Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Chris Barela
Do?a Ana County Detention Center
1850 Copper Loop
Las Cruces, NM 88005


10 November 2007

Mr. Barela,

This letter is in regards to repeated censorship of literature sent by MIM Distributors to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX (#YYYYYYY). On September 24, 2008 a copy of MIM?s newsletter Under Lock & Key Issue 4 was returned with the stated reason ?newsletter copies.? This was a newsletter that is published by MIM Distributors, and is printed and mailed in bulk. by them. In order to test the policy I printed out a copy of the newsletter myself and sent it and once again it was censored on October 21, 2008 stating ?Copies (newsletter) and staple).? (see enclosed) So both times it was censored for being a ?copy,? when it was not.

The list of mail guidelines sent with the rejection statement says ?Xerox copies? are not permitted. When I check your mail policies online it does not list this restriction, I assume because such a restriction would be contrary to the law. Regardless of whether the items sent in were ?copies? or not, you cannot censor mail unless it threatens legitimate penological interests as established by TURNER v. SAFLEY, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

In recognition of these facts, I am requesting that you ensure that mailroom staff will not censor MIM?s mail in the future.

We look forward to your response,

Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020

04 April 2009

Director Lowell Clark,

We received a letter from your secretary, Angie Stevens, dated March 10, 2009. In response to your request, with this letter I've included an envelope that was refused from your facility.

Working with mailroom staff, Warden Steve Turleu and Inmate Grievance Coordinator Billie Casper have been informing prisoners at Utah State Prison of policy stating that "[m]ail, other than first class mail, privileged and/or religious should not be allowed for inmates on Intensive Management. Mail other than first class, privileged and religious shall not be permitted and includes, but is not limited to newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, brochures, etc. (FDr25/02.10 G; FDr25/03.01)"

Established caselaw prohibits frivolous censorship and requires that censorship be backed up by legitimate penological interests of the institution. Specifically, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, and Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900, fn.4 (9th Cir. 2001) are relevant to this issue. What you're doing is against the law. We request that you follow law, and that you enforce your employees' compliance with the law.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

(ALSO INCLUDED: ENVELOPE WITH "REFUSED" STAMP)

Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020

28 February 2009

Director Lowell Clark,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility stating, ?Refused.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 6 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, which was refused to the following prisoners: Mr. A, MR. B, Mr. C, Mr. D, Mr. E, Mr. F, Mr. G, Mr. H, Mr. I, Mr. J, Mr. K, Mr. L, Mr. M, Mr. N, Mr. O, Mr. P, Mr. Q, Mr. R, Mr. S, and Mr. T.

Can you please explain why this mail was returned and on what basis was judged to be ?refused? from Utah State Prison?

Thank you for your attention,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: All affected parties.

Lowell Clark, Director
Utah State Prison (USP)
PO Box 250
Draper, Utah 84020

04 April 2009

Director Lowell Clark,

We received a letter from your secretary, Angie Stevens, dated March 10, 2009. In response to your request, with this letter I've included an envelope that was refused from your facility.

Working with mailroom staff, Warden Steve Turleu and Inmate Grievance Coordinator Billie Casper have been informing prisoners at Utah State Prison of policy stating that "[m]ail, other than first class mail, privileged and/or religious should not be allowed for inmates on Intensive Management. Mail other than first class, privileged and religious shall not be permitted and includes, but is not limited to newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, brochures, etc. (FDr25/02.10 G; FDr25/03.01)"

Established caselaw prohibits frivolous censorship and requires that censorship be backed up by legitimate penological interests of the institution. Specifically, Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, and Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900, fn.4 (9th Cir. 2001) are relevant to this issue. What you're doing is against the law. We request that you follow law, and that you enforce your employees' compliance with the law.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

(ALSO INCLUDED: ENVELOPE WITH "REFUSED" STAMP)

Media Review Committee
Cayuga Correctional Facility
PO Box 1186
Moravia, NY 13118-1186

5 April, 2009

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is regarding a history of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to readers being held in Cayuga Correctional Facility. Most recently, mail sent to Mr. XXX, Mr. YYY and Mr. ZZZZ was all returned with a stamp reading, ?Return to Sender Not on Approved Correspondence List.? Is there a regulation particular to Cayuga that requires someone to be put on an approved list to send mail to someone there? If so what is the process to get on that list?

We know this is not a systemwide regulation as MIM?s mail gets to prisoners throughout the NYSDOCS. We hope to resolve this issue with you soon.

Thank you for your time,

Media Review Committee
Cayuga Correctional Facility
PO Box 1186
Moravia, NY 13118-1186

5 April, 2009

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is regarding a history of censorship of mail sent by MIM Distributors to readers being held in Cayuga Correctional Facility. Most recently, mail sent to Mr. XXX, Mr. YYY and Mr. ZZZZ was all returned with a stamp reading, ?Return to Sender Not on Approved Correspondence List.? Is there a regulation particular to Cayuga that requires someone to be put on an approved list to send mail to someone there? If so what is the process to get on that list?

We know this is not a systemwide regulation as MIM?s mail gets to prisoners throughout the NYSDOCS. We hope to resolve this issue with you soon.

Thank you for your time,

Mr. Michael Thurmer, Warden
Waupun Correctional Institution
PO Box 351
Waupun, WI 53963-0351

17 March 2009


Dear Mr. Thurmer,

I am writing regarding the enclosed notice of censorship of mail from MIM Distributors. The notice claims that the newsletter Under Lock & Key teaches or advocates breaking the law. Not only is this statement false, in addition every issue of Under Lock & Key explicitly discourages prisoners from breaking any laws.

As you are probably aware, the recent case of XXXXXX v. Raemisch, (W.D.W.I. 2008), re-established that it is illegal for prison administrators to censor publications because they encourage actions that are critical of the actions of the department they work for. Therefore I am requesting that you either cite where the publication advocates breaking the law and what law it advocates breaking, or that you ensure that Mr. XXXXXX receives Under Lock & Key.

Please note that the envelope was postmarked March 9, 2009, so it would have been impossible for us to respond within 10 days of the decision as stated on the notice.

Sincerely,

Warden Mike Mahoney
Montana State Prison
400 Conley Lake Road
Deer Lodge, MT 59722

February 28, 2009

Warden Mike Mahoney,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility stating, ?Rejected, Violates Policy.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained an introduction to their organization. It was refused to Mr. XYZ.

Can you please explain why this mail was returned and what policy it is violating at Montana State Prison?

Thank you for your attention,

Warden Kathleen Green
Eastern Correctional Institution
30420 Revells Neck Road
Westover, Maryland 21890

28 February 2009

Warden Green,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility stating, ?Contents not Allowed.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 6 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, which was sent to Mr. XXX and Mr. YYYY.

Can you please explain why this mail was returned and on what basis was judged to be ?not allowed? at Eastern Correctional Institution?

Thank you for your attention,

Warden Kathleen Green
Eastern Correctional Institution
30420 Revells Neck Road
Westover, Maryland 21890

28 February 2009

Warden Green,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was returned to sender from your facility stating, ?Contents not Allowed.? The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 6 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, which was sent to Mr. XXX and Mr. YYYY.

Can you please explain why this mail was returned and on what basis was judged to be ?not allowed? at Eastern Correctional Institution?

Thank you for your attention,

Bill Wilson, Superintendent
Westville Correctional Facility
5501 South 1100 West
Westville, IN 46391

28 February 2009

Superintendent Bill Wilson,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was censored by your facility to Mr. XYZ. The mail was from MIM Distributors and contained issue 5 of their newsletter Under Lock & Key, mailed on 11/22/2008. Also censored was a magazine from MIM Distributors titled "MIM Theory #8: Anarchist Ideal," mailed on 9/12/2008.

Can you please explain why this mail was censored by Westville Correctional Facility?

Thank you for your attention,

Peter J. Murphy, Warden
MacDougall-Walker C.I.
1153 East Street, South
Suffield, CT 06080

February 28, 2009

Warden Murphy,

This letter is to inquire about mail that was censored by your facility to Mr. XYZ due to "safety and security" reasons. The mail was sent from MIM Distributors and the publications censored include MIM Notes issues 330 and 331, MIM Theory #8, and Under Lock & Key issues 2 and 5. This mail was sent from MIM Distributors during the time period of September through November 2008.

Can you please explain why this mail was censored by MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution?

Thank you for your attention,

MIM(Prisons)

CC: All affected parties.