Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Dawn Grounds, Warden
Hughes Unit
Rt 2 Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597-0001

19 January 2009

Warden Dawn Grounds,

In October I had written to you regarding a number of pieces of mail from MIM Distributors that were returned to sender from Hughes Unit with no reason given. Just recently, it has been brought to my attention that another stack of returned mail has come back from Hughes Unit more than a month after it was sent out. To date no reason has been given to MIM Distributors or to any of the prisoners that our office has been in contact with to explain this censorship. None of the mail has been opened, so it seems it is not based on the content of the mail, but many, if not all, of the prisoners are still being housed at Hughes Unit.

Can you please look into this and let me know what is happening with MIM?s mail that is causing it to be returned like?

Sincerely,

Travis Trani, Warden
Limon Correctional Facility
49030 State Hwy 71
Limon, 80826
April 22, 2009
Warden Trani,

This letter is in reference to mail that MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA has sent to XXXX who is a prisoner in Limon Correctional Facility. The document was a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key. It was sent to the Reading Committee for review on February 25, 2009.

Why is this newsletter being censored? What is the status of its review? Your clarity on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: Affected parties.

Ms. Cathie Holst, Manager
Office of Correctional Legal Services
2862 South Circle Drive, Suite 150
Colorado Springs, CO 80906-4195
April 22, 2009
Ms. Holst,

This letter is to inquire about the status of a document that was sent to the Reading Committee on February 25, 2009. The document was a newsletter titled Under Lock & Key and it was sent from MIM Distributors in San Francisco, CA. It was censored from prisoner XXXX at Limon Correctional Facility.

Why is this newsletter being censored? What is the status of its review? Your clarity on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: Affected parties.

Warden Francisco Jacquez
Pelican Bay State Prison
PO Box 7000
Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

6 April 2009

Mr. Jacquez,

This letter is to request a review of the decision by staff member K. Brandon to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXXXX (XXXXXX).

Brandon incorrectly cites a memo from 2006 to justify rejecting any mail coming from MIM Distributors. According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, ?The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.? MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

I am requesting that the mail in question be released by ISU and given to Mr. XXXXXXX and that the October 18, 2008 memo be distributed to staff as required by said memo and the lawsuit that preceded it. If you do not deliver these items to Mr. XXXXXXX then I am requesting an explanation of your refusal that complies with current rules and laws.


Thank you for your time,

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

28 February 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

This letter is regarding a stack of recently returned mail that was sent by MIM Distributors to people being held at SVSP. As you are probably aware, the handling of MIM?s mail by the CDCR has been an ongoing concern. MIM?s mail has been consistently returned by SVSP mailroom staff, usually unopened, for well over a year now.

Following Prison Legal News v. CDCR your department was to create a centralized list of any banned publications. The first iteration of this list was released on October 21, 2008. However, the newsletter that was censored, Under Lock & Key, was not on the list. The list is to be updated May 1 of each year. So why is it that in February 2009, Under Lock & Key is still being returned with the reason ?Not on approved mailing list at SVSP, SOLEDAD, CA?? Is there another list that MIM Distributors must be on in order to get mail to people held at SVSP, in addition to not being on the centralized list of disapproved publications?

Please clarify this matter so that we can know the current status of our ability to communicate with people being held in SVSP.


Sincerely,

Warden Anthony Hedgpeth
Salinas Valley State Prison
PO Box 1020
Soledad, CA 93960-1020

6 April 2009

Mr. Hedgpeth,

In your letter from March 20, 2009 you state that Scott Kernan had imposed a ban on MIM publications at CDCR. I am aware of the 2005 document proclaiming such a ban, but the Office of Legal Affairs appears to be giving you a different story than they are giving the U.S. District Court regarding the continued applicability of this ban.

According to the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications, dated October 21, 2008, that I cited in my previous letter, ?The centralized list of disapproved publications supersedes any prior departmental or facility memoranda regarding banned publications. Facilities must use only the most updated version of the centralized list to identify publications subject to a general ban.? As I tried to explain in my previous letter, MIM Distributors does not appear on this list.

I also find it surprising that you are not aware of the October 21, 2008 memo, which also reads, ?Wardens are to ensure that this memorandum and list are distributed appropriately. This includes ensuring that they are copied, distributed, and posted at locations accessible to inmates, parolees, and employees?? As a Warden it appears to be required that you not only be aware of this memo but that you make it available to all others within the facility you oversee.

The Deputy Attorney General representing Mr. Kernan has represented the above quoted memo as being the truth on the ground within CDCR facilities. If the CDCR Legal Affairs office is still upholding the ban as you claim then perhaps the miscommunication is at a higher level. I am cc?ing the Deputy Attorney General as well as the Legal Affairs office to request their responses to this matter.


Thank you for your time,

Publication Review Officer
Menard Correctional Center
711 Kaskaskia Street
PO Box 711
Menard, IL 62259

22 April 2009

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is regarding an ongoing pattern of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to prisoners being held at Menard Correctional Center. It seems that this mail is being returned to sender without consideration of its contents since none of the envelopes have been opened. One returned letter was a two-sentence letter to a prisoner confirming receipt of mail, a number of other returned pieces contained a publication with the expressed purpose of reducing violence in prisons. All of the mail was stamped with ?Item Not Permitted? and a couple had ?MIM Banned? written on them.

After reviewing Section 525.230 of the Illinois Administrative Code (20 Ill. Admn. Code Sec 525.230), it seems that a number of rules were overlooked in these incidents. First, part c) explains that written notice of administrative decisions to review a publication coming into the facility will be sent to the prisoner and the publisher, no later than 30 days from the date the facility received the item. In addition, part f) states that a publication can be banned after 6 consecutive denials. We never received notices for any of these issues. I also know that at least some of the prisoners who have been denied mail from MIM Distributors have also not been notified of the censorship. We did receive the last two issues returned to us with the above mentioned stamp, but this does not explain how the literature violates any of the criteria laid out in part b). I am confident that upon review you will find that it does not. Since we were not given an opportunity to request a review before, I am doing so now. Enclosed is the most recent issue of the publication Under Lock & Key that is published by MIM Distributors.

If it is true that the publication Under Lock & Key has been banned, does said ban apply to any mail with MIM Distributor?s return address on it, such as the aforementioned letter? The definition of ?Publication? in Section 525.202 does not include letters, and 525.300 does not seem to allow for a general ban of a party from sending mail to a prison. Please clarify.


Thank you for your time,

Roy W. Cherry, Superintendent
Hampton Roads Regional Jail
2960 Elmhurst Lane
Portsmouth, VA 23701
April 22, 2009
Superintendent Cherry,

This letter is in regard to the most recent acts of censorship based in your facility against MIM Distributors, San Francisco, CA. We have been attempting to communicate with your employees to remedy this issue since January of 2008 to no avail. Hopefully you can explain the matter to us clearly with legal reference.

Prisoner XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX at Hampton Roads Regional Jail has been having his mail returned to us with stamps or writing on the envelopes that state "Refused" and "Unauthorized Contents." Some envelopes have "Unauthorized Publication" hand-written on them when they are not even publications, but personal letters. Can you please explain to us what is "unauthorized" about the "content" of these materials?

We also received one notice of "unathorized property" receipt that was filled out by Mail Clerk P.L. Punilei on 03/11/2009. Clerk Punilei described the contents as "Unauthorized Publication of Material." A copy of this notice is included with this letter. Also for your reference we have included one of the envelopes that the returned mail was in.

The materials that have been returned to us are personal letters, MIM Distributors' newsletter Under Lock & Key, and a pamphlet titled What is MIM? Your assistance with this issue is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,