Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Form Filed:

Who did you talk to? Lieutenant Ratcliff
When? Today
What was their response? Write it up
What action was taken? I'm writing it up

This grievance is being filed on October 17, 2017 from [xxx] cell. I'm filing discrimination against the staff in the mailroom for denying my revolutionary newsletters from MIM Prison. The movement is about united front for peace in prison between inmates. The Administration on the Darrington Unit is totally against this movement because we tell inmates about coming together before the material things in prison that keep us divided. My revolutionary newsletter is no more of a security threat than this crooked Administration that allows these Ad Seg individuals to have cell phones and drugs in Ad Seg.

Action requested: I would like my incoming mail and outgoing mail to be left alone.

Returned because: 8. The issue presented is not grievable.

Attached instructions on how to write and submit grievances/
6. You may not grieve:
* Any matter beyond the control of the agency to correct.

The Director's Review Committee (DRC) has rendered a decision regarding your applea of the Unit rejection of Another offender publication inside said offenders mail received in contradiction with BP-03.91, Uniform Offender Correspondence Rules.

The return address indicates that the rejected item(s) was/were mailed to you from:

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 9440 [sic]

It is the decision of the DRC to uphold the Unit rejection of the above mentioned item(s). You will have 60 days from the above date to make disposition of the denied item unless security mandates there be no disposition.

February 1, 2018

Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutions Division
Director’s Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099


Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Unknown Publication


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Director’s Review Committee Decision Form dated January 10, 2018 concerning the decision to uphold censorship of one of our publications (hereinafter, “Form”), the publication in question is unknown, as you have not listed the publication information on the Form. The Form was also provided to XX the same date. We are the distributors listed on the form. We would note that we have never been provided notice of the censorship related to the Form as required by federal case law.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).

As such, we object to the notice of censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. You must provide additional information which clearly states the publication in question and the objectionable material within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter. Failure to reply will result in the appropriate legal action including but not limited to litigation of our rights in the proper judicial forum.

Your failure to provide notice of censorship as well as the identification of the publication in question is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights as publishers.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,


MIM Publishers

(c) It 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 security threat group activity.

Remarks: pages 1 + 6 contains informaion detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes