Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Thank you for informing me that my subscription of ULK had been returned to sender. I wrote to the Mail Room Clerk here at Boyd and demanded to know not only why my mail was being censored but why was I not informed or given the chance to appeal the decision. The mail room wrote me back and told me that they send every issue of ULK for review to Huntsville and that Huntsville decides whether to send it back to me or to return it to MIM. However she claims this is not censorship, which I find both comical as well as insulting. I have filed a Step 1 grievance and written a letter directly to Huntsville as well and still await a response to both. In the meantime I am researching relevant case law in perparation. I will keep you informed of any changes.

Cynthia Tilley, Senior Warden
Boyd Unit
200 Spur 113
Teague, TX 75860-2007

March 22, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of pubilcation to Mr.xxx at Boyd Unit

Dear Warden Tilley,

On January 30, 2015 MIM Distributors mailed a publication Under Lock & Key No. 42 (January/February 2015) to the above named prisoner held at Boyd Unit. This newsletter was not returned to MIM Distributors, it was not received by Mr. xxx, and no notification was given to either party (the sender or the intended recipient) that this item was going to be intercepted from delivery to Mr. xxx. Neither MIM Distributors nor Mr. xxx were sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

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

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

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties