Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Publication Review Committee
Sheridan Correctional Center
4017 E. 2603 Road
Sheridan, IL 60551

March 25, 2014

RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x

Dear PRC,

This letter is a follow-up to our letter from February 6, 2014 regarding the illegal censorship if mail to Mr. x, a prisoner housed at Sheridan Correctional Center. My February 6 letter outlined the illegal censorship of several pieces of mail sent to Mr. from MIM Distributors.

Since my last letter to your office, there has been another alarming incident of censorship at Sheridan Correctional Center. MIM Distriburotis sent Mr. a letter on February 7, via First Class mail with USPS, less than one ounce, with no labels on the envelope. The letter was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened. The only reason given for this censorship is "not allowed" hand written on the envelope. We were not sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Your Administrative Code Title 20, Part 525 Rights and Privileges, Section 525.140 Incoming Mail at point d) that "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband."
and at point h), "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of the decision."

As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also 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 letter in question.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the sender, 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.

We would appreciate if you took any necessary, appropriate and advisable measure (such as internal investigations, proper employees? training and similar) to stop this illegal ban on all mail coming from MIM Distributors, and start determining the allowance of mail on an individual basis.

Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties
Warden Marcus Hardy