Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

September 10, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of publication to Mr. XXX at Florida State Prison

Dear Library Service Administrator,

On May 28, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 32 (May/June 2013) to the above-named prisoner held at Florida State Prison. On July 6, 2013, Mr. XXX notified MIM Distributors that the newsletter was being censored. The mailroom staff failed to directly notify MIM Distributors of this censorship incident.

Mr. XXX was notified of the impoundment of this publication on June 3, 2013 and he appealed it on June 13, 2013. On June 21, 2013 Mr XXX was given a response to his appeal, stating in part "On June 21, 2013 the Literature Review Committee reviewed the subject matter content in the publication. It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(3)(m)." No other specific information about the reason for the censorship was given.

FDOC's own mail rules state in Rule 33-201.101 Routine Mail, F.A.C.:
"(14)(a) When an inmate is prohibited from sending a letter, the letter and a written and signed notice stating one of the authorized reasons for disapproval and indicating the portion or portions of the letter causing disapproval will be given to the inmate. When an inmate is prohibited from receiving an item of mail, the inmate and the sender will be given notice in writing that the mail has been disapproved stating one of the authorized reasons for disapproval. Form DC2-521, Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt, will be placed in the original envelope with the correspondence and returned to the sender. However, if an incoming mailing is rejected because it does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (15)(a) or subsection (20) of this rule, Form DC2-521 shall not be prepared. Instead, staff shall write or stamp the reason for rejection on the mailing and it shall be returned to the sender unopened.
(b) If the incoming mail is disapproved for one of the reasons listed in subsection (7), (8), or (9), paragraph (11)(a) through (l) or (o), subsection (12) or (13) of this rule, the institution shall make a copy of the correspondence before returning it to the sender with Form DC2-521, Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt, included. If an institution receives identical correspondence from the same individual or entity that is addressed to more than 10 inmates, and the correspondence is disapproved for one of these reasons, the institution shall make only one copy of the correspondence and shall mail the sender only one Form DC2-521. The mailings shall be returned to the sender and may be returned together in a single package. The institution is not required to copy incoming correspondence disapproved pursuant to subsection (7) if the return address on the envelope was the reason for determining that the mail was sent from an inmate at another penal institution.
(c) The copies shall be retained by the institution for 30 days, not including any time that a grievance appeal is pending, provided the inmate has initiated the process by filing a formal grievance within 15 days of notice of the mail rejection. The inmate is not required to file an informal grievance of the mail rejection."

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 MIM Distributors was not 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 June 21, 2013 response given to Mr. XXX for the reason why this publication was rejected is so broad as to be meaningless. Rule 33-501.401(3)(m) states "It otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person." First, it is my belief that Under Lock & Key No. 32 does not in fact meet this criteria for rejection. If the Literature Review Committee believes it does, then a more specific reason should be offered to the prisoner and the sender.

Second, it is difficult to believe that the Literature Review Committee actually performed an independent review of the content of the publication when the best response they give to Mr. XXX's thoughtful Request for Administrative Remedy or Appeal is this vague reason for censorship.

Therefore, we request:
(1) To be notified of any future censorship incidents at Florida State Prison per U.S. law and FDOC policies, and
(2) that Under Lock & Key No. 32 be approved for delivery to Mr. XXX and any other intended recipient in Florida State Prison, and that prison staff at Florida State Prison deliver the issues they have withheld from their intended recipients.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Warden John Palmer, Florida State Prison
7819 N.W. 228th Street
Raiford, Florida 32026-1000

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

September 10, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of publication to Mr. XXX at Lake Correctional Institution

Dear Library Service Administrator,

On July 30, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key No. 33 (July/August 2013) to the above-named prisoner held at Lake Correctional Institution. On August 20, 2013, Mr. XXX notified MIM Distributors that the newsletter was being censored. The mailroom staff failed to directly notify MIM Distributors of this censorship incident.

FDOC's own mail rules state in Rule 33-201.101 Routine Mail, F.A.C.:
"(14)(a) When an inmate is prohibited from sending a letter, the letter and a written and signed notice stating one of the authorized reasons for disapproval and indicating the portion or portions of the letter causing disapproval will be given to the inmate. When an inmate is prohibited from receiving an item of mail, the inmate and the sender will be given notice in writing that the mail has been disapproved stating one of the authorized reasons for disapproval. Form DC2-521, Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt, will be placed in the original envelope with the correspondence and returned to the sender. However, if an incoming mailing is rejected because it does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (15)(a) or subsection (20) of this rule, Form DC2-521 shall not be prepared. Instead, staff shall write or stamp the reason for rejection on the mailing and it shall be returned to the sender unopened.
(b) If the incoming mail is disapproved for one of the reasons listed in subsection (7), (8), or (9), paragraph (11)(a) through (l) or (o), subsection (12) or (13) of this rule, the institution shall make a copy of the correspondence before returning it to the sender with Form DC2-521, Unauthorized Mail Return Receipt, included. If an institution receives identical correspondence from the same individual or entity that is addressed to more than 10 inmates, and the correspondence is disapproved for one of these reasons, the institution shall make only one copy of the correspondence and shall mail the sender only one Form DC2-521. The mailings shall be returned to the sender and may be returned together in a single package. The institution is not required to copy incoming correspondence disapproved pursuant to subsection (7) if the return address on the envelope was the reason for determining that the mail was sent from an inmate at another penal institution.
(c) The copies shall be retained by the institution for 30 days, not including any time that a grievance appeal is pending, provided the inmate has initiated the process by filing a formal grievance within 15 days of notice of the mail rejection. The inmate is not required to file an informal grievance of the mail rejection."

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 MIM Distributors was not 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,

Bailey Clarke, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Warden