Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

September 5, 2017

Georgia DOC
Office of the Commissioner
300 Patrol Road
Forsyth, GA 31029

Re: Censorship of Mail


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a returned and unopened letter addressed to XX, at the Smith State Prison. The letter was marked in handwriting with the words “Not Authorized” and “RTS.” No other information was included and no notice of rejection was received as required by GADOC SOP IIB04-0001 H(2). The letter contained an “Unconfirmed Mail Form” which has no objectionable content, however, as the letter was returned unopened the censor had no knowledge of the contents.

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 states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

We also intend this letter to serve as notice of our grievance and request an administrative investigation into the failure of GA DOC employees at Smith State Prison to adhere to GA DOC directives regarding incoming mail and censorship and the blatant violation of our First Amendment rights.

We further note that GADOC SOP IIB04-0001 provides no means for a sender, publisher, or distributor to challenge the rejection or censorship of mail. Courts in the United States have long held a First Amendment right exists to protect the right of correspondence with prisoners. As previously noted a publisher or distributor must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge any censorship. As GADOC SOP IIB04-0001 fails to provide any such remedy it is unconstitutional on its face and as applied. We demand the Georgia Department of Corrections immediately afford us the opportunity to exercise of our rights under the Constitution. Any failure to act within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of this letter may result in appropriate legal action being taken against the Georgia Department of Corrections.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

Warden
Smith State Prison
PO Box 726
Glennville, GA 30427-0726


August 18, 2015


RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr.xxx at Smith State Prison

Dear Warden,

In February 2015, my office sent you a similar letter to the one below, for a similar problem, but affecting a different prisoner at Smith State Prison. My office has reason to believe that an innumerable number of prisoners at Smith State Prison are being affected by illegal censorship of our materials. We keep close documentation of our outgoing mail and the censorship notifications we receive. We have not received any censorship notifications for mail that has been sent to Smith State Prison, to any prisoner held there. We also know our mail is not being received. This blanket ban on mail from MIM Distributors and MIM(Prisons) is completely illegal.

In 2015, MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner several articles of mail which were never delivered to him. These items were not returned to MIM Distributors, and neither MIM Distributors nor the intended recipient (prisoner) received notifications regarding the censorship of these items. Below is a list of the items in question, the dates they were sent, and the way in which they were mailed to Mr. cxxx.

1/9/2015 Unconfirmed Mail Form (letter) via USPS First Class Mail
1/30/15 Under Lock & Key No. 42 (January/February 2015) via USPS Standard Mail
03/04/2015 letter via USPS First Class Mail including:
Unconfirmed Mail Form (letter)
Guide to fighting censorship
3/27/15 Under Lock & Key No. 43 (March/April 2015) via USPS Standard Mail
5/29/15 Under Lock & Key No. 44 (May/June 2015) via USPS Standard Mail

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.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors



CC: Affected parties

Ombudsman
Georgia Department of Corrections
300 Patrol Road
Forsyth, GA 31029

Warden
Smith State Prison
PO Box 726
Glennville, GA 30427-0726

February 10, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. zzz at Smith State Prison

Dear Warden,

In December 2014, MIM Distributors sent the above named prisoner two articles of mail which were never delivered to him. These items were not returned to MIM Distributors, and neither MIM Distributors nor the intended recipient (prisoner) received notifications regarding the censorship of these items. Below is a list of the items in question, the dates they were sent, and the way in which they were mailed to Mr. zzz.

12/10/2014 Under Lock & Key No. 41 (Nov/Dec 2014) via USPS Standard Mail
12/26/2014 personalized letters via USPS First Class Mail including:
Second introductory letter about MIM(Prisons)
Tips for writing articles for Under Lock & Key
Campaign updates about the grievance process, and the Tier II Step-down program

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.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties