Under Lock & Key

Greetings, I am the leading plaintiff in the above styled and numbered case. Please be aware of the court fees to obtain copies of the case. Basically they charge 10 cents per copy, and the total fees for the following documents are as follows:

• The Complaint (no exhibits) 32 pages
• Motion for TRO and preliminary injunction (no exhibits) 31 pages

It will be a total cost of $6.30 to obtain the above documents from the clerk of the court. You need to send a money order or institutional check to the clerk of the court at:

Cause Number: 2:21-CV-00337

Styled Name: F Martinez, Doll, Pineapple Pictures, et al. Versus Members of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, et al.

Dear Friends:

Greetings! I am the leading plaintiff in the above styled and numbered case. I filed this lawsuit on my behalf and others similarly situated prisoners in TDCJ. I also represent the interest of Doll, Pineapple and other commercial vendors.

The reasons in filing this lawsuit is to challenge the constitutionality of the rules 1(C) and IV(A)(10)(11) of the “Uniform Offenders Correspondence Rules” (BP-03.91)

Rule 1(C) which limits to receive ten photos per envelope is unreasonably and arbitrarily applied to deny catalogs, brochures, and flyers from commercial vendors. Rule IV(A)(10)(11) which totally bans “sexually explicit images” coming into the general population all in disguise of rehabilitation purposes.

On or about 17 June 2022, I filed in court a “motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injuction.” I hope that the court grant me this motion and temporarily enjoin the defendants from enforcing these rules until the merits are decided in trial or through the summary judgement process.

Anybody interested in copies of the complaint and the “TRO” motion may request copies form the court. To request the price fees you may write to the clerk of the court at:

In Under Lock & Key 76 we published an article on how to file for the suit Clay v. Director of IRS Mnuchin No4:21-CV-08132-PJH if you did not receive the $3,200 stimulus checks while in a Texas prison during the pandemic. Here is an update from the initiator of this suit for anyone who has filed.

The IRS is seeking to deter and retaliate in order to lessen payments of rebate refunds by stating that a $5,000.00 penalty will issue if filer does not [withdrawal] the form 1040s filed to receive EIP. The filers need to send the IRS letter to the 9th Court of Appeals as instructed in ULK 76. Tell them to attach the letter.

They are doing this because the “fluid recovery scheme” is exposed so they can’t use it. Now they seek to use “retaliatory scare” tactics by this notice stating a $5k penalty and criminal charges for a 1040 that they don’t clarify why such is seeking benefit not entitled to or what deficiency is apparent.

I’m writing because I’ve had two or three letters from you denied here at Wynne Unit, they say “the information contains messages of hatred and statements that could start riots”. Of course, I disagreed and wasn’t given the opportunity to appeal it by the Texas Director’s Review Committee.

Secondly, place this in your next issue: I won a §1983 Suit in Texas dealing with the beard and hair policy. Specifically you can wear goatees, dreads, and braids than “they’ve now said one big braid”. The case log is Newman v. Marfo 4:19-CU-00352 and, now I have a retaliation claim which is Newman v. Bowers 4:22-CU-01649 because these officials are still giving cases creating a related injury and causal connection due to this being directly related to my, as well as our, protected conduct guarded by the 1st Amendment Constitutional Right.

Please post this because we only suffered in Texas prisons because the residents are weak and have no real hope and don’t acquire the will to believe we have the power to fight legally without physical contact but, by our minds. I also started another claim for another resident for abolishing the 1996 clause that says if we meet the standard for release, they don’t have to let us go; signed by former President Clinton and Joe Biden. So, when Biden duped blacks to break all those records getting him in office why didn’t he unsign it?

Dear MIM:

I’m writing to advise of a need for you to publish in your next issue a NOTICE FOR ALL TEXAS PRISONER ACTIVISTS concerning censorship of TBCJ-and-TDCJ policies (n.b.:The State-level Prison bureaucrats of Personnel) against the prison population and outside communities. This censorship practice is designed to keep the public relations of peoples who are incarcerated in ignorance and from having incarcerated people’ loved ones and friends in a DISADVANTAGED PHASE-AND-STATE-IN-NATURE when attempting to learn the proper information and steps to address the situations and problems arising outta the medical-and-mental health or prison conditions. The prison population needs to know of this. It seems that only certain information we’ve made/or ordered to be omitted from being accessible or available at the central-level and unit-level law library room Department’s list of in-stock holding items on their shelf.

The following is the list of items that the central-level and unit-level personnel does not want us to learn about with respect to TDCJ procedures and rules:

1. Grievance Operations Manual
2. Operations for Mailroom Manual *
3. WSD Recreation Program Procedures Manual
4. Departmental Policy and Operations Manual
5. Food Service Procedures Manual
6. Safe Prison/PREA Operations Manual
7. Access to Court Procedures Manual *
8. Substance Abuse Treatment Operation Manual
9. Sex Offender Treatment Operations Manual
10. Unit Classification Procedures Manual
11. TDCJ Intake Procedures Manual
12. TDCJ Records Detention Schedule
13. TDCJ Property Procedures Manual
14. Operational Review Manual
15. Unit Classification Plan *
16. Restrictive Housing Plan (n.b.: This Plan is not the same as The Manual) *
17. Security Threat Group Plan
18. TDCJ Volunteer Services Plan
19. TDCJ Suicide Prevention Plan
20. Operational Strategic Plan
21. TDCJ Administrative Plan for Capital Improvements by Donor Groups
22. Chaplaincy Department Manual *
23. Safe Prison/PREA Plan *

Comrades! The Procedures/Operations Manuals and The Plans are not the same. The manuals will provide the prison population all the ins-and-outs and references of all federal and state statutes or laws pertaining to the subject-matter in question. Starred items above are items made-and-available for the prison population to inspect and review.

I write this in an effort to educate and bring into understanding one successful method of overcoming malfeasant administrators at their own game when they write a fraudulent disciplinary case on you – even though your actions fail to fulfill the elements of the charged offense while the Agency staff lie in support. Utilizing the Time Lapsed Video (TLV) camera footage evidence when cameras are installed on your unit.

In brief: After gaining authorization from the Floor-Boss I zipped upstairs to another cell, delivering a legal document (E.D.-02.01 TDCJ Ethics Policy) to an inmate. Within six second, I was back on the One Row Run. The units O-3 (warden) confronted me upon my coming down ordering me to return to my cell (we were being let out to go to showers).

In the course of returning to my cell of assignment, I encountered the Floor Boss going the other way. I asked him to inform 0-3 that he had given me permission to deliver the document to another cell as we passed each other. Three seconds later, this 0-3 came up from behind me grabbing my wrist and puts handcuffs on me while proclaiming “I’m tired of you ‘Mother Fuckers’”. While walking me the rest of the way to my assigned cell: the 0-3 yanked the cuffs backwards, forward and side-to-side in efforts to get me to go off – too smart for the 0-3: I didn’t go off.

I immediately filed a grievance against this 0-3 for Non-Provoked Aggravated Excessive Use of Force, implementing penal codes, PD-22 Rules, and E.D.-02.01 “TDCJ Ethics Policy” standards in slamming this malfeasant warden.

Nine days later: following the 06-01 “Grievance Investigation Sheet” was presented to this 0-3 the warden initiated disciplinary charges against me claiming that I was Out-of-Place and Created a Disturbance. Yeah, done in retaliation. Success demands that I be found guilty; and my Grievance was shot-down by the unit’s 0-2 warden.

Thirty four days after the occurrence (the time limit is 30 days) the administration illicitly ran this disciplinary case – taking four & 1/2 hours – where the C.O. I called as a witness in my defense was blatantly compromised (suborned) by the 0-3, the charging officer. on camera in front of me and several others.

After a 30 minute conference with the Hearing Officer: The C.O. came and got me to return to the hearing officer’s office. Where the C.O., of course, lied while supporting the lies of the 0-3’s that ensued.

