Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Alfred Bigelow, Warden
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, Utah 84634

04 April 2009

Warden Alfred Bigelow,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility marked ?Refused.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 6 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, which was refused to the following prisoners:

1
2
3
4

Can you please explain why this mail was returned and on what basis was judged to be ?refused? from Central Utah Correctional Facility? Enclosed is one of the envelopes for your reference.

Thank you for your attention,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: All affected parties.

Lowell Clark, Director
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, Utah 84634

04 April 2009

Director Lowell Clark,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility marked ?Refused.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 6 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, which was refused to the following prisoners:

1
2
3
4

Can you please explain why this mail was returned and on what basis was judged to be ?refused? from Central Utah Correctional Facility? Enclosed is one of the envelopes for your reference.

Thank you for your attention,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: All affected parties.

Capt. Robert Jensen
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, Utah 84634
June 21, 2009
Capt. Robert Jensen,

In your April 15, 2009 letter to MIM(Prisons) regarding censorship of their publication "Under Lock & Key," you said that the publication was censored because it was sent Presorted Standard, and that the prisoners who were intended to receive it (XXX and XXX) did not have a subscription to the newsletter.

Please refer to the following case law to see how your policies have failed to comply with U.S. law:

?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

"Under the test laid out in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987), the DOC?s
ban on non-subscription bulk mail and catalogs is not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest and is therefore unconstitutional." Prison Legal News v. Lehman 397 5.30 692 (9th Cir. 2005)

We appreciate your immediate removal of this policy at Central Utah Correctional Facility, as well as notification to the prisoners affected (see above) and MIM(Prisons) about your final decision, or any further questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration.

In Struggle,

MIM(Prisons)

Capt. Robert Jensen
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, UT 84634

10 November 2008

Capt. Jensen,

We received your letter from October 28, 2008 to ABC XYZ, responding to her inquiry about censorship of MIM Distributor?s mail at Central Utah Correctional Facility. Your response was passed to me, along with two additional censored letters to prisoners. The letters were unopened and once again there was no explanation for the censorship. According to your Oct. 28 letter this censorship has not been documented by the mailroom, nor has department policy been followed in regards to notification of said censorship.

I am requesting that there be an investigation into this censorship on three points: 1) How is staff refusing mail without documenting or reporting the censorship? 2) Why is mail being refused without any evidence that the mail is in violation of any laws? and 3) Why mail is being censored without notification to the censored party or the prisoner as to why the censorship occurred? All three of these actions, which have occurred on multiple occasions at Central Utah Correctional Facility, are in violation of established case law in regards to handling mail to people who are incarcerated by the government in the United States.

Thank you for your time and attention in helping to resolve these matters.

Sincerely,

Capt. Robert Jensen
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, UT 84634

10 November 2008

Capt. Jensen,

We received your letter from October 28, 2008 to ABC XYZ, responding to her inquiry about censorship of MIM Distributor?s mail at Central Utah Correctional Facility. Your response was passed to me, along with two additional censored letters to prisoners. The letters were unopened and once again there was no explanation for the censorship. According to your Oct. 28 letter this censorship has not been documented by the mailroom, nor has department policy been followed in regards to notification of said censorship.

I am requesting that there be an investigation into this censorship on three points: 1) How is staff refusing mail without documenting or reporting the censorship? 2) Why is mail being refused without any evidence that the mail is in violation of any laws? and 3) Why mail is being censored without notification to the censored party or the prisoner as to why the censorship occurred? All three of these actions, which have occurred on multiple occasions at Central Utah Correctional Facility, are in violation of established case law in regards to handling mail to people who are incarcerated by the government in the United States.

Thank you for your time and attention in helping to resolve these matters.

Sincerely,

Capt. Robert Jensen
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, UT 84634

10 November 2008

Capt. Jensen,

We received your letter from October 28, 2008 to ABC XYZ, responding to her inquiry about censorship of MIM Distributor?s mail at Central Utah Correctional Facility. Your response was passed to me, along with two additional censored letters to prisoners. The letters were unopened and once again there was no explanation for the censorship. According to your Oct. 28 letter this censorship has not been documented by the mailroom, nor has department policy been followed in regards to notification of said censorship.

I am requesting that there be an investigation into this censorship on three points: 1) How is staff refusing mail without documenting or reporting the censorship? 2) Why is mail being refused without any evidence that the mail is in violation of any laws? and 3) Why mail is being censored without notification to the censored party or the prisoner as to why the censorship occurred? All three of these actions, which have occurred on multiple occasions at Central Utah Correctional Facility, are in violation of established case law in regards to handling mail to people who are incarcerated by the government in the United States.

Thank you for your time and attention in helping to resolve these matters.

Sincerely,

Capt. Robert Jensen
Central Utah Correctional Facility
PO Box 898
Gunnison, UT 84634

10 November 2008

Capt. Jensen,

We received your letter from October 28, 2008 to ABC XYZ, responding to her inquiry about censorship of MIM Distributor?s mail at Central Utah Correctional Facility. Your response was passed to me, along with two additional censored letters to prisoners. The letters were unopened and once again there was no explanation for the censorship. According to your Oct. 28 letter this censorship has not been documented by the mailroom, nor has department policy been followed in regards to notification of said censorship.

I am requesting that there be an investigation into this censorship on three points: 1) How is staff refusing mail without documenting or reporting the censorship? 2) Why is mail being refused without any evidence that the mail is in violation of any laws? and 3) Why mail is being censored without notification to the censored party or the prisoner as to why the censorship occurred? All three of these actions, which have occurred on multiple occasions at Central Utah Correctional Facility, are in violation of established case law in regards to handling mail to people who are incarcerated by the government in the United States.

Thank you for your time and attention in helping to resolve these matters.

Sincerely,