Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

I looked into the mail rules cited as the reason for rejectino, and there is nothing in the mail rules that says prisoners are not allowed to receive used magazines. Furthermore, these magazines were not used. They were not published within the last year, but they were in new condition. I don't see a policy in the mail rules anywhere that says prisoners can't have used magazines anyway.

I looked into the mail rules cited as the reason for rejectino, and there is nothing in the mail rules that says prisoners are not allowed to receive used magazines. Furthermore, these magazines were not used. They were not published within the last year, but they were in new condition. I don't see a policy in the mail rules anywhere that says prisoners can't have used magazines anyway.

see 2/17/2011 documentation

see documentation for 2/7/11

see documentation for 1/25/11

Richard Morgan, Director Prisons Division
Washington Dept. of Corrections
PO Box 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100

14 June 2009

Dear Richard Morgan,

This letter is to follow up on correspondence that a few people receiving literature from MIM Distributors have been having with yourself and local DOC representatives. In the last eight months staff in prisons including Stafford Creek Corrections Center and Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) have begun using DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2, to substantiate the censorship of literature sent by MIM, citing ?Publication over the one year limit.?

I do not know the history of this policy, but its sudden frequent use against MIM Distributors seems to ?render the regulation arbitrary or irrational? as defined in TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). MIM Distributors has distributed its MIM Theory magazines to people held by the Washington DOC for over 15 years. During that time, various staff have tried to label the materials as different forms of ?a threat to security?, but overall the department has allowed people under their control to receive these journals. Why are they suddenly deemed unacceptable on a rule that has no apparent relevance to legitimate penological interests?

When this first began happening I appealed this censorship to the Facility Superintendent of WSP, but never received a response. In addition to MIM Theory journals, portions of an essay published a hundred years ago have been censored under the ?1 year? policy in Washington State Penitentiary. Meanwhile, in January, a letter to a person being held in Stafford Creek regarding this issue was returned to us with no reason given. I provide these as examples of staff going beyond even the stated policy in DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2 to censor MIM Distributors and discourage our efforts to correct the situation concerning the handling of MIM Distributors? mail.

As I wrote to the Superintendent at WSP, perhaps there is a reason for this rule that I am not seeing and it is being applied unnecessarily in regard to MIM Distributors mail? Whatever the case, I am requesting a response explaining the application of DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2 to publications sent by MIM Distributors and how it is related to ?legitimate penological interests.?

Thank you for your time,

Sgt. Fleenor, Mail Room
Washington State Penitentiary
1313 N. 13th Ave
Walla Walla, WA 99362

3 November 2008

Sgt. Fleenor,

We recently obtained copies of two rejection notices for mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XYZ (#ABC). They were regarding a copy of MIM Theory 10 and two issues of our newsletter MIM Notes. The rejection notices gave the reason for censorship as ?Publication over the one year limit.? What is the ?one year limit?? We have distributed numerous copies of our theory journal and other literature to prisoners at WSP over the years that were published over a year prior to the mailing date and it was never a problem.

Curiously, the MIM Theory 10 rejection is dated 2 months after the literature was mailed. Isn?t there a time limit on how long you can hold our mail for review?

I fail to see how it is within the interests of the department to enforce a rule that prohibits reading materials that were not published in the year that they are sent. Can you please provide us with a citation of this rule? In addition, I am requesting a review of these two mail restriction notices, as I believe this to be an unreasonable and overly burdensome restriction on our mail.

Sincerely,

Facility Superintendent
Washington State Penitentiary
1313 N. 13th Ave
Walla Walla, WA 99362

14 December 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

This letter is in response to the enclosed memo from Sgt. Fleenor. In it, he cites the DOC Policy 450.100 VIII A, 2, to substantiate the censorship of MIM literature sent to Mr. XXXXXX. I have reviewed the policy and it certainly supports what Sgt. Fleenor has said. However, my question remains as to how this serves the legitimate penological interests of the department.

I do not know if this is a new rule or not, but as I stated in my previous letter MIM Distributors has been distributing literature it published in the early 1990s ever since the original publication date and it has never been a problem, nor do I see how it could be. Perhaps there is a reason for this rule that I am not seeing and it is being applied unnecessarily in this case?

I appreciate your response, including the DOC?s interpretation of this rule, because as it stands it seems to be an overly burdensome restriction of questionable legality. Therefore I am requesting a review of this decision and a response from the department.

Thank you for your time,

#12 mail that is deemed to be a threat to legitimate penological objectives
#17 markings that are discriminatory in a racial, ethnic, religious or sexual manner and, or contain markings of gang symbols of other unauthorized groups
#26 mail unauthorized by DOC 450.100 mail for offenders