At the hearing as well as in my grievance I repeatedly gave notice that the TLV, when viewed, will show absolute support to all my standings while revealing the malfeasance of this 0-3. At no time did the disciplinary hearing officer view this TLV footage evidence. The video was acknowledged, yet, misrepresented by my counsel.

Of course I was found guilty, maxed-out on the punishments, G-5ed, and then I was shipped to another unit. Being the hardheaded individual that I am, while knowing I am not guilty of the lies I was charged with, I filed in the local Judicial District Court for an injunctive order and successfully gained an order from the court directing the TDCJ’s Executive Director to ensure that the TLV footage evidence of the occurrence; with the suborning of the C.O. video, be preserved and not done away with. The Court bench warranted me for this action.

By the time I finished processing back into the TDCJ the disciplinary hearing’s guilty finding was – miraculously – overturned. Who’d of thunk!?! Presently, in that same District Court, I have filed a Cause of Action against the TDCJ Agency for retaliation. Naming each person involved in this fraudulently run railroading of that case premised solely on lies and retaliation. Naming each individual as “Persons of Incident.”

You see, all too often, the TDCJ Agency will: in the course of “Taking Case of Our Own,” intentionally ignore the TLV footage evidence. Herewith, I have figured out how to force them to acknowledge the video footage evidence as well as achieving accountability for their illegal conducting: getting liability to duly attach on their heads.

The TLV cameras are there to record the truth. I here have opened the door so many have overlooked. Use the cameras to reveal their malfeasance in office. For a small donation I am certain that MIM will be glad to forward a printing of the TDCJ E.D.-02.01. The Ethics Policy is an extremely powerful Executive Directive when quoted in your grievance. It scares them so much that they removed it from the Law Libraries Holding’s list back in 2015.(1)

^{notes: 1. for a list of documents not being provided on the law libraries holdings list, see Censorship of TBCJ, TDCJ Policies, Procedures and Rules}

Organizing is spreading around the Dillard v. Davis, et al. Civil Action No. 7:19-cv-0081-M-BP lawsuit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s use of long-term solitary confinement. Prisoners held in Allred Unit, ground zero for the Restrictive Housing Unit, and Michael Unit have filed motions to join the class action suit.

A comrade in Stevenson Unit wrote to say that there are only 12 restrictive housing cells there and they are only used very short-term. But ey is sharing the motion and other campaign materials with contacts inside and outside to support those in RHU fighting for their humyn rights.

Shutting down long-term solitary confinement is one of the key campaign demands of the Juneteenth Freedom Initiative, calling for a boycott of Juneteenth until real freedom is attained in this country. The lawsuit points to the irreparable harm on mental health caused by long-term solitary.

Anyone who is in a Restricted Housing Unit in Texas can use the linked example motion to join this lawsuit. The motion should be sent to all three addresses listed at the end of the attached PDF. Please download and distribute to those you know in Texas torture chambers!

28 May 2022 UPDATE from Tx TEAM ONE member - Telford Unit: I have submitted my interest in becoming a co-plaintiff to all inhumane conditions in all Ad-Seg/RHU buildings, especially on this unit, and the inhumane/treatment and living conditions endured by all alleged STG prisoners. Because for almost forty (40) years, those of Us that are considered STG’s have been in these living conditions.

I have already written to the Eastern and Northern Districts, United States District Courts. And I have also written to the United States Department of Justice.

Dear Comrades, I have read updates, in the ULK winter 2021, No. 75, and feel the need to clarify things. The nomenclature used in BP-03.91, and the definitions provided within it, are being bent and ambiguously used by both prisoner and TDCJ staff alike. The policy itself is so ambiguous, one would have to guess at how to uniformally enforce it.

The only difference made in the new policy is how ‘sexually explicit’ is defined. I am enclosing a verbatim copy of BP 03.91 as it is currently worded on this date. I witnessed an arbitrary enforcement of this policy on the Michael Unit and have even heard improper incorrect references, by mail staff on the Coffield Unit of what was ‘sexually explicit’. This shows me that even TDCJ staff are ill-informed about what the policy is and its purpose. I had written the Texas Board of Criminal Justice a few months back and they referred my letter to the, now in-house, Ombudsman office. I would encourage all ‘brothers in white’ to familiarize themselves with the policy by reading it themselves in the unit Law Library. (as well as reading ALL of the policies that are currently in place. Simply request the ‘Index of current TDJC policies’).

The injunctions that I have knowledge of, filed against the BP-03.91, argued on the ambiguous nature and verbage of the policy. Images that cause ‘sexual arousal’ are inherently broad. (Hell, I had caught a girlfriend of mine, masturbating to Metalacolypse!)

While arguing the ambiguity of the policy is one undeniable argument, I suggested to a team of litigants to also attack the apparent objective of the policy. To curb anything that ‘sexually arouses’, well, anyone! Banning officers from ‘outrageous’ or ‘extreme’ hairdos, make-up, jewelry, etc. tight pants, or even suggesting that female officers not work in male prisons (no male officers in the female prisons) but even then you would not be able to curb even same sex arousal. It is in applying this argument that we see just how illogical it is to curb ‘sexual arousal’. Exacerbating the ridiculousness of the argument will force them to define and refine the definition of the policy and there is no way that you would be able to legally define ‘cleavage’ as censorable under the First Amendment.

While these are my own thoughts and opinions, I do hope to help as many comrades in their legal efforts. This isn’t something that a phone call will fix but we can change things with well-thought-out litigation. It takes time, but most of us have nothing but time. Intellectuals fight with their words. Learn to use them and wield them with effective effort.

At the current moment i am not involved in any active litigation as my time and energy is currently invested in criminal matters, however, I try to keep up with what is going on to know our environment. I want to thank ALL of you who keep us connected through organization, correspondence, etc. Without you we would most likely be more lost to the cause than anyone could imagine. The support you provide is priceless.

Nothing worth fighting for is ever easily won. Policies are a fraction of the fight. Laws are another. But the biggest fight we face is ignorance. Our own and of the population. This is readily apparent in the policies and laws we find ourselves fighting against. It is a reason for the mission of MIM.

Always onward with more audacity!

Dear Friends,

I am the plaintiff in the lawsuit against members of the TBCJ and TDCJ, (#3:21-CV-00337), filed in December 3, 2021.

I also represent the interests of ‘doll’ and ‘pineapple pictures.’ Since the strong opposition to enforce the BP-03.91 rules it seems that the TDCJ is no longer enforcing rules 1(C) and IV(A) (10) (11) of the BP-03.91. At least not in this unit.

However, I will not withdraw the lawsuit until I get the relief I requested in my lawsuit: “declare that rules of the BP-03.91 violates inmates and outside commercial vendors’ Constitutional rights of the First Amendment and enjoin defendants from enforcing the rules.”

Fellow prisoners who would like to support the lawsuit need to write to the court:

Although prisoners can not write me directly to provide me with a copy of the letter, I would like to know who has done it. Please send a copy to MIM(Prisons) and let them know if you grant them permission to forward me your name and TDCJ # or not.

Thank you for your help and assistance.

Thank you for sending the extra copies of ULK 76. Please always send extras, I will distribute proudly! I noticed in ULK 76 that others were suing Dale Wainwright with the Texas Board of Criminal Justice. I am doing the same, because the Board sets policy for TDCJ but I just got a letter back from the Board which shows the Chairman to be Patrick L. O’Daniel.

For now I’m going to keep Wainwright named in my suit because I don’t know how long this other chap has been holding down that job and Wainwright is responsible for maintaining policy that violates my rights.

We Native American practitioners have to take a religious test to be able to attend our worship services and to be transferred to a “Designated” Native American unit but one of the reasons they have listed that they may deny you transfer to a Designated Unit due to your health or a “medical condition”, which “may preclude eligibility for re-assignment” (Policy #09.02(rev.2) Attachment A). I suppose it’s policy such as this, that violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, that Lumpkin and others use to justify keeping me in “cool bed housing” and mistakenly think that they don’t have to provide cool bed housing on these “Designated Units.”