Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

February 22, 2025

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We were recently made aware of your organization censoring multiple publications which we distribute which were sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at Indiana State Prison. A copy of the notice of this censorship, which we received from Mr. XXXXXX himself, is enclosed within. You will also find a typed notice regarding this censorship signed by M. Metcalf addressed to Mr. XXXXXX.

Nowhere on the notice does it state the reason for censorship, instead it only states that the material is “not authorized”. Not documenting the reason for censorship is obviously a gross disregard of our due process rights as well as those of Mr. XXXXXX. Regardless, we have been able to ascertain, from the aforementioned typed notice as well as our own correspondence with Mr. XXXXXX, that the reason for censorship is because there was no return address listed on the package we sent the materials in. While we acknowledge that this was a procedural error on our behalf, we would also like to point out that there was an enclosed invoice with both our return address as well as an itemized list of the publications sent to Mr. XXXXXX. It is quite absurd that your institution felt this invoice was so insufficient as proof regarding the identity of who sent the package that said institution decided to violate Mr. XXXXXX’s constitutional right to receive mail. In case we have not been abundantly clear hitherto, let us state explicitly that we, MIM(Prisons), sent the package containing Under Lock & Key Issues 81, 82, and 83, MIM Theory Issue 9, and the Revolutionary 12 Step Program to XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX and that said package with all of its contents should be immediately forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly censored. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

Once again, we request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be immediately forwarded to their intended recipient, Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourselves accordingly.

Sincerely,

February 22, 2025

ATTN: Warden
Indiana State Prison
1 Park Row
Michigan City, IN 46360

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We were recently made aware of your institution censoring multiple publications we distribute which were sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX residing at Indiana State Prison. A copy of the notice of this censorship, which we received from Mr. XXXXXX himself, is enclosed within. You will also find a typed notice regarding this censorship signed by M. Metcalf addressed to Mr. XXXXXX.

Nowhere on the notice does it state the reason for censorship, instead it only states that the material is “not authorized”. Not documenting the reason for censorship is obviously a gross disregard of our due process rights as well as those of Mr. XXXXXX. Regardless, we have been able to ascertain, from the aforementioned notice typed and signed by M. Metcalf as well as our own correspondence with Mr. XXXXXX, that the reason for censorship is because there was no return address listed on the package we sent the materials in. While we acknowledge that this was a procedural error on our behalf, we would also like to point out that there was an enclosed invoice with both our return address as well as an itemized list of the publications sent to Mr. XXXXXX. It is quite absurd that your institution felt this invoice was so insufficient as proof regarding the identity of who sent the package you decided to violate Mr. XXXXXX’s constitutional right to receive mail. In case we have not been abundantly clear hitherto, let us state explicitly that we, MIM(Prisons), sent the package containing Under Lock & Key Issues 81, 82, and 83, MIM Theory Issue 9, and the Revolutionary 12 Step Program to XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX and that said package with all of its contents should be immediately forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, which is violated when our mail is unjustly prevented from being given to its intended recipients. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

Once again, we request the decision to withhold the listed materials be vacated and the publications be immediately forwarded to their intended recipient, Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourselves accordingly.

Sincerely,

Package was originally denied for not having a return address and was therefore treated as from a private source. After realizing materials were from MIM Distributors they were reportedly released to prisoner on 3/7/2025

M. Metcalf responds claiming to not know what prisoner is referring to.

per letter response from M. Metcalf