MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Delivery confirmation says parcel was delivered!
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 1050
Soledad, CA 93960-1050
May 4, 2012
RE: Censorship of Priority Mail Envelope sent to Mr. XXX on September 12, 2011 from MIM Distributors
Dear Warden Hedgpeth,
I am writing this letter about a censorship incident that recently occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP).
Background
As you may recall, you and I have exchanged a series of letters about mysterious ongoing censorship of mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at SVSP. I will outline them below for historical reference, so this most recent censorship incident can be put into the context of the long runaround your Department has been putting us through to
In your letter dated April 28, 2009, you acknowledged that MIM Distributors does not appear on the list of disapproved publishers.
In your letter dated July 6, 2009, you apologize that a letter intended for a prisoner was censored. To accompany this letter, the SVSP Mailroom Supervisor informed MIM Distributors via telephone that the mailroom staff had been trained to not ban literature from us.
In your letter dated March 23, 2010, you say that a temporary mailroom staff was banning our literature, yet again. Note that this letter was written almost one full year after you yourself acknowledged that MIM Distributors was not a disapproved publisher. How long does it take to send a memorandum from your office to the Mailroom Supervisor? It is not really our concern whether the staff is temporary or permanent. Our concern is that we are sending mail into SVSP, and people you are responsible for are denying our First Amendment right. This is still an ongoing problem, which I will outline below.
In your letter dated September 9, 2010, you claim that there is no censorship of mail from MIM Distributors at SVSP, even though our contact with prisoners there tells us otherwise.
Finally, in a letter dated December 16, 2010, you state that the Mailroom Supervisor claims that "mailroom staff has not seen any newsletters or publications from 'MIM' come through the mailroom since September or October 2010." This letter is quite dated, so I will just make one point: In addition to multiple letters and special literature orders sent into SVSP between "September or October 2010" and December 2010, on November 19, 2010 we mailed our newsletter Under Lock & Key No. 17 (November/December 2010) via Standard Presorted mail with the USPS to no less than one dozen prisoners held there.
Present Issue
Recently Mr. XXX informed MIM Distributors of several articles of mail which were not delivered to him, sent from MIM Distributors. I will list the articles of mail which were not delivered to Mr. XXX, and then focus on one in particular. It should be noted that none of the denials listed below were accompanied by notification to the publisher/sender or prisoner, as outlined in your DOM sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3.
Article Date Sent
Under Lock & Key No. 16 (September/October 2010) 9/24/2010
Under Lock & Key No. 17 (November/December 2010) 11/19/2010
a letter 9/2/2011
newspapers in a Priority Mail envelope 9/12/2011
Under Lock & Key No. 22 (September/October 2011) 9/21/2011
Under Lock & Key No. 23 (November/December 2011) 11/18/2011
The article of mail I would like to focus on is the Priority Mail envelope which was sent on September 21, 2011. With this letter I have enclosed a copy of the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Confirmation Receipt which accompanied the Priority Mail envelope. As you can see, it is stamped as being sent on September 12, 2011. I have also enclosed a print-out of the confirmation of delivery from the USPS website. Clearly the package was delivered to the SVSP mailroom.
But then what happened to it? This is a point that only you and your Mailroom Supervisor can answer. Neither MIM Distributors nor Mr. XXX were notified that this envelope would be denied delivery to Mr. XXX.
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 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 any of the above-listed articles of mail 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 regarding the Priority Mail envelope which was delivered to SVSP on September 13, 2011 by the U.S. Postal Service;
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;
3. that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner regarding this issue;
4. and, lastly, that mail from MIM Distributors be handled properly by SVSP mailroom staff, in accordance with CDCR's policies and procedures, U.S. law, and your own assurances.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
CDCR, Office of the Ombudsman
1515 S Street, Room 124 South
Sacramento, CA 95811
ULK 16 was censored to many prisoners at SVSP
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
7 December 2010
Dear Warden Hedgpeth,
On 21 August 2010 I wrote to you regarding the ongoing censorship of mail from MIM(Prisons) to prisoners held at Salinas Valley State Prison. In response to this 21 August letter, you wrote to me on 9 September 2010 and claimed that "on September 9, 2010, Correctional Lieutenant P. Sullivan spoke with Mailroom Assistant Lisa Matsuno regarding the MIM Distributors. Ms. Matsuno informed Lieutenant Sullivan that Mailroom Staff received On the Job Training to allow MIM Publications into the institution. Ms. Matsuna stated that MIM Distributors publications are being allowed into the institution without delay and no mail from this distribution has been returned."
Ms. Matsuno is correct to say that no mail has been returned to MIM Distributors from mailroom staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, but it is a lie that mail from MIM Distributors has been allowed into SVSP without delay or censorship. In the months prior to my 21 August letter, all the way through September all forms of mail (letters and newsletters) from MIM Distributors have disappeared without a trace in the SVSP mailroom.
On 25 September MIM Distributors mailed the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 16 (September/October 2010) to several prisoners held at SVSP. Recently we received confirmation from these prisoners that the have not received this newsletter, and were not informed by mailroom staff that it was being delayed, returned, or censored. It was also not returned to MIM Distributors.
It is clear that Ms. Matsuno was incorrect to say that there are no problems with mail coming from MIM Distributors. This letter is to document the continued lies and illegal behavior of you and your staff. We recently sent in Under Lock & Key issue 17 (November/December 2010) to several prisoners held at SVSP. We look forward to investigating how this newsletter is handled.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
12/16/2010
Mailroom Supervisor claims hasn't seen mail from MIM(Prisons) since Sept. or Oct. 2010 Download Documentation
MIM(Prisons) to Warden: Staff is no longer temporary, why is your mailroom still banning MIM?
Show Text
Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020
21 August 2010
Dear Warden Hedgpeth,
On 8 March 2010, I sent you a letter inquiring about the ongoing censorship of publications and letters from MIM Distributors to prisoners at your facility. On 23 March 2010, you wrote that there was temporary staff in the mailroom, and were not trained how to properly handle mail from MIM Distributors and the censorship may have been their error. You also wrote that the mailroom staff was retrained to allow mail from MIM Distributors, per law and the PLN/CDCR settlement.
However, we are still having all of our mail returned from your facility. The only difference is that now they are returned with no explanation at all, whereas before we corresponded in March they were being stamped as "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item." It is obvious that the mailroom staff at Salinas Valley State Prison have no idea how to comply with federal law, specifically Procunier v. Martinez which states:
"The court required that an inmate be notified of the rejection of correspondence and that the author of the correspondence be allowed to protest the decision and secure review by a prison official other than the original censor." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800
One item being subjected to a blanket censorship is an informational letter about how to fight censorship of mail, which advocates filing appeals, keeping records, and taking the case to court if necessary. This was sent in to several prisoners at your facility in March along with the 8 March 2010 letter that I sent you (with any prisoner-identifying information removed). There are no grounds that this letter could have been censored on, which is probably why the mailroom staff returned it to us without giving a reason.
This letter is to (1) ask again why Under Lock & Key and informational letters from MIM Distributors are being banned from Salinas Valley State Prison, (2) request an immediate, accurate, and thorough retraining of the mailroom staff in how to legally handle mail from MIM Distributors, (3) enforcement of the law in handling mail by the upper management and administrative staff of your facility, and (4) the immediate end of illegal tampering with mail from MIM Distributors. We appreciate your expedience in this matter and hope that it doesn't need to become more complicated by a lawsuit.
