In the three years since Inside Investigator launched, we have undertaken several investigations with the goal of answering a substantive question but have run up against issues with the state’s record-keeping and data collection policies, resulting in those stories being primarily about administrative processes rather than providing clear-cut answers.

This is one of those stories.

In August 2024, Inside Investigator submitted a comprehensive Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Corrections (DOC) seeking information about banned books.

We have previously reported on banned book lists that several organizations have been able to obtain, and which are notoriously difficult to get.

But prison banned book lists don’t tell the whole story. They often don’t provide details on why publications were banned, on why bans that have been overturned or upheld, or give insight into incarcerated individuals’ fights to overturn bans.

Inside Investigator’s goal was to help inform the public of how decisions to ban books and other media are made and how incarcerated individuals attempt to fight back.

We were not able to complete that picture because of issues with how DOC handled the request and because of discrepancies in their record-keeping.

On August 2, 2024, for a time period covering January 1, 2020, to August 2, 2024, Inside Investigator submitted a FOIA request for the following documents:

• The names of all published materials rejected by DOC facilities
• Documents related to DOC’s policy for refusing published materials
• Documents related to incarcerated individuals’ requests for published materials
• Documentation communicating to incarcerated individuals why published materials were rejected
• Documentation relating to current DOC contracts with vendors for books or other publications

A month later, on September 4, DOC provided an initial batch of records, including memos the department distributes to incarcerated individuals that list publications have been either approved or rejected for distribution in the facility; a copy of AD 10.7, the department’s administrative directive governing communications with prisoners; and a blank copy of the notice DOC sends to prisoners when publications are rejected.

DOC also stated that the portion of the request seeking DOC communications with incarcerated individuals explaining publication rejection decisions was not included because those were physical records that needed to be copied, but the agency was “working on complying.”

A few weeks later, on September 20, DOC followed up on the request, stating they had found 6,700 pages of DOC publication reviews and it would cost $1,675 to copy.

A few days later, Inside Investigator asked to narrow the time frame of that part of the request to a year to defray that cost. DOC acknowledged the change the same day.

On October 21, 2024, Inside Investigator asked for an update on the request’s status and for an estimated page count and invoice for the narrowed portion of the request.

And that’s when things took a turn.

“I have been trying to link up with the media review staff to verify and understand the below response they provided when I inquired for a status update on the cost of copies.” DOC FOI administrator Stephanie Secore wrote in response the same day.

She quoted the following message from the media review staff: “While looking in our archives, I noticed we did not maintain records of [incarcerated individual’s] appeals. I thought a copy of the appeals or a signed letter from the Director was archived, but I was mistaken.”

Secore further said that she had spoken with the DOC supervisor who oversees media review and was told “the responses to the population’s appeals are sent to the offenders directly, and that the correspondence is not actually copied and filed.” Additionally, Secore said the appeals and outcomes were reflected in databases and memos that had already been provided.

DOC then closed the request.

But there were multiple outstanding questions. DOC had identified 6,700 pages of records allegedly responsive to the request and were now saying they didn’t actually exist. In addition, at that point in time, they had only turned over the media review files, containing a list of books that had been approved or rejected for distribution into the facility, and a copy of their administrative policy on what publications are allowed into the facility.

They had not addressed another part of the request seeking contracts with vendors for the provision of materials.  

Inside Investigator followed up on the request again and asked DOC for clarification on a number of issues: where in the documents turned over to us was there information on incarcerated individual appeals or their outcomes? The media review documents they provided only noted whether certain publications had been allowed into the facility and, in very few cases, noted whether appeals were pending or overturned.

Inside Investigator also asked for clarification about where the $1,675 quote had come from and what the 6,700 pages of identified documents contained. Further, we asked for clarification about the part of the request that hadn’t been addressed—current contracts with publishers. Since no documents had been provided and the request was marked closed, did that mean there were no current contracts?

Finally, we noted that a provision of AD 10.7, which DOC not only provided to us in response to the request but highlighted, stipulates that unit administrators must provide incarcerated individuals with a notice, CN100702, when publication has been rejected. Did DOC not maintain copies of those records? They seemed to fall under the scope of the FOIA request.

Secore said the quote we were given was the result of DOC staff being under the false impression that “a physical copy of the notification letters was kept and filed.” But according to Secore, DOC not only did not maintain copies of the records but was “not required to maintain copies of them.” Secore also said she was working on responding to our additional questions.

A week later, Inside Investigator sent a message to DOC again, asking about the portion of the request relating to contracts with publishers and notifying the agency that if we did not receive a definitive answer by the end of the week, we would be filing a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC)

That email was sent on October 30. DOC had marked the request closed on October 21. There’s only a 30-day window to file a complaint with the FOIC after a request is closed, which meant the clock was ticking on our ability to address this and other issues with the request.

The same day, Secore responded and said she was “waiting on responses from a few different units within the agency” as the portion of the request related to incarcerated individual appeals involved not just the media review board but other parts of the agency.

Secore also stated that documents responsive to the portion of the request for current contracts with publishers had been provided in September. Inside Investigator had not received it, but re-released it that day.

Inside Investigator asked that the request be reopened while those questions were pending and DOC complied.  

On November 1, DOC provided an extensive update on the request and released some new records.

In that response, Secore broke down each aspect of the FOIA request to detail whether any documents that had been released were responsive to it or to address outstanding questions.

For the portion of the request relating to documents for incarcerated individuals’ requests for publications, we were asked to clarify what we meant by “incarcerated individual request for published materials” and told that the language of the request seeking “any document that relates” was “making it really difficult” for DOC to know what to look for.

For the portion of the request relating to documents communicating to incarcerated individuals why publications were rejected, Secore indicated those documents had been released. She wrote that monthly memos, which had been provided, were “sent out to the offender population, containing both rejected and approved materials and reasons” and that some might have the determination of publications that had been re-reviewed due to “changes in law, offender appeals, notification from publishers or senders, etc.”

She also noted that DOC did not have any contracts with publishers and that DOC was providing the catalog of materials available through incarcerated individuals’ Securus tablets, which were “not technically DOC records” but related to documents we were seeking.

Secore also addressed several outstanding questions.

In response to a question about where the documents provided detailed appeals and outcomes, she referred us to the memos DOC sent out monthly and sometimes twice monthly. These, however, only reflect the final outcome of appeals, not information on which incarcerated individual had appealed a rejection or DOC officials detailed reasoning for rejecting a publication.

As we would later come to find out from additional documents, they were also not a complete record of an appeal. They only listed appeals where the initial rejection had been overturned. They did not contain any information about appeals where rejections had been upheld.

In response to our question about whether DOC maintained copies of the CN100702 form AD 10.7 stipulates the department is required to use to notify incarcerated individuals when publications are rejected, Secore said she was “waiting to speak to someone about the retention of the rejection notices that are sent to the offenders and if they are required to be maintained and if so, where I can get copies from.”

She also addressed the quote DOC had erroneously provided for records that supposedly didn’t actually exist.

“I preemptively gave you a possible quote for costs of copies when the media review supervisor stated that roughly 6,700 reviews had been completed in that time period, however I now know that did not mean they were all related to appeals or that letters to the population were drafted or retained.”

In response, we clarified that we were seeking several categories of records described in AD 10.7, including the CN100702 rejection notices DOC is required to send to incarcerated individuals, about which we had already inquired and which Secore had first said were not maintained by DOC but then said she needed to hear from other department officials to determine if they were maintained by not.

When Secore indicated in her correspondence that DOC did not maintain copies of the notification form, Inside Investigator turned to the state’s public records administrator.

The state’s record retention schedule sets rules for how long various public agencies and municipalities are required to keep copies of different types of records.

Under DOC’s record retention schedule, there’s a category for incarcerated individual communications and, more specifically, mail and publication reviews.

The descriptor for the records category specifically states it applies to the inspection and review of incarcerated individual communications in accordance with AD 10.7 and can include “forms and attachments associated with AD 10.7 and any related documentation.” Documents falling under that category are required to be retained for three years, or until the close of litigation if that occurs.

This seemed a pretty clear-cut indication that DOC does have a requirement to maintain the notification form for rejected publications, which is outlined in AD 10.7. The public records administrator confirmed that this part of the records retention schedule seemingly applied to rejection notices for publications that incarcerated individuals receive through the mail.

As DOC’s communications were noncommittal about whether these records actually existed, we filed a request with the public records administrator to have them review whether DOC was improperly deleting records.

But by October 12, the issue appeared to be somewhat moot as DOC provided 242 pages of letters it had sent to incarcerated individuals who had appealed a rejection decision. Secore said that she was still working on gathering records from DOC’s facilities, which she said would take time, but that they would be sent as she received them.

On January 10, 2025, Inside Investigator reached out again to DOC to inquire about the status of the request. We had received no additional documents or communication since October. The same day, Secore provided a link to 2,300 additional responsive documents, including copies of CN100702 notices and “some additional records the individual facilities maintained.”

Secore also said she had spoken with the facility officials who had not provided records and hoped to turn those over much sooner.

A month later, on February 7, DOC turned over publication rejection notices from the remaining facilities and closed the request. We also closed our request with the public records administrator since DOC had provided copies of the records it initially said it did not maintain and did not have to maintain.

View the documents DOC provided here.

But though DOC did manage to produce the CN100702 forms, they are not complete and there are discrepancies between those forms and other records they provided.

According to DOC, appeals and outcomes were reflected in memos that were provided to Inside Investigator. But after reviewing those memos, and a spreadsheet cataloguing the outcomes of appeals of publication rejections, Inside Investigator found no records for the appeals that were pending in the memos.

The monthly memos DOC circulates to the incarcerated population contain a list of publications that were allowed into facilities, rejected, or were pending appeal during the time period. They also note publications that were approved for entry into DOC facilities after being successfully appealed.

DOC only provided CN100702 forms dating back to 2022, likely because they are only required to retain them for three years and records from earlier than that could be destroyed.

In 2022, DOC’s records list two books that were under review at the time the memo was circulated: Linux Bible – Tenth Edition and Nightmare in Elm City.

Both books were listed as under review at the time DOC circulated a monthly memo in October 2022. But not only do those books not appear in that memo, the book on Linux doesn’t appear in a spreadsheet DOC provided that lists publications the department rejected between January 1, 2020, through August 2, 2024. Nightmare in Elm City does appear in the spreadsheet of rejected publication results. It’s listed as having been rejected for “describing or encouraging physical violence or group disruption” on November 15, 2022.

The same is true for one book that was under review in January 2024, a book on pharmacology. There is no record of appeal from the incarcerated individual who requested it in the CN100702 forms DOC provided or in the spreadsheet of rejected publication results.

The DOC memos from 2020 also list another publication that was pending appeal, but which is not listed in DOC’s list of rejected publications. Though the memos note the appeals for those publications were pending, there is no later entry in them noting that they had been approved for circulation. Because there are no records noting if they were ultimately rejected or approved, it’s impossible to know what the outcome of those appeals was.

The list of books that DOC’s monthly memos list as being rejected also does not match the spreadsheet listing rejection publication results that they provided. For example, the earliest memo DOC provided listing publication outcomes is dated January 21, 2020. But in DOC’s rejected publication results spreadsheet, there are 18 listed publications that are listed before that date.

It is not the only month for which there are additional entries for rejected publications in DOC’s spreadsheet that are not reflected in the memos they turned over. There are multiple additional entries in the spreadsheet for review dates that are not included in the memos DOC provided.

The rejection notices that DOC provided also do not match the monthly memos. There are numerous CN100702 rejection notices that notify incarcerated individuals that a publication will not be allowed into a facility which are not reflected in the monthly memos. For example, DOC provided a rejection notice for The Complete Guide to Nosework & Secret Detective Training to a prisoner in Carl Robinson Correctional Institute on August 2, 2023. That rejection is not listed in either the monthly memos or the rejection result spreadsheet DOC provided.

The monthly memos also only list publications that were rejected due to their content. They do not list publications that were rejected due to other restrictions, such as being oversized or overweight or for being used or sent by someone other than a publisher. These types of rejections were only noted in the publication rejection notices.

In addition, the documents DOC provided with the CN100702 forms are inconsistent. DOC provided not just CN100702 forms but also letters sent by the department to incarcerated individuals informing them of the outcome of their appeals.

Attached to some of the letters is a copy of the form used by incarcerated individuals to appeal various DOC decisions, including disciplinary actions, security risk group designations, and correspondence or publication rejections. The form contains prisoners’ handwritten appeals of the rejection decision, including arguments for why the publication should be allowed into the facility and their proposed resolution.

Some also contain copies of the publication rejection notice and an administrative remedy receipt, noting DOC had received the appeal.

But for the roughly 130 letters to prisoners notifying them of the outcome of their appeal, only a handful include those additional documents. Without the CN100702 form, the only window into prisoners’ objections to rejections and their perspective on them is a brief summarization in the DOC letter informing them of the appeal outcome. In some letters, even that is not provided.

Due to the discrepancies between the different types of records DOC provided, it’s difficult to determine which records provide the most complete picture of which publications were banned most frequently and which were the most commonly invoked reasons for rejection. Due to the discrepancies in the appeal records, it’s also difficult to determine the success of appeals and most common mistakes in improperly rejecting books.

Because the publication rejection outcome spreadsheet DOC provided contains additional rejection entries not listed in the monthly memos the department provided, Inside Investigator used that document to analyze rejections.

Several organizations were able to obtain DOC’s list of banned books from 2013, 2019, and 2023. The data Inside Investigator obtained about books that were banned in 2024 has not been previously published.

According to DOC’s rejection spreadsheet, there were 55 publications banned from facilities in 2024. The most frequently banned book was How Not to Summon a Demon Lord, a “light novel” series by Yukiya Murasaki. Two volumes of the book were banned: Volume 3 was banned once and Volume 5 was banned twice. Volume 3 was banned for containing “written sexually explicit material involving minors” and Volume 5 was banned for “containing written sexually explicit/sado-masochistic behavior.” Another entry in the spreadsheets does not note the volume that was rejected, but also states the reason for rejection as sexual activity involving minors.

The books, which have also been turned into a manga adaptation and an anime series, follow Takuma Sakamoto, a gamer who is summoned into his favorite massive multiplayer online roleplaying game as his character by two young girls. The girls attempt to use a spell to make Takuma their servant but it backfires and they are instead bound to him.

Volume 3 of the book has also been banned in California prisons due to it lacking “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” The second season of the anime series was banned from being imported into Australia in 2023.

Manga has become a frequent target of book bans, both in prisons and public libraries and there are a number of manga titles among the books rejected by DOC in 2024, including Chainsaw Man, for sexually explicit and sadomasochistic behavior; Ero Ninja Scrolls, for pictorially explicit sexual activity; and Zom 100, which had two volumes banned for explicit sexual material.

There is no record of the book being rejected in the memos DOC provided.

There were also several popular books rejected by DOC in 2024, including The Witcher Omnibus and Fifty Shades of Grey, both of which were rejected for containing sexual content.

Gender Queer, which is one of the most challenged books in the nation according to the American Library Association, was also banned for containing “pictorially explicit sexual activity.” Nepantla, a poetry anthology for queer poets of color, was also banned, for allegedly “describing or encouraging physical violence or group disruption.”

Comic books or books that are part of popular cartoon series have also caused issues for DC, according to records provided.

The Preacher comic book series, which is an imprint of DC Comics, was banned for sexually explicit and sadomasochistic behavior. DMZ, another comic book series, was banned for containing pictorially explicit nudity.

DOC also upheld a ban on a collection of DC poster art because it allegedly contains sadomasochistic behavior. According to the letter DOC sent to note the appeal had been upheld because they allegedly contain pictures of bondage.

DOC also upheld the rejection of a book from the Rick and Morty cartoon series because there was metal inside the cover and it could not be removed without altering the book, which DOC does not allow.

In 2024, publications were most frequently rejected for containing sexual content, with pictorial explicit nudity cited most frequently as a reason for rejection.

The documents DOC provided also show a number of appeals that were overturned either because an objection had been applied without actual cause or because reviewers could not find a valid reason why they had been rejected.

In April 2022, DOC officials reviewed a rejection of the book Sacrificial Ceremonies of Santeria, which was initially rejected for “encouraging or instructing on the commission of criminal activity.” But reviewers found there was no content in the book that either encouraged or instructed on the commission of criminal activity. The rejection was overturned.

In June 2022, DOC reviewed a rejection of the book Too Scared to Tell by Cathy Glass, which was initially rejected for containing written sexually explicit material. Reviewers found the book to be a memoir about healing from a traumatic experience that had literary value and found no explicit sexual material. The rejection was overturned.

In September 2022, DOC reviewed a rejection of The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley, which was initially rejected in 2019 for “encouraging or instructing on the commission of criminal activity” because Huxley describes insights derived from taking mescaline and their philosophical meanings. DOC decided to overturn the ban because “on the whole” the book is philosophical.

They also overturned a rejection of an artbook of Edgar Degas nudes, which was rejected in May 2023 for containing pictorial nudity because it was educational and artistic as a whole.

It also overturned the rejection of several graphic novels, including V Wars, Lady Justice by Neil Gaiman, and Road of the Dead.

DOC’s ban on sexually explicit material covers a wide variety of materials, including pictorially explicit material that contains a visual depiction of sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, depiction of certain bodily functions, conduct involving a minor or activity that appears to be nonconsensual and nudity, defined as the visual depiction or display of “genitalia, pubic region, anus, or female breast where the areola is visible and not completely and opaquely covered.” It also includes written sexually explicit material where sadomasochism, bestiality, minors, or the use of force are described.

Publications containing sexually explicit material are prohibited for distribution in DOC facilities, unless they “are literary, artistic, educational, or scientific in nature” when taken as a whole, as determined by DOC officials.

It’s that carveout that has been an issue, as whether something is literary or artistic is subjective. There are a number of appeals of rejected publications that were overturned because an initial decision finding sexually explicit material was unwarranted when the work was taken as a whole. That a work when taken as a whole is artistic or educational is frequently cited by incarcerated individuals in their appeals of publications that were rejected.

Disagreement over the value of a work when taken as a whole has been the subject of several lawsuits. In 2014, Dwight Pink, Jr., a convicted murderer, sued after DOC officials denied him access to several art books and a book on childbirth because they were determined to contain “explicit” material. DOC’s policy on sexually explicit material in 2011, ostensibly to improve the work environment, particularly for female staff, by reducing their exposure to pornography. While the books were ostensibly explicit, Pink argued they should not have been banned under the carveout in the law for books that are artistic or educational as a whole.

In 2023, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a lawsuit brought by a group of Connecticut prisoners who were challenging the DOC’s ban on sexually explicit material. They argued that the portion of the policy allowing sexual material if it was educational or artistic was unconstitutionally vague. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the prisoners’ challenge on several other grounds, continuing the tradition of siding with the arguments advanced by prison officials, but did not rule on the merits of the vagueness claim. The court waived the vagueness claim aside, finding it only applied to criminal statutes or prison disciplinary rules.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.