Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden
USP Atwater
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301

21 August 2010

Dear Sir or Madam,

On 22 February 2010, I wrote to you to inquire about why the publication Under Lock & Key was denied delivery to several prisoners at USP Atwater. On 2 April 2010 Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist M. Fischer wrote to tell me that it was an error with the post office and that MIM Distributors should resend the publication.

However, we are facing a similar situation, months later. Issue 15 (July/August 2010) of Under Lock & Key was denied delivery to prisoners at USP Atwater, with no explanation as to why. The returned publications are marked "UTF", but according to the BOP website these prisoners are still housed at USP Atwater. We doubt that the USPS is making the same error again.

As I wrote in my 22 February letter to your office, I will reiterate that we are sure you are aware of the following case law:

?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

"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

What is happening at USP Atwater with mail from MIM Distributors is completely illegal. We appreciate your timely response and efforts to resolve this illegal practice.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Warden
USP Atwater
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301

22 February 2010

Dear Warden,

This letter is regarding the blanket censorship of a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key issue 12 (Jan/Feb 2010) from MIM Distributors to Mr. A-F at USP Atwater. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors marked "refused" but with no further explanation.


As we are sure you are aware,

?When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner?s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.? Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

and,

"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


Therefore, this letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to make the claim that Under Lock & Key issue 12 should be "refused." The newsletter was received by many prisoners in the Federal system, all across the country. Apparently it was not "against regulations" at those hundreds of other facilities. Also, we request that the above mentioned prisoners be notified by mailroom staff of this censorship, as required by law.

We request (1) an independent review the decision made by USP Atwater mailroom staff to mark this newsletter as "refused." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this newsletter was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) Under Lock & Key issue 12 be deliverable to the above mentioned prisoners, and any other prisoner at USP Atwater who wishes to correspond with MIM Distributors.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Mailroom Supervisor
P.O. Box 019001
Atwater, CA 95301
October 13, 2009
Dear Mailroom Supervisor,

This letter is in reference to mail that was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA to prisoners X, Y, and Z. The item in question was the newsletter Under Lock & Key issue 10 Sept./Oct. 2009. It is published and distributed by MIM Distributors.

The newsletter was returned to MIM unopened with nothing written on the envelope to indicate why it was denied delivery to these prisoners mentioned above.

Why was this newsletter returned to MIM Distributors? We appreciate your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)