Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Michael Stainer, Warden (A)
California Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581

April 4, 2012

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at California Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to prisoner XXX from MIM Distributors



Dear Warden Stainer,

I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at California Correctional Institution (CCI). I wrote to you on March 15, 2012 regarding a similar issue -- the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 22 (September/October 2011) sent to Mr. XXX. I never received a response from you to my March 15, 2012 letter. I am writing this letter because, again, MIM Distributors did not receive notification for the censorship of several items intended for delivery to Mr. XXX.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner several different publications. Precisely we sent Mr. XXX:
1. Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011) sent via USPS Presorted Standard Mail on November 19, 2011
2. A large manila envelope containing Under Lock & Key No. 24 (January/February 2012) and MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy sent via USPS Presorted Standard Mail on January 30, 2012

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received any of the above listed publications. MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of censorship determination from CCI Mailroom staff. As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations, and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications.

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 refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner 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:
1. to know whether or not a determination has been made over the listed publications;
2. 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;
3. and for all future censorship determinations at CCI to be accompanied by procedurally and legally required notifications and appeal rights.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors



CC: Affected parties

CDCR, Office of the Ombudsman
1515 S Street, Room 124 South
Sacramento, CA 95811

Warden (A) Michael Stainer
California Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581

March 14, 2012

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at California Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Stainer,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that occurred at California Correctional Institution. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned multiple items which he never received.

Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX:
? Under Lock & Key issue 22 (September/ October 2011) sent via Presorted Standard Mail on 09/21/2011
? Under Lock & Key issue 23 (November/December 2011) sent via Presorted Standard Mail on 11/18/2011

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received these materials. Nor did he receive any notice or determination from your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors did not 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 prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Barnett.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner 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
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters;
2) 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.
3) We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


CC: Affected parties

Warden (A) Michael Stainer
California Correctional Institution
P. O. Box 1031
Tehachapi, CA 93581

March 15, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at California Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Stainer,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that occurred at California Correctional Institution. MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner the publication Under Lock & Key issue 22 (September/ October 2011) via Presorted Standard Mail on 09/21/2011. We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received these materials. Nor did he receive any notice or determination from your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors did not 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 prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. Barnett.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner 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
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters;
2) 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.
3) We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


CC: Affected parties