Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

May 19, 2019


North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221


Re: Appeal Response to Under Lock & Key
Under Lock & Key Issue 67, March/April 2019


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your response to our appeal, dated April 24, 2019, for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The original notice stated that the publication was rejected because of alleged content in violation of policy D.0109(f). However, the addendum references a violation of section (d) and specifies the offending material as being on pages 1, 2, 5 and 6. The notice states these pages “…promote political extremism and tactics.” Political extremism is not a violation of policy D.0109.

The appeal response further fails to provide any detail as to the location of and the content of the alleged offending language as required by a large body of federal caselaw.

Careful and reasoned review of the pages cited, and the remainder of the publication shows no content which remotely meets the alleged objection set forth in the notice. Further, the content of the pages do not meet any definition of objectionable content as defined by any portion of policy D.0109.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

Your rejection fails to provide adequate notice of the reasons for censorship as it fails to state with any specificity the alleged offending content or reference to its location in the publication.

We require that you provide a specific and detailed notice to the alleged offending content with references to its location in the publication by page number.
It appears the NCDPS fails to take its responsibilities of adherence to the First Amendment seriously. Failure to provide adequate notice with which we may formulate a meaningful appeal may result in litigation against the NCDPS and any persons individual involved in the violation of our constitutional rights.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

The mailroom was contacted and Mrs. Hernandez (mailroom supervisor) provided the response: Per Chapter 33-210-101(9) states "inmates shall not use correspondence privileges to solicit or otherwise commercially advertise for money, goods, or services. Incoming mail from MIM Distributors violated the policy by soliciting money and stamps, therefore mail was returned to sender.

Based on the foregoing, your grievance is denied.

A formal grievance may be returned without processing if it is not received within 15 calendar days of the date of the response to the informal grievance.