Tag Archives: legal mail

Just in Time for the Holidays: BOP Announces Restrictive Mail Policy – Update for October 25, 2024

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

YOU’VE GOT MAIL

Federal Bureau of Prisons Director Colette Peters announced last week that the agency will introduce new procedures in November 2024 in all prisons other than minimum-security facilities. All general correspondence (including photos and commercial greeting cards) sent to prisoners will be photocopied, and only color photocopies will be provided to the inmate.

mailB241025The new restrictions, which Peters said was a result of “[t]he rise in illicit substances sent to incarcerated individuals through US mail,” will require that all incoming general correspondence must be on plain white paper and in a white envelope. No glitter, labels, stickers, perfume, lipstick, crayon, or marker will be accepted.

Legal and special mail will continue to be opened in the presence of the inmate after BOP investigators verify that the identified sender really is the sender. Peters warned that while efforts would be made to deliver legal mail within 24 hours, that may not happen because “thorough vetting is required to ensure the highest level of security.”

A BOP mailroom supervisor at USP Atwater died last August, apparently from contact with a drug-laden document sent to an inmate by legal mail. Speculation in the media at the time blamed fentanyl for the death, but the three defendants charged in the death thus far have been accused only of a conspiracy to distribute only one named drug, “AB-CHMINACA and MDMB-4en-PINACA, commonly referred to as Spice.”

This is not to say that fentanyl was not a factor, nor that it was uninvolved in the poisoning of a BOP employee at USP Thomson in early September, just that it has not yet been identified as being present. In the Atwater case, it is unlikely that autopsy results will be revealed prior to trial.

United States v. Jones, Case No 1:24-cr-209 (E.D.Cal.)

BOP, Message from the Director and CPL-33 President (October 16, 2024)

AFGE 4070 Press Release, A Correctional Officer was exposed to what was believed to be amphetamines. The staff member was given Narcan before being transported to a local hospital. (September 2, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

I’m-a Gonna Mail Myself to You – Update for August 16, 2019

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

IT’S ALL ON YOU, MAN

mail190816When Mario Dunham was convicted, his lawyer withdrew without filing a notice of appeal. Mario’s conviction became final on November 16, 2015. His 28 USC § 2255 motion, complaining that his lawyer failed to file a notice of appeal, appeared at the courthouse one year and two weeks later.

Of course, the deadline for a § 2255 motion under 28 USC 2255(f)(1) would have been November 16, 2016. Mario’s mailing envelope had a Nov. 28 postmark. Nevertheless, the district court gave Mario a chance to provide he had mailed it on time.

The Bureau of Prisons offers a “legal mail” system (which it calls “special mail“) to inmates for communications with lawyers, courts and legislators. The legal mail is not inspected by the BOP staff, and the date of delivery to the prison officials for mailing is noted, and becomes a filing date honored by the court system.

Mario did not use legal mail for his § 2255 motion, I suspect because legal mail would have revealed he mailed it well after the court deadline. Obviously, he could not gin up evidence that he had mailed it when he said he had, having nothing more that his naked assertion that he had put it in the housing unit mailbox by November 16th, and somehow the prison did not get that load of mail out for two weeks or so. The district court did not buy it, and last week, the 5th Circuit rejected Mario’s argument as well.

backintime190816The 5th held that the burden to prove a § 2255 motion was mailed on time always falls on the petitioner. The prisoner’s own statement that he mailed it on time is not good enough. This is why documents sent to the court should always go legal mail. Beyond that, a careful petitioner will always keep one eye on how he or she would prove timely mailing if something goes missing. Being sure the Corrections Officer handling legal mail logs the mailing and asking him or her to note what is being sent (such as “2255 motion” or “objections to report”) or something that would help prove a timely filing of whatever is being sent, is always a good idea. The BOP is supposed to log such things, but being sure it’s done right is only prudent.

giphyIn Mario’s case, the court had not just fallen off the turnip truck. It compared the § 2255 filing with all of the other filings Mario had made in the proceeding, and noted that all of them were postmarked within a day or two of the date Mario had written on the filings. The only exception was the § 2255 motion, postmarked 14 days after the date Mario had written in on the signature page.

The Court’s implication that Mario had backdated the petition is pretty clear.

United States v. Duran, Case No. 17-30428, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23717, 2019 WL 3729586 (5th Cir., Aug. 8, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root