornburgh v. Abbott 490, U.S., 401 (1989) and the Court came to a slightly different formulation of it. As stated in Turner v. Safley, the new standard of review focuses rather on the reasonableness of prison regulations: thus, the relevant inquiry is whether the actions of prison officials are "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests?. Whenever those regulations are in fact reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest, they will pass the constitutional scrutiny and will be deemed valid and legitimate.
This more deferential standard was later confirmed in Thornburgh v. Abbott, and hasn?t been subject to modifications since then. It is fair to acknowledge, therefore, that it is the current applicable standard of review to prison regulations that carry restrictions on prisoners? First Amendment rights.
III. Courts protect penological interest of the institution, and First Amendment rights of prisoners, publishers, and independent senders
However, Courts? rulings must be read in their integrity, with due accuracy and unbiased eyes, in order to avoid misinterpretations that may lead to mistaken beliefs and illegitimate administrative activity. As we will see in a moment, the individuation by the Supreme Court of a slightly different standard of review for regulations that limit censorship of mail sent to inmates, does not imply, at any rate, that prison administrators (CDCR in this case) aren?t bound to take into account and respect an independent person?s constitutional rights.
While enunciating the new standard of review, the Supreme Court has also made it clear, in Thornburgh, that ?there is no question that publishers who wish to communicate with those who, through subscription, willingly seek their point of view have a legitimate First Amendment interest in access to prisoners?.
As stated in Turner v. Safley and recalled in Thornburgh v. Abbott, ?there is little doubt that the kind of censorship just described (censorship of a publication sent by an independent publisher to an inmate, n.d.r.) would raise grave First Amendment concerns outside the prison context. It is equally certain that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution, nor do they bar free citizens from exercising their own constitutional rights by reaching out to those on the inside?.
The premise from which the Court moves is that ?we do not deal here with difficult questions of the so-called "right to hear" and third-party standing, but with a particular means of communication in which the interests of both parties (the sender and the prisoner, n.d.r) are inextricably meshed?. It is quite evident to the Court that ?mail censorship implicates more than the right of prisoners. Communication by letter is not accomplished by the act of writing words on paper. Rather, it is effected only when the letter is read by the addressee. Both parties to the correspondence have an interest in securing that result, and censorship of the communication between them necessarily impinges on the interest of each. Whatever the status of a prisoner's claim to uncensored correspondence with an outsider, it is plain that the latter's interest is grounded in the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech? (Procunier v. Martinez).
The language employed by the Supreme Court in Procunier and in Thornburgh as to the question of senders? (or publishers?) First Amendment rights is undeniably the same; in both cases, the Court has clearly stated that (not only prisoners? constitutional rights, but) also First Amendment rights of those who seek to communicate with inmates are at stakes, when reviewing prison regulations that restrict that very channel of communication. Those rights may be compressed only if the limiting regulations reasonably respond to and further a legitimate governmental interest.
Instead the statement (also made in Warden Ducart's letter dated February 13) that CDCR would not be obliged to respect any sender's constitutional rights is wholly misplaced. As we have seen, the standard of review is exactly the same, whether prisoners? rights, publishers? rights, or independent sender's rights are involved, and prison administrators are indeed obligated to equally respect all parties' First Amendment rights.
IV. CDCR's erroneous interpretation of law
Moving from that premise, it becomes quite obvious that the direction laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court rust opposite the one your Department suggests. A standard of review is only imaginable in relation to a non-arbitrary administrative activity. In other words, if prison administrators were not obliged to respect any prisoners? or free citizens? constitutional rights, no possible jurisdictional review of their activity and/or decisions would be even conceivable.
That is why the Supreme Court, even in Thornburgh, recalled the regulations set forth at 28 CFR ? 540.70 and 540.71, highlighting that such regulations ?provide procedural safeguards for both the recipient and the sender?. In particular, the Warden must advise the inmate promptly in writing of the reasons for the rejection, ? 540.71(d), and must provide the publisher or sender with a copy of the rejection letter, ? 540.71(e) and the sender (that is not specified as only an independent publisher or distributor) may obtain an independent review of the Warden's rejection decision by a timely writing to the Regional Director of the Bureau. ? 540.71(e).
The Court had already come to an identical conclusion in Procunier, in which it flatly stated that ?the decision to censor or withhold delivery of a particular letter must be accompanied by minimum procedural safeguards?. More importantly for our concerns, those protections evidently are the typical due process safeguards, which substantiate any other constitutional right and afford individuals a chance to appeal governmental decisions that affect their fundamental rights, among which the most cherished certainly are First Amendment rights.
The above mentioned Federal Regulations (28 CFR ?? 540.70 and 540.71) already provide sufficient safeguards, compelling prison administrators to notify publishers of any decision of exclusion and/or censorship and to offer them the chance to appeal such decisions, within the prison system, in accordance with the Administrative Remedy Program.
I am well aware that your Department Operations Manual updated through January 1, 2013 (which applies to California State Prisons, such as the one in which Mr. xxx is detained) does not expressly provide the same safeguards. However, even in the absence of an express provision that offers the same or similar protections to the publishers whose First Amendment rights are affected by prison administrators decisions, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation must simply comply with the principles laid down in the above reviewed case law and provide senders with the right to appeal decisions that exclude or censor their materials. Any different administrative conduct would be deemed as irremediably unconstitutional.
V. Holding mail indefinitely
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. Your own DOM states at Section 54010.4, Definitions of Classes of Mail First Class Mail, "All First Class Mail shall be delivered to the inmates as soon as possible, but not later than seven (7) calendar days from receipt of the mail from the Post Office." That mail from MIM Distributors is being immediately forwarded to IGI not only violates Due Process law, but also violates your own policies.
MIM Distributors has requested, from its very first letter to CDCR on this matter (dated January 7, 2014), that elementary safeguards be made available for it in the present case and CDCR has constantly and illegitimately denied them, on the basis of a deplorable misinterpretation of the relevant case law on the matter. MIM Distributors, therefore, insists once again to encourage the Pelican Ban State Prison mailroom staff to not only follow its own DOM, but also to adhere to all relevant case law on the matter.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
CC: Affected parties
Prison Law Office
Mrs. Sara Norman
General Delivery
San Quentin, CA 94964
T.E. Puget, Correctional Administrator (A)
Security Housing Unit
Pelican Bay State Prison
5905 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95532
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Office of the Ombudsman
1515 S Street, Room 311 South
Sacramento, CA 95811
DOM Section 54010.4, Definitions of Classes of Mail First Class Mail
The United States Postal Services (USPS) regulations define First Class Mail as all matter wholly or partly in writing or typewriting, all actual and personal correspondence, all bills and statements of account, and all matter sealed or otherwise closed against inspection. The maximum weight for a First Class letter is 13 ounces.
All First Class Mail shall be delivered to the inmates as soon as possible, but not later than seven (7) calendar days from receipt of the mail from the Post Office.
Also 54010.4 and 54010.6
All appropriately addressed mail shall either be delivered to the inmate, or forwarded per the CCR Subsection 3133(f) and DOM Section 54010.25.
DOM Section 54010.21, Publications
Inmates may subscribe to, purchase, or have the items listed below purchased for them by a third party: Newspapers. Periodicals. Magazines. Books.
If subscriptions or books are purchased for the inmate by a third party (or donated to an inmate) they must be mailed directly from a book store or publisher. If subscriptions or books are purchased for the inmate by a third party (or donated to an inmate) they must be mailed directly from a book store, book distributor, a publisher, or a religious organization. Personal correspondents cannot mail books, periodicals, or publications directly to inmates and state that they are a donation.
There shall be no Approved Vendor Lists‖ for any publication. The CDCR shall distribute a centralized list of disapproved publications that are prohibited as contraband. Publications that are enumerated on this centralized list are not allowed in any institutions. Local institutions may not add items to the centralized list.
DOM Section 54010.28, Appeals Relating to Mail and Correspondence Inmates, their correspondents, and publishers may appeal Department regulations, and their application relating to mail and correspondence. Inmates shall use established appeal procedures as provided in CCR, Section 3084, etc. seq. Persons other than inmates should address any appeal relating to Department policy or regulations to the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Appeals relating to a specific institution/facility procedure and/or practice shall be addressed in writing to the Warden or Associate Director of the institution/facility where the appeal issue arises. A written response shall be provided within 15 business days. Appeals that are not satisfactorily resolved at this level may be forwarded in writing to the Secretary who shall provide a written response within 20 business days.
Prisoner received magazine after much fighting
Show Text
I write in solidarity with those involved with the censor campaign. Power to those who down to struggle, and up to win. Today while on the kennel cage rec yard I was approached by a California State Prison Corcoran (CSPC) employee representing a flawed mail room, carrying an envelope addressed to the young cadre sent from MIM Distributors containing MIM Theory 7 in one hand and a CDCR 602 appeal in the other.
After months of going back and forth between the Appeal Coordinator and the mail room, utilizing a combination of the institutional informal correspondence system and the appeals procedures, CSPC finally figured out that I was building a paper trail capable of exposing their mail censorship practices against those they deem paper-terrorists.
The staff gave me the MT 7 journal, after previously saying that the journal was a violation against California Correctional Regulations for supposedly inciting riots and so on. They instructed me to either withdraw the complaint or settle it if I wanted the MT 7. Of course I settles it to preserve the right of the appeal for the breach of settlement agreement. Because of their COINTEL B.$. they've delayed my study group participation, and I've got a lot to do to catch up. But with hard work comes hard results.
Comrades should note that this incident of CSPC issuing me MIM Theory 7: Revolutionary Nationalism is proof that not only are they profiling MIM Distributors with bogus censorships claiming safety and security, but also their claims hold no weight in the people's court.
MIM Distributors to Warden re: no notification given
Show Text
Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531
January 13th, 2012
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letters and publications sent to prisoners MR. YYY and Mr. XXX by MIM Distributors.
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a series of censorship incidents that recently occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner several different publications and letters.
Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. YYY four letters on 10/12/2011, 10/6/2011, 9/8/2011 and 7/21/2011 and two magazines titled MIM Theory on 5/15/2011. MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX issue no. 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key on 11/18/2011.
We recently learned from the prisoners that they never received any of those letters and/or publications. Nor did they receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the letters and publications were censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.
Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.
As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.
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 and letters sent to Mr. YYY and Mr. XXX.
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.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Plans to disrupt the order, or breach the security of any facility
10/10/2011
Prisoner appeals and wins
Show Text
My 602 appeal was predicated upon the 2009 Prison Legal News legal settlement, and a Pelican Bay Memorandum that is dated October 21, 2008 which reversed/lifted the ban on MIM publications.
MIM Distributors appeals to Warden: Why no notification?
Show Text
Robert H. Trimble, Warden (A)
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210
23 June 2011
Dear Warden Trimble,
This letter is concerning continued censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX, who is a prisoner held at Pleasant Valley State Prison. The items in question are at least: (1) a parcel of mail sent Priority Mail via the United States Postal Service which was returned with "Unclaimed, Refused" stamped on the outside, and was unopened; (2) a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 20 (May/June 2011), which was returned with "RTS" written on the envelope. I have enclosed a copy of this newsletter for your reference.
Neither MIM Distributors nor Mr. XXX were not notified of the reason for rejection of Under Lock & Key 20 or the Priority Mail envelope. However, according to CDCR's Department Operations Manual 2001,
"The CDCR Form 1819, Notification of Disapproval-Mail/Packages/Publications, shall be utilized by each institution/facility when incoming or outgoing mail/packages/publications addressed to or being sent by an inmate are withheld or disallowed. Additionally, in accordance with CCR, Subsection 3134(i), the CDCR Form 1819 informs the inmate of the reason, disposition, name of official disallowing the mail/package/publication, and the name of the official to whom an appeal can be directed. When inmate mail is disapproved based on the criteria established in CCR Section 3006 and 3135, DOM Subsection 54010.8.1, or DOM Section 54010.13 and 54010.14, a copy of the CDCR Form 1819 and the supporting document(s) (e.g., a photocopy of representative pages) shall be retained by each institution/facility for a minimum of seven years for litigation purposes."
Clearly you must still have the documentation supporting the censorship of this mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX. Both MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX would be very interested to know why these publications were disallowed, and additionally why neither party were sent 1819 forms in the first place.
We look forward to your timely response concerning the overturn of this incorrect denial.
Robert H. Trimble, Warden (A)
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210
January 13, 2012
RE: June 30, 2011 letter from Correction Captain K.R. Nash regarding censorship of materials from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX.
Dear Warden Trimble,
On June 30, 2011 a letter from Correction Captain K.R. Nash was sent to MIM Distributors regarding censorship of materials. The items in question are at least: (1) a parcel of mail sent Priority Mail via the United States Postal Service which was returned with "Unclaimed, Refused" stamped on the outside, and was unopened; (2) a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 20 (May/June 2011), which was returned with "RTS" written on the envelope.
The reasoning Captain Nash gave for this censorship was a memorandum from Scott Kernan dated December 31 [sic], 2006, enacting a ban on mail from MIM Distributors. Such a determination is evidently illegitimate and unconstitutional for several reasons; MIM Distributors intends to appeal the censorship determination requesting it be reversed and the publication be distributed to the above mentioned prisoners.
The main reason why the censorship determination is illegitimate resides in the fact that it recalls a ban that in fact no longer exists.
Following the settlement agreement reached in Prison Legal News v. CDCR, your own Department Operations Manual was reviewed and corrected and it states now, at section 54010.21, that ?There shall be no 'Approved Vendor Lists' for any publication. The CDCR shall distribute a centralized list of disapproved publications that are prohibited as contraband. Publications that are enumerated on this centralized list are not allowed in any institutions. Local institutions may not add items to the centralized list.?
Consequently, on October 21, 2009, a memorandum was released to all Associate Directors, Wardens, Mail Room Supervisors, and Correctional Captains/Facility Captains, from Suzan L. Hubbard, Director of the Division of Adult Institutions. The memorandum states in part, ?A publication that does not appear on the centralized list must be reviewed for approval or denial on a case-by-case basis under CCR Sections 3006, 3134, 3134.1, and 3135. If a specific issue of an unlisted publication is denied because of a Title 15 violation, staff must issue a CDCR Form 1819, Notification of Disapproval-Mail/Packages/Publications (Rev-6/98) to each inmate who was an intended recipient of the publication. In addition, staff must complete and send a notification to the publisher, as described in section 3124.1(d).?
In 2008, MIM was not on the centralized list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, for your determination makes no reference at all to it. Nor does the censorship determination states that a specific review of the particular publication has been conducted by your staff.
It is also important to highlight that your Department 2006 ban was in any case already unconstitutional, for the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear since 1989 that "Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately." Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989).
Another element to be considered here, is that appeals submitted in the past against similar censorship determinations have been resolved favorably to MIM Distributors. As late as July 12, 2011, Appeals Examiner K. J. Allen, an employee who investigates Director's Level Appeals, stated in an appeal decision to a prisoner, that ?while Maoist International Movement publications were previously disallowed based upon the direction of CDCR administration staff, the publications are currently not listed on the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications. Thus, a blanket denial on all such publications is inappropriate, and the institution must process the appellant's mail in accordance with applicable departmental rules/regulations. As with all publications, the appellant's mailing must be reviewed and evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with all departmental regulations. Unless this specific Maoist International Movement publication is considered contraband, as noted within the CCR 3006, the publication shall be issued to the appellant and/or allowed to be ordered and received.? (see IAB Case No. 1020001.)
MIM Distributors therefore appeals the above mentioned censorship determination and once again requests that the decision be reversed for all the reasons stated above. MIM Distributors also requests that the publication be delivered to the mentioned prisoners as soon as possible.
We?d also appreciate if you took any necessary, appropriate and advisable measure (such as internal investigations, proper employees? training and similar) to stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis.
Finally, allow us to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at Pleasant Valley State Prison, 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, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
MIM Distributors says you still have illegal practices, and evaded all our points raised on 1/16
Show Text
Associate Warden R Fisher Jr.
Pleasant Valley state Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210-8500
May 4, 2012
RE: Your letter dated February 16, 2012
Dear Associate Warden Fisher,
This is in response to your letter dated February 16, 2012. Your letter from February 16 is in response to ours dated January 13, 2012. Our January 13 letter was written regarding a censorship determination that excluded materials sent from MIM Distributors to prisoner XXX, a prisoner held at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP).
While we appreciate that you are not also attempting to uphold Captain Nash's use the defunct 2006 Kernan memo to ban MIM literature, we still take issue with multiple points raised in, or omitted from, your February 16 letter:
1. Correctional Captains are still citing a defunct 2006 memo as grounds for censorship of our literature.
2. Mail is being returned to us simply with "RTS" or "refused" stamped on the envelope, without including proper documentation of notification as outlined in your DOM.
3. MIM Distributors sent much mail into PVSP since Under Lock & Key No. 20 May/June 2011.
First, your February 16 letter states "In your letter, you did not specify if Captain Nash banned your publication or simply disallowed the May/June 2011 issue to be distributed." Yet in our January 13 letter, we listed two items which were returned to MIM Distributors, and then stated "The reasoning Captain Nash gave for this censorship was a memorandum from Scott Kernan dated December 31 [sic], 2006, enacting a ban on mail from MIM Distributors." MIM Distributors clearly contended that on June 30, 2011, Captain Nash illegitimately cited a 2006 ban on all MIM publications, in order to support the negative determination to exclude literature/publications by MIM Distributors.
Furthermore, as the Associate Warden of PVSP, you have plain access to the above mentioned letters, as well as to the censorship determination it refers to, and therefore you are responsible to read these documents, interpret them if necessary, and address the concerns we raised in relation to them. Instead, with the considerations contained in your letter you simply eluded the issues we brought to your attention, leaving us with no clear response.
Therefore, we have to recall here that the censorship determination is evidently illegitimate and unconstitutional for several reasons, all stated in the previous letter we sent you regarding this matter. As Associate Warden, Correctional Captains' actions are made under your umbrella of responsibility. If they are carrying out unconstitutional acts in your facility, you must remedy this problem, and can held liable. We clearly stated in our January 13 letter that this was happening, and you need to fix this problem.
Second, as we stated in our January 13 letter, according to CDCR's own policies and procedures, you must send notification to a sender of why their mail is being denied delivery to its intended recipients, and offer them a chance to appeal this decision. When mails is returned stamped "RTS" or "refused," this is not a reason for denial of delivery, and it is not an offer to appeal.
Lastly, we also have to contend your statement in your February 16 letter that "PVSP mailroom has not received any publications from MIM since May/June 2011." Our records indicate that between June 2011 and February 2012, MIM Distributors has sent in no less than 100 articles of mail to prisoners at Pleasant Valley State Prison, most of which was publications. Some of that mail has even been confirmed as received by prisoners. It is strange that you would make such an assertion when it is so far from reality.
Therefore, with this letter, MIM Distributors request:
1. that a thorough investigation be conducted into the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at PVSP, in general, and since June 2011 specifically;
2. that all personnel at PVSP be trained in agreement with the Associate Warden's determination that MIM Distributors is not a banned or restricted publisher;
3. and that all future mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners at PVSP be handled properly by PVSP mailroom staff in accordance with DOM sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
Robert H. Trimble, Warden (A)
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210
CDCR, Office of the Ombudsman
1515 S Street, Room 124 South
Sacramento, CA 95811
prisoner filed 602 grievance saying that organization no longer exists Download Documentation
03/24/2011
First Level Appeal upheld claiming no evidence ban was overturned Download Documentation
03/29/2011
Level 2 appeal by prisoner
Show Text
Explains that blanket ban is illegal and that cited memo was overturned years ago as we have been over with them dozens of times. (see 602 document above)
04/18/2011
Letter to MIM(Prisons) regarding reasons for censorship (cites old ban) Download Documentation
04/22/2011
Warden claims to have researched ban and found it was never overturned! Download Documentation
04/26/2011
Prisoner files 3rd level appeal explaining that concerns have not been addressed
07/12/2011
Director Level acknowledges ban overturned and decides in favor of prisoner Download Documentation
S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004
24 June 2011
Dear Warden Salinas,
Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.
According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, 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 (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 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. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.
Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, 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, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004
24 June 2011
Dear Warden Salinas,
Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.
According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, 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 (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 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. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.
Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, 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, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004
24 June 2011
Dear Warden Salinas,
Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.
According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, 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 (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 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. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.
Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, 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, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004
24 June 2011
Dear Warden Salinas,
Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.
According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, 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 (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 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. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.
Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, 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, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
S. XXXXXX Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004
24 June 2011
Dear Warden Salinas,
Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.
According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, 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 (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 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. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.
Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, 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, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004
24 June 2011
Dear Warden Salinas,
Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.
According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, 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 (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 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. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.
Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, 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, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
08/05/2011
Correctional Lieutenant says prisoners not at DVI when publication sent (does not address "ban") Download Documentation
Prisoner "accidentally" put on "Out to Court" list
Show Text
I just wrote you to notify you of my appeals submission. Well I was seen today in regards to my appeal by a facility Sgt. He advised me that there is no censorship on the material nor was it sent back for being disallowed. The reason neither party received a "1819 Disapproval of Mail Notice" was because they had me listed as "out to court" which was the writing on the envelope, "RTS - OC." He said mailroom made an error and he notified mailroom that said magazines are to be allowed if sent back and to take me off "out to court" for supposedly they had me mixed up with another inmate.
02/22/2011
"Magazines were returned to sender in error"
Show Text
see documentation for "Prisoner appeals censorship" on 2/13/2011
Prisoner "accidentally" put on "Out to Court" list
Show Text
I just wrote you to notify you of my appeals submission. Well I was seen today in regards to my appeal by a facility Sgt. He advised me that there is no censorship on the material nor was it sent back for being disallowed. The reason neither party received a "1819 Disapproval of Mail Notice" was because they had me listed as "out to court" which was the writing on the envelope, "RTS - OC." He said mailroom made an error and he notified mailroom that said magazines are to be allowed if sent back and to take me off "out to court" for supposedly they had me mixed up with another inmate.
02/22/2011
"Magazines were returned to sender in error"
Show Text
see documentation for "Prisoner appeals censorship" on 2/13/2011
ULK 16 was censored to many prisoners at SVSP
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
7 December 2010
Dear Warden Hedgpeth,
On 21 August 2010 I wrote to you regarding the ongoing censorship of mail from MIM(Prisons) to prisoners held at Salinas Valley State Prison. In response to this 21 August letter, you wrote to me on 9 September 2010 and claimed that "on September 9, 2010, Correctional Lieutenant P. Sullivan spoke with Mailroom Assistant Lisa Matsuno regarding the MIM Distributors. Ms. Matsuno informed Lieutenant Sullivan that Mailroom Staff received On the Job Training to allow MIM Publications into the institution. Ms. Matsuna stated that MIM Distributors publications are being allowed into the institution without delay and no mail from this distribution has been returned."
Ms. Matsuno is correct to say that no mail has been returned to MIM Distributors from mailroom staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, but it is a lie that mail from MIM Distributors has been allowed into SVSP without delay or censorship. In the months prior to my 21 August letter, all the way through September all forms of mail (letters and newsletters) from MIM Distributors have disappeared without a trace in the SVSP mailroom.
On 25 September MIM Distributors mailed the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September/October 2010) to several prisoners held at SVSP. Recently we received confirmation from these prisoners that the have not received this newsletter, and were not informed by mailroom staff that it was being delayed, returned, or censored. It was also not returned to MIM Distributors.
It is clear that Ms. Matsuno was incorrect to say that there are no problems with mail coming from MIM Distributors. This letter is to document the continued lies and illegal behavior of you and your staff. We recently sent in Under Lock & Key issue 17 (November/December 2010) to several prisoners held at SVSP. We look forward to investigating how this newsletter is handled.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
12/16/2010
Mailroom Supervisor claims hasn't seen mail from MIM(Prisons) since Sept. or Oct. 2010 Download Documentation
MIM(Prisons) reminds warden ban is illegal
Show Text
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
08/21/2010
Letter to Director of Corrections
Show Text
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.
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
06/22/2010
Warden using outdated ban to censor MIM Distributors mail
08/21/2010
MIM(Prisons) advises Director of Corrections his staff is upholding an outdated ban
Show Text
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.
Prisoner appeals censorship on formal level
Show Text
See documentation for "Prisoner appeals censorship" above
04/03/2010
Ban is illegal
Show Text
Carl Ross, Mailroom Supervisor
Folsom State Prison
P.O. Box 910
Folsom, CA 95763
4 April 2010
Dear Supervisor Ross,
On 19 March 2010 you sent a letter to MIM Distributors saying that "MIM Publications will not be delivered to inmate XXX housed at Folsom State Prison." This implies that all mail to Mr. XXX will be censored in a complete ban of MIM.
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 2009 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 Folsom State Prison, 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. Also, for your reference:
"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385
"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
MIM(Prisons) to Warden: Staff is no longer temporary, why is your mailroom still banning MIM?
Show Text
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.
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
2 April 2010
Dear Warden Adams,
On 24 February 2010 mailroom staff V. Oyerviolez wrongly censored a magazine from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXX held at CSATF. This letter is to appeal that decision, and to allow the magazine to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX.
The reason that V. Oyerviolez gave for this censorship this censorship was CCR Title 15, Section 3006 (c) (11) "Catalogs, advertisements, brochures and materials whose primary purpose is to sell product(s)" shall be disapproved for delivery. The item in question is actually a magazine, not a catalog, titled MIM Theory 14: United Front. Admittedly, the inside of the back cover of the magazine has advertisements for other issues of MIM Theory. However, it is obvious that V. Oyerviolez did not do a thorough or accurate investigation of the true nature of this magazine, because MIM Theory 14: United Front is NOT a catalog, but instead 170 pages of pure plain text. Even the front cover identifies the publication as a "theoretical journal" which implies wordiness, not sales.
Upon review, this magazine will be determined to not be a catalog, and should be permitted for timely delivery to Mr. XXX. It is ridiculous and illegal that the impotency of your mailroom staff at CSATF should lead to such hassle and delay. We ask that you reprimand V. Overviolez for their intentional disregard of their responsibility to their job, and retrain your staff on how to tell the difference between a document that is made up of articles and a document that is made up of advertisements.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Appeal to warden about ongoing censorship.
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
8 March 2010
Warden Hedgpeth,
On April 28, 2009 and July 6, 2009 you acknowledged that publications from MIM Distributors were not banned in California prisons, after months of mail be returned to sender from your facility. However, we continue to receive our mail returned to us stamped "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item" or "Not on approved mailing list at SVSP." This week alone we received 10 letters returned as described above.
This problem has been ongoing consistently since 2007, with no signs that your mailroom staff is following the department?s rules, nor legal precedent. You have assured us on more than one occasion that your staff has been retrained to not ban mail from MIM Distributors, but this is obviously not the reality.
I am requesting that immediate action be taken to remedy this problem.
Brian Haws, Warden
44750 60th Street West
Lacaster, CA 93536-7620
24 February 2010
Dear Warden Haws,
This letter is regarding the censorship of a letter from MIM Distributors, San Francisco, California to Mr. XXX, who is a prisoner at California State Prison - Los Angeles County. Ironically, the content of the letter in question was a step-by-step guide to fighting censorship of mail, beginning with Step 1: File Grievances.
The letter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item" stamped on the envelope, but no further explanation as to why or what was unauthorized/unacceptable about the item. It is completely ridiculous and illegal that a letter that encourages prisoners to use legal means of fighting censorship should be disallowed as an "unauthorized/unacceptable item."
Therefore, this letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to block the receipt of a letter that helps prisoners fight censorship by those held at CSP-LA County.
We request (1) an independent review the decision made by CSP-LA County mailroom staff to mark this letter as "unauthorized/unacceptable." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this item was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) mail be deliverable from MIM Distributors to all prisoners who choose to communicate with them AT CSP-LA County.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Aref Fakhoury, Warden
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91708
21 February 2010
Dear Warden Fakhoury,
This letter is regarding the censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 12 (Jan/Feb 2010) from MIM Distributors to XXX at California Institution for Men. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with a stamp that said "against regulations."
This letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key issue 12 is "against regulations." The newsletter was received by many prisoners across the state of California, and the country. Apparently it was not "against regulations" at those hundreds of other facilities.
We request (1) an independent review the decision made by California Institution for Men mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as "against regulations." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 12 be deliverable to XXX, and any other prisoner at CIM who wishes to correspond with MIM Distributors.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
04/02/2010
Letter to warden explaining ban is outdated
Show Text
Warden Aref Fakhoury
California Institution for Men
P.O. Box 128
Chino, CA 91710
2 April 2010
Dear Warden Fakhoury,
Thank you for your timely response to my inquiry regarding the censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to QQQ at CIM. In your response you referred to an August 25, 2007 ban on all MIM mail.
Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in January 2010, Under Lock & Key is still being banned based on the outdated memo you referred to?
Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with QQQ and other who wish to communicate with MIM Distributors held at CIM.
We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.
Robert Presley Detention Center
Captain Dave Nordstrom
4000 Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501
October 13, 2009
Captain Nordstrom:
This letter is in reference to the censorship of all mail from MIM Distributors to prisoner XXXX, who is held at your facility. This complete censorship started in August 2009 and continues into the present. The mail in question is an informational letter about the organization MIM(Prisons), a pamphlet titled What is MIM?, a study course for the pamphlet What is MIM?, and issue 10 of MIM(Prisons)' newsletter titled Under Lock & Key.
The reason given for most of these returns has been simply "contents not allowed." What about the contents is not allowed? Most recently a piece of mail was returned with "no staples" written on the envelope. As you may know, a limit on a prisoner's constitutional right to freedom of association must be related to a valid threat. I doubt that RPDC's ban on staples would satisfy the U.S. court's requirements as listed below:
"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385
"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957
We request from you: (1) a list of mail rules for Robert Presley Detention Center, (2) an independent review of these errors made by your mailroom staff, and (3) for the illegitimate ban on correspondence between MIM(Prisons) and Mr. XXXX to cease. We appreciate your consideration and cooperation.
Acting Captain Mr. Chenshaw, Mailroom
Avenal State Prison
PO Box 9
Avenal, CA 93204-0009
September 24, 2009
Mr. Chenshaw,
This letter is being sent in regards to the denial of MIM Distributors' publication Under Lock & Key issue 9 (July 2009) from prisoners Mr. XXX and Mr. XXX. Interestingly enough, Mr. XXX has been appealing this censorship, and he was referred to a defunct CDCR memorandum from December 13, 2006.
As you may know, following Prison Legal News v. CDCR, this previously mentioned memorandum was overturned and your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. The newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year, and we have not seen or heard of any updated lists since the original.
Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with people being held in Avenal State Prison.
Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000
22 August 2009
Mr. Jacquez,
Over the last year I have written a number of letters to yourself and Mr K. Brandon, Correctional Captain regarding the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Pelican Bay SP. I currently have a stack of mail on my desk, of various contents, all unopened and returned from PBSP stating ?Contents unacceptable at Pelican Bay.? I will not rewrite the points I have already made in my previous letters. However, I am writing to document the situation and once again request that you get your staff to respect the legal rights of MIM Distributors to communicate with prisoners at PBSP.
I welcome any correspondence you may have if you are interested in addressing this issue.
MAILROOM SUPERVISOR
MDC LOS ANGELES
METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER
535 N ALAMEDA STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
22 August 2009
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing to request an explanation for why mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX is being returned to sender. This has been ongoing for many months now with no explanation.
Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000
22 August 2009
Mr. Jacquez,
Over the last year I have written a number of letters to yourself and Mr K. Brandon, Correctional Captain regarding the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Pelican Bay SP. I currently have a stack of mail on my desk, of various contents, all unopened and returned from PBSP stating ?Contents unacceptable at Pelican Bay.? I will not rewrite the points I have already made in my previous letters. However, I am writing to document the situation and once again request that you get your staff to respect the legal rights of MIM Distributors to communicate with prisoners at PBSP.
I welcome any correspondence you may have if you are interested in addressing this issue.
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
29 June 2009
Mr. Hedgpeth,
I appreciated your response from April 28, 2009 and was pleased that you acknowledged that publications from MIM Distributors were not banned in California prisons, after months of mail be returned to sender from your facility. We have yet to receive confirmation as to whether your statements in that letter prove to be true in practice.
However, we have received one letter returned with the usual stamp used by SVSP staff saying that MIM Distributors is not on the addressee?s ?approved mailing list.? Since you acknowledge that none of the publications distributed by MIM Distributors are on the banned publication list, what ?list? is being referred to here. Furthermore, the mail in question was not a publication, but material addressed to a particular person at SVSP. This person, Mr XXXXXX XXXXXX, seems to have had particular restrictions applied to his mail. Is it now policy for the CDCR to return unopened mail, rather than applying the California Codes to judge whether such mail is a threat to security?
