Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Administrator: Stephen D'Ilio
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

February 10, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of mail to xxx at New Jersey State Prison

Dear Administrator D'Ilio,

On January 21, 2014, MIM Distributors mailed a large manila envelope via USPS First Class mail to the above named prisoner held at New Jersey State Prison. The envelope contained two magazines, published and distributed by MIM Distributors. The names of the magazines are:

MIM Theory 1: A White Proletariat?
MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy

The envelope and magazines were returned to MIM Distributors with ?Not Authorized? and ?Return to Sender? stamped on the envelope. The envelope was returned unopened, indicating that the mailroom staff at New Jersey State Prison did not open the envelope to inspect its contents. Additionally, no notification as to why this mail was censored from Mr. xxx was ever sent to MIM Distributors.

With this letter I have enclosed a copy of the invoice and a photocopy of the envelope in question.

Dating back to 2012, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at New Jersey State Prisoin. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 10: Labor Aristocracy (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), the newspaper MIM Notes, as well as simple letters. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.

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 listed above.

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.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties