MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
MIM Distributors protests no notification for censorship
Show Text
Warden David B. Long
Ironwood State Prison
P.O. Box 2229 Blythe, CA 92226
April 8, 2014
RE: Censorship incidents occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison ? exclusion of letterssent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors
Dear Warden Long,
I am writing this letter about an incident of censorship at Ironwood State Prison. On March 11, 2014 MIM Distributors mailed an envelope, less than 2 ounces, via USPS to the above named prisoner. The envelope was returned to MIM Distributors with "Contents Not Authorized" stamped on the front.
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 letter wasn't delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.
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 that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the item in question.
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.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
? to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letter;
? 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;
? and that adequate notice be provided to Mr. xxx of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
MIM Distributors sends copy of censored letter
Show Text
Associate Warden V. Allen
Ironwood State Prison
19005 Wiley's Well Rd
PO Box 2229
Blythe, CA 92226
May 20, 2014
RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. xxx at Ironwood State Prison
Dear Associate Warden Allen,
This letter is in response to your letter dated April 24, 2014 in which you responded to my April 8 letter regarding censorship of mail MIM Distributors sent to xxx, while housed at Ironwood State Prison. Mr. xxx is currently still housed at Ironwood State Prison. The letter in question was in an envelope sent via First Class Mail with USPS.
In your April 24 letter, you wrote "Unfortunately, without a copy of the letter in question, there is no way to make a determination as to the reason for denying its delivery to the inmate." Enclosed is a copy of the letter in question, which we hope aids in your resolution of this illegal censorship.
As we noted in our previous letter to you, 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 letter wasn't delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.
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 that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the item in question.
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.
With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
? to know why the letter was censored from delivery to Mr. xxx;
? to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials;
? and that adequate notice be provided to Mr. xxx of any information pertaining to mail intended for him from MIM Distributors, past, present and future.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
Enclosed: Study questions for "On Contradiction" and MIM Theory 5: Diet for a Small Red Planet
MIM Distributors says no notification is unconstitutional
Show Text
Warden Timothy E. Busby
Ironwood State Prison
P.O. Box 2229
Blythe, CA 92226
January 24th, 2012
RE: Censorship incident occurred at Ironwood State Prison ? exclusion of publication sent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors.
I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at Ironwood State Prison.
MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner issue no. 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key. This publication was sent on November 18, 2011.
We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received the publication. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publication was 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 publication hasn?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor it.
As you are certainly aware of, 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 prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. xxx.
In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner 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
1. to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned publication;
2. 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 prisoner.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
02/10/2012
Associate Warden claims to have never received the newsletter