Sir, this problem has been ongoing for many months, with no signs that you are following the department?s rules, nor legal precedent. I am requesting that immediate action be taken to remedy this problem.
Thank you again for your time in this important matter,
MIM appeal - why still treating MIM as banned?
Show Text
Warden Mike McDonald
High Desert State Prison
P.O. Box 750
Susanville, CA 96127-0750
24 July 2009
Mr. McDonald,
This letter is to request an explanation of the handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at High Desert State Prison.
According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?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.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
In late November 2008, a month after this list was released, the mailroom at High Desert returned a couple of dozen unopened pieces of mail containing issue # 5 of Under Lock & Key, mailed by MIM Distributors. Since then, MIM Distributors has sent hundreds of pieces of mail to prisoners at High desert and only 3 have been confirmed received. A number of prisoners have confirmed that Under Lock & Key has not been delivered to them in that time and they have not been notified of any censorship. MIM Distributors has not received notification of this censorship either.
It is a violation of rules set forth in the CCR as well as federal case law to not notify senders/receivers when you censor their mail. It is also a violation of the CCR and case law to censor mail if it does not threaten the prison in some way. Thirdly, I am questioning the legality of the mailrooms apparent destruction of this mail without notification to either the sender or receiver.
In light of these incidents I am requesting an explanation of what is being done with mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners at High Desert, and what the justification is for such actions.
Response from appeal cites 2006 Scott Kernan ban memo
06/22/2009
MIM sent letter to warden Derral Adams
Show Text
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
23 June 2009
Mr. Adams,
In April I wrote you to request that the mail room at CSATF abide by the current mail policies of the CDCR, particularly as ordered in the court settlement with Prison Legal News that was approved over 2 years ago. Following that settlement, the illegal ban on MIM Distributor?s mail in California was rescinded.
In response to my April letter, C. Pugliese, Mailroom Sergeant acknowledged that the ban was overturned and that mail from MIM Distributors must be reviewed according to the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Yet, the mail in question was neither deemed to violate the CCR, nor was it forwarded to its intended recipient to our knowledge.
In addition, we have continued to receive notifications from people held at CSATF that their mail is being censored ?per memorandum from Division of Adult Institutions, ban of Maoist International Movement Publications.?
As of last month, CSATF is the only facility in California that is still treating the 2005 memo as current policy that we have documented. Can you please advise me as to why the mailroom staff are not following the rules that the mailroom sergeant acknowledges that it should be following?
adjusted Notification of Disapproval for "revolutionary ideologies" Download Documentation
05/29/2009
Appeal to Correctional Captain
Show Text
K. Brandon, Correctional Captain
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000
29 May 2009
Dear K. Brandon,
In late April you sent a memo signed by you on 4/21/2009 stating that 3 letters from MIM Distributors had been censored due to the statewide ban. Subsequently, a 5/4/2009 letter from you acknowledges that said ban was overturned 6 months prior. Finally, we received a new ?Stopped Mail Notification?, presumably for the same 3 pieces of mail stating that they were ?contraband? and a ?threat to penalogical interests.? The explanation reads ?CONTENT INCITES REVOLUTIONARY IDEOLOGIES.?
The three pieces of mail sent to the prisoner during the period in question were an introductory letter to MIM(Prisons) work with prisoners, issue 7 of the newsletter Under Lock & Key and a copy of the letter sent to the warden on 4/6/2009 by our office explaining that you were operating on an outdated department memo. So you are saying that a letter to the warden about CDCR policies is a threat to penalogical interests? The main point made in issue 7 of Under Lock & Key is that it is against the interests of prisoners to encourage violent confrontations with others when facing frustrations (the intro letter echoes this belief). ULK 7 also argues that the prevention of legal rights and avenues for redress of complaints to prisoners is a strategy to promote violence in prisons. Are these expressed ideas in ULK 7 a threat to the interests of the CDCR as you see them?
Finally, your justification for the censorship given on the notification dated on 4/15/2009, but mailed 5/13/2009 after acknowledging MIM Distributors is not banned by CDCR, assumes a role for the IGI that is threatening to Constitutional rights. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 416 n.14 is clear that political ideology cannot be used to verify a written document as a ?threat to penalogical interests.?
If you cannot cite a specific action in each of the three pieces of mail in question that poses a threat then your actions are not based in U.S. law.
If, on the other hand, you see the promotion of non-violent behavior in prisons and legal action on behalf of prisoners? rights as a threat to penalogical interests, then we will take our concerns elsewhere. Either way, we will appreciate your response so that we can address our concerns through the appropriate avenues.
MIM letter to Warden explaining ban overturned last year
Show Text
Warden Fernando Gonzalez
California Correctional Institution
PO Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581
22 June 2009
Mr. Gonzalez,
This letter is to request a review of the decision by a staff member at California Correctional Institution to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX.
According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?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.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
When Mr. XXXXXX appealed the decision to censor MIM mail, the decision was denied citing a memo from Scott Kernan from 2006, which has been superseded by the list cited above. Therefore, I am requesting that the Under Lock & Key newsletter and subsequent mail from MIM Distributors be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX and any other prisoners being held at CCI. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal.
Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000
6 April 2009
Mr. Jacquez,
This letter is to request a review of the decision by staff member K. Brandon to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXXXX (XXXXXX).
Brandon incorrectly cites a memo from 2006 to justify rejecting any mail coming from MIM Distributors. According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?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.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
I am requesting that the mail in question be released by ISU and given to Mr. XXXXXXX and that the October 18, 2008 memo be distributed to staff as required by said memo and the lawsuit that preceded it. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal that complies with current rules and laws.
A. Describe Problem: On 2-8-09 I received a "Notification of Disapproval" of a publication from the anti-imperialist group MIM. This is a violation of my 1st Amendment right to know this political information and the 1st Amendment rights of MIM to voice their political views. The CDC 1819 claimed there was a memo attached supporting the institutions case. It's not there! CCR Title 15 3006(c)-(1) is no excuse to violate our rights. All you did is make me more interested in their work.
B. Action Requested: The memo mentioned to be attached to my complaint. Don't worry about the knowledge that I have. I get whether you censor it or not. Avoid extensive litigation and give me my publication titled "Under Lock & Key" that has been censored!
Appeal to Warden explaining ban was overturned
Show Text
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
6 April 2009
Mr. Adams,
This letter is to request a review of the decision by staff member M. Seminario to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX.
According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?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.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
I do not have a copy of the memo that was attached to the enclosed notification of disapproval, but I assume it is the letter from Scott Kernan from 2005, which has been superseded by the list cited above. Therefore, I am requesting that the Under Lock & Key and subsequent mail from MIM Distributors be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX and any other prisoners being held at CSATF. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal.
Thank you for your time,
04/29/2009
Mailroom Sargeant acknowledges ban was overturned, but still banning MIM? Download Documentation
06/22/2009
Second appeal to Warden - why aren't they following rules?
Show Text
Warden Derral Adams
CSATF
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
23 June 2009
Mr. Adams,
In April I wrote you to request that the mail room at CSATF abide by the current mail policies of the CDCR, particularly as ordered in the court settlement with Prison Legal News that was approved over 2 years ago. Following that settlement, the illegal ban on MIM Distributor?s mail in California was rescinded.
In response to my April letter, C. Pugliese, Mailroom Sergeant acknowledged that the ban was overturned and that mail from MIM Distributors must be reviewed according to the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Yet, the mail in question was neither deemed to violate the CCR, nor was it forwarded to its intended recipient (XXXXXX XXXXXX) to our knowledge.
In addition, we have continued to receive notifications from people held at CSATF that their mail is being censored ?per memorandum from Division of Adult Institutions, ban of Maoist International Movement Publications.?
As of last month, CSATF is the only facility in California that is still treating the 2005 memo as current policy that we have documented. Can you please advise me as to why the mailroom staff are not following the rules that the mailroom sergeant acknowledges that it should be following?
Appeal to Warden explaining new ban list
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
28 February 2009
Mr. Hedgpeth,
This letter is regarding a stack of recently returned mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to people being held at SVSP. As you are probably aware, the handling of MIM?s mail by the CDCR has been an ongoing concern. MIM?s mail has been consistently returned by SVSP mailroom staff, usually unopened, for well over a year now.
Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in February 2009, Under Lock & Key is still being returned with the reason ?Not on approved mailing list at SVSP, SOLEDAD, CA?? Is there another list that MIM Distributors must be on in order to get mail to people held at SVSP, in addition to not being on the centralized list of disapproved publications?
Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with people being held in SVSP.
Reply citing Oct. 2008 Disapproved List, ccing Attorney General/Legal Affairs
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
6 April 2009
Mr. Hedgpeth,
In your letter from March 20, 2009 you state that Scott Kernan had imposed a ban on MIM publications at CDCR. I am aware of the 2005 document proclaiming such a ban, but the Office of Legal Affairs appears to be giving you a different story than they are giving the U.S. District Court regarding the continued applicability of this ban.
According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, that I cited in my previous letter, ?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 to explain in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.
I also find it surprising that you are not aware of the October 21, 2008 memo, which also reads, ?Wardens are to ensure that this memorandum and list are distributed appropriately. This includes ensuring that they are copied, distributed, and posted at locations accessible to inmates, parolees, and employees?? As a Warden it appears to be required that you not only be aware of this memo but that you make it available to all others within the facility you oversee.
The Deputy Attorney General representing Mr. Kernan has represented the above quoted memo as being the truth on the ground within CDCR facilities. If the CDCR Legal Affairs office is still upholding the ban as you claim then perhaps the miscommunication is at a higher level. I am cc?ing the Deputy Attorney General as well as the Legal Affairs office to request their responses to this matter.
The appeals coordinator is refusing to process it on the grounds that I didn't attempt to resolve it at the informal level with the concerned staff. He stated that per the warden I must first resolve this with the facility captain. Damn, I didn't know that the warden had the power to override the California Code of Regulations and dictate policy pell-mell!? According to CCR I must first resolve this with the mailroom.
Contents of the publication contains material that is reasonably deemed to be a threat to legitimate penalogical interest which violates CCR, Title 15, Section 3006 (C), 16 penological interest[Download Documentation]
Literature/publications from MIM per Title 15 and HDSP Mailroom Op #605 creates security and safety risks within the institution.[Download Documentation]
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c2813.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c1923.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c1955.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c1532.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c1533.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c1058.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c1039.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c972.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c228.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c224.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c217.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c219.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c233.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c218.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c205.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c195.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c194.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c190.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c189.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c193.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c181.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c182.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c225.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c176.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c155.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c152.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c154.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c157.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c156.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c149.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c150.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c151.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c160.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c117.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c137.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c138.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c98.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c82.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c85.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c80.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c83.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c84.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c81.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c79.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c78.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c67.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c66.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c45.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c40.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c38.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c34.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c37.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c35.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c33.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c36.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](/docs/c141.jpg){kind=link}
