Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Original reason for censorship on the approval given as


"Reason E. Page(s) 6, 7 & 12 contain information which could cause prison disruption."

It is not clear who appealed this decision.

DRC made decision on September 29, 2022, remarks: pgs. 12 & 16 information which could cause a disruption.

Prisoner received notice on 9/24/2022 upholding the decision, and mailed the letter back to MIM Distributors.

"contains information inciting a disturbance in contradiction with BP-03.91"

(c) Publication contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve a breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as work strikes, riots or security threat group activity.

Remarks: Reason C. Page(s) 1 and 5 advocates for prison disruption/strike.

On 11/01/2018 the above publication was appealed to the Director's Review Committee with the following decisions rendered:

Denied; offender will not receive.

(MIM Distributors was not notified of censorship prior to this Directors' Review Committee decision.)

On the Publican Review/Denial Form, "Destroy" is checked. The only other option is "Send to the following person at the offender's expense." MIM Distributors pays the return postage for returned ULKs. So it can be returned at no expense to the prisoner. It does not need to be destroyed.

"I was given no choice in whether to appeal it."

Correctional Institutions Division
Director's Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099


November 12, 2018

RE: Illegal censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 63

Dear Director's Review Committee,

This letter is regarding the publication named above, which has been censored in Texas prisons, without notification sent to the publisher and sender, MIM Distributors. The publication was sent via USPS Standard Mail.

Under Lock & Key No. 63 (July/August 2015) was mailed to prisoners in various facilities operated by TDCJ on August 6, 2018. No notification letter was sent to MIM Distributors to say that the publication was being reviewed or denied. This is in direct violation of Board Policy-03.91 IV. E. 2. Notice, which reads:

“If a publication is rejected, the offender and sender shall be provided a written notice of the disapproval and a statement of the reason for disapproval within 72 hours of receipt of the publication on a Publication Denial Form. Within the same time period, the offender and sender shall be notified of the procedure for appeal. The offender shall be given a sufficiently detailed description of the rejected publication to permit effective use of the appeal procedures. The offender or sender may appeal the rejection of the publication through procedures provided by these rules.”

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, MIM Distributors was not notified of the censorship decision that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication listed above.

Since MIM Distributors was not given notification of the denial of its newsletter, it was never offered a chance to appeal the censorship. MIM Distributors was not offered a chance to submit an appeal per Board Policy-03.91 V. B. Correspondence Appeal Procedure:

"V. B. Any offender, other correspondent, or sender of a publication may appeal the rejection of any correspondence or publication. They may submit written evidence or arguments in support of their appeal..."

It is on these grounds that MIM Distributors insists on your consideration of our appeal.

On November 2, 2018 a letter was mailed to MIM Distributors from the Director’s Review Committee, with notification that Under Lock & Key No. 63 had been reviewed and denied for reason “Reason C. Page(s) 1 & 5 advocates for prison disruption/strike.” This was the first time MIM Distributors was notified of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 63 by TDCJ. With this letter I have enclosed a copy of pages 1 and 5 for your reference.

In your review of this censorship, please note that your own policy (BP-03.91 (rev.3)) states: "Publications shall not be rejected solely because the publication advocates the legitimate use of offender grievance procedures, urges offenders to contact public representatives about prison conditions, or contains criticism of prison authorities." In order to reject these publications for content, per your policy, you must demonstrate that the publication "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 STG activity".

MIM Distributors insists that pages 1 and 5 of Under Lock & Key No. 63 do not meet this criteria for censorship. We insist on your reversal of this censorship and the immediate delivery of the publication to its intended recipients. We also insist on its removal from TDCJ’s list of denied publications.

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.

Sincerely,

Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties