Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Reason (C) "page 1 promotes work stoppage and prison disruption"

I'm refiling informal complaint, notification of grievance, and appeal to chief inspector to exhaust all remedies on the issue of no longer allowing used books. I was informed the MT 2/3 was rejected because of condition - even tho new, it appeared worn. Our mailroom staff is pretty lenient. They now have the investigator over their shoulder because of contraband entering through used books. Please resend MT 2/3 in newer form. They have also been allowing spiral bound in.

Superintendent: Jeffrey A. Uttecht
Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
1301 N Ephrata Ave
PO Box 769
Connell, WA 99326

August 26, 2016

RE: Appeal censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 51

Dear Superintendent,

We received a Rejection Notice from Coyote Ridge Corrections Center regarding the publication Under Lock & Key No. 51 (July/August 2016). This present letter is to appeal the censorship of that publication.

The reason given for the censorship by Mailroom Employee Garibay-Ortiz was Reason #19 “Advocates violence against others and/or the overthrow of authority.” Unfortunately this mailroom employee did not offer more detailed information as to in what way, or on what page, this publication advocates violence and/or the overthrow of authority. That would be very helpful information for us for this appeal and for future issues of Under Lock & Key.

We look forward to your reversal of this censorship, or further explanation as to how this publication fits the reason listed above. Please keep in mind the following case law as you review the publication:

"Wardens may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social[,] sexual, or . . . unpopular or repugnant,' or establish an excluded list of publications, but must review each issue of a subscription separately." Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401

“When a prison regulation restricts a prisoner’s First Amendment right to free speech, it is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Lindell v. Frank, 377 F.3d 655, 657 (7th Cir. 2004), citing Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

"Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385

"Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957
Thank you.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties