Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

1. Contains information about performing work stoppages. 2. Photos of dead klan members (cartoons).

"3 separate newsletters appear to have been delayed at other facility but no action taken."

I have attempted to challenge this confiscation via the offender grievance process, however SVCF case manager Marty Hale refuses to provide me with a grievance form. On 8/9/2011 he responded to my request by yelling at me, becoming irate, stating: "Fuck your grievance." "Every time an issue comes up you want to file a grievance, fuck you." "You're just a sniveling complaining bitch." "You bitch." and "Stick a grievance up your ass." To date I have been denied a grievance form.

S. M. Salinas, Warden
Deuel Vocational Institution
P.O. Box 400
Tracy, CA 95378-0004

24 June 2011

Dear Warden Salinas,

Recently a publication titled Under Lock & Key issue 18 (January/February 2011) was denied to prisoners held at Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). The prisoners affected by this censorship were Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, Mr. X, and Mr. X. The newsletter was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned since 2006" written on the publication and highlighted. We were not sent a CDCR Form 1819 regarding this newsletter.

According to Prison Legal News v. CDCR, and your own Department Operations Manual, each publication and letter must be reviewed on an individual basis, and it is illegal to ban a distributor who is not on the centralized list that is put out by CDCR annually (see DOM Section 54010.21). In 2008, MIM was not on the banned list, and we have reason to believe we are not on the 2011 list either, because no one has referred us to it. So we request that you stop this illegal ban on all publications coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of publications on an individual basis. Of course, if MIM Distributors or Under Lock & Key are on the centralized list of disallowed publications, please send us a copy.

Additionally, allow me to remind you that if you should determine a publication to be inadmissible at DVI, you are legally obligated to provide to the sender and the intended recipient the name or identification of the publication, and the specific reason why it is being censored. This reason must be legitimately related to penological interested as laid out in Turner v. Safely, and reiterated in your Department Operations Manual (see DOM Section 54010.16).

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties