MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Letter to Director regarding censorship at multiple facilities
Show Text
Director S.A. Godinez
Illinois Department of Corrections Illinois Department of Corrections
1301 Concordia Court James R. Thompson Center
P.O. Box 19277 100 West Randolph
Springfield, IL 62794-9277 Chicago, IL 60601
March 25, 2014
RE: Illegal censorship of mail at Hill Correctional Center and Sheridan Correctional Center
Dear Director Godinez,
This letter is regarding the illegal censorship if mail at Hill Correctional Center and Sheridan Correctional Center. Enclosed are letters I have sent to the Wardens and Publication Review Committee at these respective facilities. We have not received responses from administrators at the facilities themselves, and hope that your office can help end their illegal practice of censoring mail without cause or process.
Do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information.
Sincerely,
MIM Distributors
CC: Affected parties
03/25/2014
MIM Distributors protests censorship for spiral bound books
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
600 South Linwood Road
P.O. Box 1327
Galesburg, IL 61402
March 25, 2014
RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x
Dear PRC,
This letter is regarding the illegal censorship if mail to Mr. x, a prisoner housed at Hill Correctional Center. On February 16, 2014, MIM Distributors mailed Mr x an envelope via Media Mail with the USPS. This envelope contained at least one spiral-bound book, among others. The envelope was returned, unopened, to MIM Distributors with "Spiral bound book" written on the outside. We were not sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
In Title 20: Corrections, Criminal Justice, and Law Enforcement, Chapter I: Department of Corrections, Subchapter e: Operations, Part 525 Rights and Privileges, there is no mention made of spiral bound books and whether they shall be permitted or censored. The instructions that are provided in Title 20 for handling of this material are in direct conflict with the actions of the Mailroom staff at Hill Correctional Center.
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.
Please provide us with a copy of the administrative code that dictates spiral bound books should be disallowed at Hill Correctional Center. 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 based on Illinois Department of Corrections policy, not superfluous, illegal restrictions.
MIM Distributors protests ongoing illegal censorship. again
Show Text
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
04/11/2014
Litigation Coordinator says MIMS Notes is banned, but MIM Distributors is allowed Download Documentation
MIM Distributors protests ongoing censorship
Show Text
Publication Review Committee
Sheridan Correctional Center
4017 E. 2603 Road
Sheridan, IL 60551
February 6, 2014
RE: Illegal censorship of mail to Mr. x
Dear PRC,
Mr. x is a prisoner housed at Sheridan Correctional Center. Recently MIM Distributors has sent Mr. x multiple pieces of mail, and they have been returned to MIM Distributors without following proper procedures for censorship.
On September 27, 2013 MIM Distributors mailed a publication titled Under Lock & Key No. 34 (September/October 2013) via Presorted Standard mail with the USPS. The publication was returned to MIM Distributors, unopened, with "not allowed" written on the envelope, and no other information provided. This letter was not accompanied with any indication as to why it was being returned. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.
On October 21, 2013, MIM Distributors mailed Mr. x a letter weighing less than one ounce, via First Class Mail with the USPS. This letter was returned to MIM Distributors with "not allowed" written on the envelope, and it was also unopened. Again, no information was provided as to why this letter was "not allowed" and no Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 was sent to MIM Distributors.
The common thread is that there is no notification given to the sender that the mail is being withheld delivery to the intended recipient, why, or offering MIM Distributors a chance to appeal.
Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:
1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.
2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."
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 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,
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c5723.jpg){kind=link}
![[Download Documentation]](https://www.prisoncensorship.info/docs/c4720.jpg){kind=link}
