Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

December 11, 2017

Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.

The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

As such, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

December 11, 2017

Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of the Publication Review Determination (“form”) for the Under Lock & Key (ULK), issue 58 addressed to the two prisoners referenced above. The form denies delivery of ULK to the prisoners.

The form states the reason for denial as “contains various articles promoting racial division and unauthorized protests.” Such boilerplate language without reference to the specific alleged objectionable material does not provide us, the distributor, with information to challenge such denial. The denial is vague and obtuse; therefore violating our rights to due process to protect our First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

As such, we object to the censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly and specifically states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

This censorship violatse the grievants clearly established rights under the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution. This grievance is aimed and leveled against c/o D. Meredith and a challenge to the sufficiency of "notice" (DOC 0212 Rev-9-2006) and it's non compliance with admin code 525 230(c)(1). The "notice" in question was furnished to this grievant on 10-14-2015.

Publication in question is titled "Under Lock & Key", this publication is one based upon progressive, political, social, economic and educational. These progressive notions are a philosophical political point on socialism. In every issue of "Under Lock & Key" they publish their goals and rebuttle argument, without the specific information based upon to determine the publication should be rejected. Broad and vague statements can not and will not suffice or pass constitutional muster. Thus the notice violates admin code 525.230(c)(1) and my due process rights.

Due to the defective nature of the notice provided, the lack of an individual review of the publication in question. Also the very clear fact that every issue explicitely discourages violence and illegal activity. Any activity that is encouraged is within the scope of an in conformity and protected by the U.S. constitution's 1st amendment. The notice failure to conform to 525.230(c)(1) and its vagueness violates this grievant's due process rights. May this grievance and record reflect that this grievant received without any interuption a whole year of said publication.

Relief requested: Be provided with a detailed reason fro the denial of publicaion in question. Have DOC 0212(Rev. 9-2006) reflect and conform to admin code 525.230(c)(1). To not be disciplined for the prior issues allowed for an entire year.

Per DR 25, if any publication, or part of, depicts, describes, or ecourages activities that may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption or it facilitates organizational activity without approval of the CAO, can be banned/unauthorized. C/O Meredith reviews individual publications unless it is on the banned list. The banned list is an administrative decision per DR504. No course of action attached.

- J. James

Publication Review Committee
Pontiac Correctional Center
PO Box 99
Pontiac, IL 61764-0099

April 6, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX

Dear PRC,

MIM Distributors mailed the following items to the above-named prisoner held at Pontiac Correctional Center:

Under Lock & Key 41 sent 12/10/2014
Under Lock & Key 27 sent 10/23/2014
Under Lock & Key 26 sent 10/23/2014
MIM Theory 5 sent 10/23/2014
MIM Theory 4 sent 10/23/2014
Tips for writing articles sent 10/21/2014
Socioeconomic survey sent 10/20/2014

These letters and publications were neither returned to MIM Distributors nor received by Mr. XXX. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

As you are no doubt aware, Departmental Rule 525, Section 525,140 (d), which states: "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband." In addition, Departmental Rule 525.140 (h) states: "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of this decision." By failing to notify both Mr Haynes and MIM Distributors the facility is clearly in violation of D.R. 525.140.

As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also 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 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.

Sincerely,