Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

February 11, 2024

California State Prison, CSP (LAC)
44750 60th St. West
Lancaster, CA 93536

Re: Publication Withheld Pending Review


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 83
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX, dated January 24, 2024, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the alleged violation of CCR Title 15 Section 3006(c)(16) which states that prisoners are not allowed to possess material which is deemed a “threat to legitimate penalogical interests.” The notice alleges that the the material on page 11 of ULK constitutes such a “threat” when it describes “accusations of staff punishing inmates.”

The Supreme Court held in Turner v. Safley 482 U.S. 78 (1987) that to legally censor incoming mail sent to prisoners, there must be a “valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest.” The Court further explained that the “logical connection” between the asserted goal and the act of censorship must not be “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational,” and that “the governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.”

We contend that there exists no such logical connection and as such the objective stated (of censoring “threat[s] to legitimately penalogical interests”) is not legitimate, rendering this act of censorship illegal and unconstitutional. This can be seen by simply noticing that the number of disruptions to “penalogical interests” that have occurred as a result of prisoners across the country reading ULK is exactly zero. This number remains zero in light of the fact that ULK is read by hundreds of prisoners at dozens of facilities which have the same desire to censor any “threat[s] to legitimate penalogical interests” as your facility.

Moreover, your facility’s decision to censor reports of abuse in prison is in no way “neutral,” as is required by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Turner. The California Office of the Inspector General has released multiple reports concerning the CDCR’s failure to adequately handle and process reports of abuse within the facilities they oversee. The decision to censor reports of abuse and misconduct cannot possibly be neutral when the CDCR, which oversees your facility, has both a vested interest in and a history of repressing these reports.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Additionally, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 83 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

Brian Haws, Warden
44750 60th Street West
Lacaster, CA 93536-7620

24 February 2010

Dear Warden Haws,

This letter is regarding the censorship of a letter from MIM Distributors, San Francisco, California to Mr. XXX, who is a prisoner at California State Prison - Los Angeles County. Ironically, the content of the letter in question was a step-by-step guide to fighting censorship of mail, beginning with Step 1: File Grievances.

The letter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Unauthorized/Unacceptable Item" stamped on the envelope, but no further explanation as to why or what was unauthorized/unacceptable about the item. It is completely ridiculous and illegal that a letter that encourages prisoners to use legal means of fighting censorship should be disallowed as an "unauthorized/unacceptable item."

Therefore, this letter is to appeal that decision made by mailroom staff. We do not think that there are valid grounds on which to block the receipt of a letter that helps prisoners fight censorship by those held at CSP-LA County.

We request (1) an independent review the decision made by CSP-LA County mailroom staff to mark this letter as "unauthorized/unacceptable." We also ask for (2) a thorough explanation as to why this item was censored, with specific citations. Lastly, we ask that (3) mail be deliverable from MIM Distributors to all prisoners who choose to communicate with them AT CSP-LA County.

We appreciate your assistance and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties