Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Warden Kimberly A. Seibel
Chuckwalla Valley State Prison
PO Box 2289
Blythe, CA 92225

26 June 2016

RE: Unauthorized Vendor Mail

Ms. Seibel,

I am writing to inquire about a number of pieces of mail recently returned to MIM Distributors that were unopened and stamped, “RETURN TO SENDER UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR.” All of the mail in question were letters enclosed in #10 envelopes. This practice seemed to begin around May 2016. Two letters sent to Mr. XXX YYY (#123456) were returned in this manner; one from mid-May and one from mid-June. One letter from mid-June to Mr. AAA BBB (#246810) was also returned in this manner. Yet Mr. BBB reports not receiving a number of letters from MIM Distributors since his transfer to Chuckwalla in April. These other letters were not returned, nor was a notification of censorship sent to MIM Distributors, nor to Mr. BBB.

My questions are: What is the significance of this stamp “UNAUTHORIZED VENDOR”? And why were the letters in question not delivered to their intended recipients?

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this matter,

letter read in part:

"Mailroom staff have been made aware of the situation and will do everyting possiblbe to ensure this does not happen again."

"[CDCR] encouranges correspondence with persons outside the correctional facility. CVSP apologizes for the error and any inconvenience this may have caused."

Step 1 respondent fails to address, thus concedes: 1) the unsigned notice of Peggy Haywood, who also falsely told M/O she was the "reporting staff member" for a "date of notice: 4/26/15" that did not exist in violation of 18 U.S.C 1519; and 3) if Haywood's hearsay is taken as credible then a decision was made in Lansing that effectively denied grievant's right to due process and a fair hearing in violation of Mich. Const. 1963, art. 1, 17 and U.S. const. Am. XIV. Moreover, the statement by a Georgia prisoner, "It looks as if we will be forced to participate in a hunger strike to get help..." is not advocacy, but a simple plea to the public for help in ending the brual repression of prisoners in control units that the UN, among others, has recognized as a form of torture, nor does it meet the 4-prong test set forth in Truner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Wherefore, remedy requested at Step 1 must be granted.

The mail rejection was properly completed by P. Haywood

As shown by the attached, hereto, Notice of package mail/rejection (CSJ-316), Under Lock & Key, No 43, March/April 2015, T. Bates, 4/13/15, Step II respondent lied when she stated "Teh mail rejection was properly completed by P. haywood," as it was not "properly completed by" T. Bates and is unsigned. If P. haywood completed another CSJ-316, then she violated 18 U.S.C. 1519 and 18 U.S.C 242, as part of a conspiracy with respondents to deprive grievant of his civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241. Moreover, while stating "we will be forced" into a non-violent hunger-strike is not advocacy, Step I and II responses are advocacy for solitary confinement which is "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment [of prisoners]...[that] amounts to torture," as stated by U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, August 2013, wherefore, remedy requested at Step I must be granted, as well as applied to respondents, G. Wilson and J. DeAngelo.