Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

no response as of November 2

from chairperson of Publication Review Committee [no name or signature]

memo attached saying "Per the Publication Review Committee in Raleigh, NC this publication has been disapproved. There are twon names on the memo: A Ms. Poteet and a Mr. Newton. Neither of which are on the Publication Review Committee. Ms. Poteet is administartive assistant to associate warden Mr. Netwon here at Foothills Corr Institution. That being said there's no way of knowing if the disapproval letter is really from the publication review committee in Raleigh of if this is simply a letter printed off computers here at the facility.

December 17, 2023

Director of Operations
North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, Division of Prisons
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

Re: Letter to Publisher


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to prisoners in NCPDS, dated November 7, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the violation of code I, which alleges that ULK contains “materials which are used or appear reasonably likely to be used to intimidate or sexually harass facility staff or visitors.” We are at a loss as to how a newsletter consisting of illustrations, discussions on contemporary politics, and letters from our readers could possibly be used to “intimidate or sexually harass” anyone. We have gone ahead and reviewed the listed pages in the letter to be safe and we emphatically disagree with the Publication Review Committee’s decision to censor ULK on these grounds.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to subscribers held by NCPDS. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

letter from Christina Fox, Chief of Security

Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221

10 September 2017

RE: censorship of Maoism and the Black Panther Party

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is in response to a Letter to Publisher from Doug Pardue, notifying MIM Distributors of the disapproval of a pamphlet titled Maoism and the Black Panther Party. The reason given for the censorship was that "Could like[sic] precipitate violence among races of people" on pages 2,4.

I am requesting a review of this decision to censor this mail on the basis that there is no mention of violence against people of certain races. In fact, page 4 reads, “We do not fight racism with racism, We fight racism with solidarity.” In other words, the literature in question has the opposite message of what is being claimed by Mr. Pardue.

I hope that upon review you will see to it that this literature is delivered to Mr. XXXXXX,

Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4260 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4260

March 13, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Foothills Correctional Institution ? 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 Foothills Correctional Institution in Morganton, North Carolina.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a magazine titled MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial on two separate occasions: once on December 16, 2011 and again on February 7, 2012.

We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr.XXX) that he never received the publications listed above. On January 4, 2012 Mr. XXX received a Notice to Inmate of Disapproval & Appeal/Waiver Form for the first copy of the magazine. Mr. XXX appealed the censorship on January 5, 2012. In February 2012, Mr. XXX informed MIM Distributors that the publication was placed on the Master List of Disapproved Publications on January 23, 2012.

I am writing you this letter to inform you that MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of disapproval about this magazine at any stage in the process outlined above. Therefore we believe that putting MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial on the Master List of Disapproved Publications without first offering the publisher appeal rights is a violation of the United States Constitution, and your own Department's Policies.

Your Division of Prisons Policy D.0100 states at sections D.0103 and D.0107 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.

The same Policy obligates your mailroom staff to come to a determination within 7 days from the arrival of the publication.

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 Mr. McCrae, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner (Mr. McCrae) 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.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests

➢ to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of the above-named magazine
➢ and for the above-named magazine to be removed from the Master List of Disapproved Publications until an appeals process with all relevant parties involved can be carried out.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Bailey Clarke, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
P.O. Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Lander Corpening, Administrator
Foothills Correctional Institution
5150 Western Ave
Morganton, NC 28655

Prisoner states "as on Jan 23, 2012 has been placed on the master ban list statewide. However, this time around they changed the reasons for disapproval from "advocates armed overthrow of U.S. government" to "describes and encourages disruption of operations." This shows that they were seeking ANY reason to disapprove and permanently ban this publication."

Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4260 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4260

March 13, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Foothills Correctional Institution ? 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 Foothills Correctional Institution in Morganton, North Carolina.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner a magazine titled MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial on two separate occasions: once on December 16, 2011 and again on February 7, 2012.

We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. XXX) that he never received the publications listed above. On January 4, 2012 Mr. XXX received a Notice to Inmate of Disapproval & Appeal/Waiver Form for the first copy of the magazine. Mr. XXX appealed the censorship on January 5, 2012. In February 2012, Mr. XXX informed MIM Distributors that the publication was placed on the Master List of Disapproved Publications on January 23, 2012.

I am writing you this letter to inform you that MIM Distributors did not receive any notice of disapproval about this magazine at any stage in the process outlined above. Therefore we believe that putting MIM Theory 11: Amerikkkan Prisons on Trial on the Master List of Disapproved Publications without first offering the publisher appeal rights is a violation of the United States Constitution, and your own Department's Policies.

Your Division of Prisons Policy D.0100 states at sections D.0103 and D.0107 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.

The same Policy obligates your mailroom staff to come to a determination within 7 days from the arrival of the publication.

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 Mr. McCrae, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner (Mr. McCrae) 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.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests

➢ to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of the above-named magazine
➢ and for the above-named magazine to be removed from the Master List of Disapproved Publications until an appeals process with all relevant parties involved can be carried out.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
P.O. Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Lander Corpening, Administrator
Foothills Correctional Institution
5150 Western Ave
Morganton, NC 28655

Lander Corpening, Administrator
Foothills Correctional Institution
5150 Western Ave
Morganton, NC 28655

December 7, 2011

Dear Administrator Corpening,

This letter is a follow-up letter to the one I sent you on November 20, 2010, to which you gave no response. I have included a copy of the November 2010 letter with this letter for your reference. The main complaint made in the November 2010 letter was regarding the improper handling of mail at Foothills Correctional Institution, which is an ongoing problem; a problem that you have a legal obligation to address.

The more recent mishandling of mail at Foodhills CI is regarding the correspondence between MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX, a prisoner held at Foothills CI. Two items in particular have been denied delivery by Foothills CI mailroom staff without proper legal safeguards. You were made aware of these legal safeguards in my November 2010 letter.

In July 2011, MIM Distributors mailed Mr. XXX a book titled "The CIA's Greatest Hits." Neither Mr. XXX nor MIM Distributors were notified that this book was denied delivery. Needless to say, neither party was offered a chance to appeal the decision.

In October 2011, MIM Distributors mailed Mr. XXX a magazine titled "MIM Theory 9: Psychology." MIM Distributors was not notified that this book was to be denied delivery to its intended recipient, and was not given an chance to appeal this decision.

As I outlined in my November 2010 letter to you, it is United States law that the sender and prisoner must be notified if an item of mail is being censored by prison administrators or staff (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).

With this letter we have two requests. First, we request an immediate end to the illegal practice by Foothills CI mailroom staff which effectively obstructs the First Amendment rights of both MIM Distributors and Mr. XXX. Second, we would like to request a review of, and to appeal the decision to censor "The CIA's Greatest Hits" and "MIM Theory 9: Psychology" by someone other than the original censor. We do not believe that denial of delivery of these items would stand up to the reasonableness test as laid out in Turner v. Safely 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

Please look into this issue, as this censorship is clearly illegal. We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Good news: MIM Theory, Number 9, 1995 was approved and was returned to my possession. I appealed it and I won!

see 10/17/10 documentation

Lander Corpening, Administrator
Foothills Correctional Institution
5150 Western Ave
Morganton, NC 28655

20 November 2010

Dear Administrator Corpening,

This letter is regarding the ongoing censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Foothills Correctional Institution. The mailroom staff at Foothills CI is not following proper procedure when censoring these items according to United States law in that they have failed to clearly notify MIM Distributors of the reason for the censorship, and have failed to give us a chance to appeal the decision. From Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800,

"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor."

In September 2010 the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 15 (July/August 2010) was denied from several prisoners held at Foothills CI. When returned to MIM Distributors, these newsletters were stamped "Contents Not Allowed" with no explanation as to why they were not allowed or who we should contact to appeal this decision. We received word from prisoners that Under Lock & Key 15 is being censored with no chance to appeal. How do you legitimize this illegal practice?

In addition to Under Lock & Key 15, other letters from MIM Distributors have been treated improperly by Foothills CI mailroom staff. In July 2010, an introductory letter about the prisoner support organization MIM(Prisons) was returned for no reason, and there was no technical error on the part of MIM Distributors (such as an incorrect ID#). In July 2010 an invitation to a prisoner to join a study group was stamped "Contents Not Allowed" and returned, unopened. More recently, issues of Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September/October 2010) have been returned.

We also have received word that the following items are pending review: Maoism and the Black Panther Party (a pamphlet), MIM Theory 13: Revolutionary Culture (a magazine), and Under Lock & Key issue 12 (January 2010) (a newsletter). Please inform us of the status of these reviews.

According to Ramirez v. Pugh, 379 F.3d 122, 126 (3d Cir. 2004), "prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution." Based on the First Amendment rights of MIM Distributors and the prisoners who desire to correspond with MIM Distributors, I am making the following requests: (1) explanations of the censorship of all mail from MIM Distributors, listed above, (2) an appeal for a second opinion regarding the censorship of the items listed above, including Under Lock & Key issues 15 and 16, and (3) immediate cessation of illegal handling of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners at Foothills CI, including compliance with the NC DOC notification policies to sender and recipient of intercepted mail.

If you have other information about additional mail that is being censored coming from MIM Distributors, please inform us of its status. I appreciate your effort in investigating this matter and your timely response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties