Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Stu Sherman
SATF-CSP
PO Box 7100
Corcoran, CA 93212

18 November 2014

RE: Refused mail for Signature Confirmation

Mr. Sherman,

On 4 November 2014 MIM Distributors sent a priority mail package to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX with USPS Signature Confirmation. This is normal practice when mail has gone missing without explanation from the facility. The mailroom staff at CSATF used the USPS Signature Confirmation to justify the censorship of MIM Distributor's mail stating, ?REFUSED: Inmate Unable to Sign for Mail at Post Office.?

It is not USPS policy that the recipient of the mail must be the person that the mail is addressed to. In the case of PO Boxes, which CSATF mail is sent through, anyone with access to the box is considered an authorized agent who can sign for the mail. Yet, the label on the mail returned to MIM Distributors seems to indicate that it is regular practice of CSATF to not sign for mail.

My question for you is whether it is CSATF's policy to refuse any mail with signature confirmation? If so, what is the best method to ensure delivery to prisoners held at CSATF when mail goes missing without notice from your staff? If not, can you assure me that this will be addressed with mailroom staff so that future Signature Confirmation mail is delivered as it should be?

Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter,

Warden Stu Sherman
SATF-CSP
PO Box 7100
Corcoran, CA 93212

4 January 2015

RE: Refused mail for Signature Confirmation (2nd attempt)

Mr. Sherman,

In mid-November I wrote you regarding the refusal of mail from MIM distributors to someone being held prisoner at your facility. The mail was rejected for the reason, ?REFUSED: Inmate Unable to Sign for Mail at Post Office.? I have not received a response to my inquiry and am unsure how to have MIM Distributors proceed in ensuring that their mail is delivered moving forward.

To reiterate, the questions that I had posed to you were: whether it is CSATF's policy to refuse any mail with signature confirmation? If so, what is the best method to ensure delivery to prisoners held at CSATF when mail goes missing without notice from your staff? If not, can you assure me that this will be addressed with mailroom staff so that future Signature Confirmation mail is delivered as it should be?

Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter,

Warden Ralph M. Diaz
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison
P.O. Box 7100
Corcoran, CA 93212

January 24th, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at SATF-CSP, Corcoran? exclusion of publications sent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors.

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at SATF-CSP Corcoran.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner, among others, issues no. 16 and 21 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key. These publications were sent to Mr. xxx on September 24, 2010 and July 29, 2011 respectively.

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received the publications. Nor did he receive any determinations of your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors didn?t 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 publications haven?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

As you are certainly aware of, 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 publications sent to Mr. xxx.

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 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.

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

CC: Affected parties