MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Sections 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006, CONTRABAND, state in part:
(c)(5), Plans to disrupt the order, or breach the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7), Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Third-party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, Section 54010, Attachment 10 #33]
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Other (describe): Confiscated by SHU ISU. The mailing is disallowed as per the CCR, Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
Additional information: Mass mailing from MIM DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by GP ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed M. Cleary, Correctional Officer, Investigative Services Unit
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
11/07/2011
Prisoner appeals censorship (bypassed First Level)
Show Text
Explain your issue:
The trivial excuses for the denial of my correspondence with MIM Distributors. I have just recently received a 1819 form on which many penalties or infractions were marked down as a cause for the issuance of "1819" although I doubt that a notification or apprising letter of hunger strike merits any promotion of gang activity or third party correspondence, with the latter being the most common excuse for my most recent 1819 forms. Yet within CDCR Title 15 Section 3139, third party correspondence is defined as inmate to inmate in different facilities. And I understand the proxy criteria as well. But publications or mass letters from publishers withholding names, as many human rights/prisoner rights publications do (i.e. Prisoners [sic] Legal News (PLN), California Prison Focus (CPF), MIM Distributors, Critical Resistance, etc.), to apprise prisoners of legal matters, prisoner right matters or more assistance on books/literature programs for prisoners. I am aware of now of the aforementioned being on a banned list so therefore the petty excuses to disallow my mail for interactions out of context is a small gesture of a vendetta to suppress any mail or literature associated with any of these human rights advocate groups. I have been notified by MIM Distributors that on several occasions some literature has been sent to me was censored and returned in the month of August 2011. But I have never been notified of this by the facility in order to appeal as I purchase books and or receive donated books/literature from MIM Distributors, and do not find professional that intended books/literature or mail from MIM Distributors is being disallowed to me at subjective whims. As a July 12, 2011 Director's Level Decision case no. 1020001 criticizes that a blanket denial on "MIM" is inappropriate. Thus I challenge with merit.
Action requested:
I ask that my mail be allowed without prejudice and future publications, books/literature from MIM Distributors of any type meeting CDCR Title 15 Section 3134.1 be allowed and given to me and given due process to appeal any disallowed books/literature. Furthermore, mail room staff and ISU be notified so future hassles can be avoided.
12/15/2011
Secont Level Review - Partially Granted
12/19/2011
Prisoner appeals Second Level Review
Show Text
If you are dissatisfied with the Second Level response, explain the reason below:
I wish to pursue this issue of my mail being withheld for matters not violating stipulating articles in CDCR Title 15. My contentions remain the same now which i may add my due process rights have been violated and I suspect they still are. I raised relevant issues on my appeal and the response to that was just reiterations of what it already stated on my 1819 form, nothing else! I have filed a 602 earlier in the year as I bought some magazines from MIM Distributors which under DOM 54010.4 is classified under periodicals, was sent back unbeknownst to me (due process violated). The Sgt. handling my 602 advised me MIM Distributors is not a banned publisher because he checked and all other magazines and material were to be let through, yet at the end of October I received a form from MIM Distributors on all materials that were sent to me, have of what was on [this] list never made it to me yet all fir the DOM 54010.4 criteria. Under what excuses my material was sent back or returned I cannot say as like my 2/15/11 602 Appeal Log #PBSP S-11-00546 I was never notified nor given opportunity to appeal it. Starting in October I have been receiving a slew of 1819 forms on just letters from MIM Distributors, citing excuses from "banned vendor list", third party correspondence and "promotion of gang activity" with "hidden coded messages" - Yet 2nd level reviewer could not specify but reiterate citations which indicates a vague and cursory management of my 602 not thorough. The Dec 2nd 2011 interview was just a "do you have anything further to add" and all was concluded. Therefore I seek relief as stated on Section B, which all material that was disallowed for no ause be re-mailed to me as well as to not have any future mail/books/magazines and literature sent to me by MIM Distributors be withheld or returned, as MIM is not on vendors banned list.
MIM Distributors to Warden re: no notification given
Show Text
Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531
January 13th, 2012
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letters and publications sent to prisoners MR. YYY and Mr. XXX by MIM Distributors.
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a series of censorship incidents that recently occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner several different publications and letters.
Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. YYY four letters on 10/12/2011, 10/6/2011, 9/8/2011 and 7/21/2011 and two magazines titled MIM Theory on 5/15/2011. MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX issue no. 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key on 11/18/2011.
We recently learned from the prisoners that they never received any of those letters and/or publications. Nor did they receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the letters and 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 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 prisoners, 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 and letters sent to Mr. YYY and Mr. XXX.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners 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
to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
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 prisoners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
MIM Distributors writes to Warden re: no notification given
Show Text
Warden Greg Lewis
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531
January 13th, 2012
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letters and publications sent to prisoners MR. YYY and Mr. XXX by MIM Distributors.
