Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

October 5, 2024

ATTN: Robert Adams Jr., Warden
2520 Union Springs Road
P.O. Box 549
Whiteville, Tennessee 38075

Missing Mail

To Mr. Adams:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently sent a number of publications to one XXXXXX Joe XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at your facility which Mr. XXXXXX reported to us that he did not receive. The items in question are:

--Under Lock & Key Issue 85
--Under Lock & Key Issue 86

Seeing as we sent these items to your facility to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX, the only possible explanation as to why they were not delivered is because the staff in the mail room at your facility decided to withhold them for some reason. However, neither ourselves nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice about these materials being rejected. This is in direct conflict with TDOC policy 507.02 which states that “if the Warden/Superintendent determines that mail sent to an inmate could reasonably present a threat to the security, order, or programs of the institution, he/she notifies both the inmate recipient and sender of his/her intent to reject the mail
and return it to the sender.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that this policy of the TDOC is backed up by decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by TDOC policy 507.02 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.

We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

October 5, 2024

ATTN: Robert Adams Jr., Warden
2520 Union Springs Road
P.O. Box 549
Whiteville, Tennessee 38075

Missing Mail

To Mr. Adams:

We are MIM(Prisons), a publisher and distributor of literary materials for prisoners in the United States. We recently sent a number of publications to one XXXXXX Joe XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at your facility which Mr. XXXXXX reported to us that he did not receive. The items in question are:

--Under Lock & Key Issue 85
--Under Lock & Key Issue 86

Seeing as we sent these items to your facility to be delivered to Mr. XXXXXX, the only possible explanation as to why they were not delivered is because the staff in the mail room at your facility decided to withhold them for some reason. However, neither ourselves nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice about these materials being rejected. This is in direct conflict with TDOC policy 507.02 which states that “if the Warden/Superintendent determines that mail sent to an inmate could reasonably present a threat to the security, order, or programs of the institution, he/she notifies both the inmate recipient and sender of his/her intent to reject the mail
and return it to the sender.” As such, we find it completely unacceptable for our mail to not be delivered to a prisoner at your facility without any notice or communication from staff at your facility.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that this policy of the TDOC is backed up by decades of case law regarding this issue which established that such a lack of notice of censorship is a violation of our due process rights as publishers and distributors of literary materials. Please refer to Montcalm Publishing Corporation v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The institutional safeguards put in place by TDOC policy 507.02 are intended to uphold these findings of the courts and prevent such flippant abuses of power (or worse, gross neglect of duties) as seen here.

We request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failing to do this, we request that you send us adequate notice of the censorship as you are required to provide by law. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,