MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Chris Barela
Do?a Ana County Detention Center
1850 Copper Loop
Las Cruces, NM 88005
8 December 2008
Mr. Barela,
This is my second letter regarding mail from MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#0712331). The latest incident of censorship occurred on November 18, 2008 when once again, Ms. Mary Trujillo rejected mail with the only stated reason being ?copies? (see enclosed). This is despite the fact that the envelope was clearly marked ?Legal Mail? and contained documents related to the investigation of illegal mail tampering at Do?a Ana.
As previously stated, ?copies? is not a legitimate justification for censorship within a United States penal institution. This is my second official request that you have Ms. Trujillo follow the law of the land in this matter.
Prisoner wins partial Summary Judgment from United States Magistrate Judge
Show Text
From United States Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico:
I am unable to find a logical connection between Defendants' stated goal of "monitoring contraband" and either a policy of rejecting "Internet copies of web sites" or a broader policy of rejecting mail that contains "copies." Defendants' stated penological interest in rejecting "internet copies of web sites," doc. 79 at 4, is to "monitor contraband." Id. Web sites exist for every conceivable topic, only some which would be incompatible with penological interests. The connection between the valid policy of monitoring contraband and prohibiting all letters enclosing copies of web sites is, thus, "so remote as to render the regulation arbitrary or irrational." Jones, 503 F. 3d at 1153.
Moreover, a review of the Mail Rejection Notices demonstrates that the rejection category of "copies" includes more than just "internet copies of web sites," and, indeed, likely includes more than xerox copies. Several rejected items were sent from MIM Distributors, a political organization that publishes, prints, and mails newsletters to prisoners. See doc. 84 at 3, 34, 39, 44, 48-51; see also doc. 83 at Exh. C (MIM correspondent expressly denied that its rejected mail was a "copy.") Four letters that included materials for an Esperanto course were likewise refused on the basis of "copies." See doc. 84 at 19, 54, 55, 59. Two letters were rejected due to "Copies (money order receipt.)" Id. at 4. Also, a letter from Liberty University was rejected because of "Copy (verification form)," id. at 58, and a brochure from a university was rejected due to "Copy of College Program and staples." Id. at 56; see also doc. 110. It seems exceedingly unlikely that all of these "copies" were print-offs of web sites. Indeed, some seem unlikely even to have been xeroxed...
Not only would it be nearly impossible for staff to accurately distinguish all copies from truly original documents (people can make hand-written copies, after all), but it is not clear how material that has been duplicated interferes with "monitoring contraband" any more than material that has not.
Chris Barela
Do?a Ana County Detention Center
1850 Copper Loop
Las Cruces, NM 88005
10 November 2007
Mr. Barela,
This letter is in regards to repeated censorship of literature sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#YYYYYYY). On September 24, 2008 a copy of MIM?s newsletter Under Lock & Key Issue 4 was returned with the stated reason ?newsletter copies.? This was a newsletter that is published by MIM Distributors, and is printed and mailed in bulk. by them. In order to test the policy I printed out a copy of the newsletter myself and sent it and once again it was censored on October 21, 2008 stating ?Copies (newsletter) and staple).? (see enclosed) So both times it was censored for being a ?copy,? when it was not.
The list of mail guidelines sent with the rejection statement says ?Xerox copies? are not permitted. When I check your mail policies online it does not list this restriction, I assume because such a restriction would be contrary to the law. Regardless of whether the items sent in were ?copies? or not, you cannot censor mail unless it threatens legitimate penological interests as established by TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
In recognition of these facts, I am requesting that you ensure that mailroom staff will not censor MIM?s mail in the future.