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a series of censorship incidents that recently occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner several different publications and letters.
Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. YYY four letters on 10/12/2011, 10/6/2011, 9/8/2011 and 7/21/2011 and two magazines titled MIM Theory on 5/15/2011. MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX issue no. 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key on 11/18/2011.
We recently learned from the prisoners that they never received any of those letters and/or publications. Nor did they receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the letters and 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 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 prisoners, 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 and letters sent to Mr. YYY and Mr. XXX.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners 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
to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
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 prisoners.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
Additional information: Mass mailing from MIM DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by GP ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed M. Cleary, Correctional Officer, Investigative Services Unit
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
11/17/2011
Prisoner appeals censorship
Show Text
ISU has once again banned/disallowed MIM Distributors with the bogus claim that it has plans to "strike"; coded messages; promotes gang activities; has inmate-to-inmate correspondence; & third party mail. This is plainly an untrue statement of the facts. PBSP is only attempting to exclude ALL material from MIM regardless of the material in it, which it cannot do. See Williams v. Brimeyer 116 F.3d 351 (1997). Prison officials cannot censor mail just because it makes rule [sic] comments about the prison or prison staff (see Bressman v. Farrier, 825 F.Supp 231 (1993)). Further I have the right, as all prisoners do, to express our political beliefs and cannot be punished because of them (see Sczerbaty v. Oswald 341 F. Supp 571 (1972)). A news publication, which MIM is, IS allowed to report the news. That means prison news as well. I have already addressed this issue on prior disapproved mail of MIM yet PBSP is still unjustly banning MIM. This needs to stop.
On 10-05-2011, correspondence was stopped for the above-named inmate. The mailing is described as follows: Incoming Correspondence from [MIM Distributors].
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 15, Section 3136, as it pertains to Sections 3006 and/or 3135:
CCR, Title 15, Section 3006, CONTRABAND, state in part:
(c)(5), Plans to disrupt the order, or breach the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7), Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, Section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Other (describe): Confiscated by GP ISU. The mailing is disallowed per the CCR, Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed M. Cleary, Correctional Officer, Investigative Services Unit
B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
10/13/2011
Notification of Disapproval
Show Text
Disposition: held pending investigation/appeal
10/19/2011
Prisoner appeals censorship
Show Text
I received a 128-B and a 1819 notifying me that a newsletter from [MIM Distributors] was confiscated. This unjust as there was no third party correspondence. [Sender] world for the newspaper "Under Lock & Key" and was informing me of the ongoing developments of the hunger strike already going on and in which I was already a part of. There is or was no coded messages or plans to disrupt the order of the facility. The letter confiscated unjustly was no more than a newsletter and journal of personal struggles. I and all prisoners have a right to express our political beliefs. The means that prison officials may not punish us simply because of our political beliefs. See Sczerbaty v. Oswald 341 F.Supp 571 (1972). Further, prison officials cannot censor my mail just because it makes rude comments about the prison or prison staff, Breggman v. Farrier 825 F. Supp 231 (1993). Mail cannot be censored because prison officials believe it improperly magnifies complaints or contains inflammatory remarks, Procunier v Martinez (1974) 416 U.S. 396, 413. Penal Code section 2601(c) provides California inmates with a specific right to receive publications. Lastly, the whole basis of the hunger strike is and was a matter of CDCR and PBSP NOT conforming to the laws of the US, California, and its legal courts. The US constitution requires prison officials to allow prisoners to exchange correspondence that is necessary for a legal matter, which is the case here. See Turner v. Safely (1987) 482 U.S. 78; Valandingham v. Bojorquez (9th Cir 1989) 866 F.2d 1135; Murphy v. Shaw (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 957.
CCR, Title 15, Section 3006, CONTRABAND, state in part:
(c)(5), Plans to disrupt the order, or breach the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7), Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third-party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, Section 54010, Attachment 10 #33]
Additional information: Mass mailing from MIMS [sic] DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Other (describe): Confiscated by GP ISE. The mailing is disallowed as per the CCR, Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
CCR, Title 15, Section 3006, CONTRABAND, state in part:
(c)(5), Plans to disrupt the order, or breach the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7), Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third-party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, Section 54010, Attachment 10 #33]
Additional information: Mass mailing from MIMS [sic] DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Other (describe): Confiscated by GP ISE. The mailing is disallowed as per the CCR, Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by SHU ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed G. Pimentel, Correctional Officer, Institutional Gang Investigations
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
Additional information: Mass mailing from MIM DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by SHU ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed G. Pimentel, Correctional Officer, Institutional Gang Investigations
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by SHU ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed G. Pimentel, Correctional Officer, Institutional Gang Investigations
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.
It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]
The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by SHU ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.
Signed G. Pimentel, Correctional Officer, Institutional Gang Investigations
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c2209.jpg){kind=link}