Blood in the Water Author Wins Censorship Challenges Against Illinois, New York Prison Systems
by Douglas Ankney
In 2016, University of Michigan Professor Heather Ann Thompson published Blood in the Water, a book about the 1971 uprising at New York’s Attica State Prison that claimed the lives of 33 prisoners and 10 guards. The book received numerous awards, including the 2016 Bancroft Prize and the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in History. But when Thompson sent a copy to Illinois state prisoner Percell Dansberry in February 2018, Pontiac Correctional Center Publication Review Officer David Meredith confiscated it for violating Department of Corrections (DOC) policy. Thompson’s book was also banned by the New York Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS), which operates the Attica prison.
Thompson filed a civil rights challenge to the bans in federal courts for the Central District of Illinois and the Southern District of New York. But things didn’t go well in Illinois. Count 1 of Thompson’s complaint alleged that Defendant DOC officials violated her “right to communicate with inmates without arbitrary governmental invasion.” She challenged both the thoroughness of the Defendant’s review and the reasonableness of their ultimate decision, based on evidence showing that DOC read only “40 to 50 pages” of the 720-page book before determining it met DOC criteria for disapproval.
Dansberry grieved denial of Thompson’s book, but prison Warden Teri Kennedy—via Assistant Warden Emily Ruskin—concurred with Meredith, though neither ever even read the book. In Count II of her suit, Thompson argued that her Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights were violated because she received neither notice of the censorship nor opportunity to challenge it. Defendants moved for summary judgment on both counts, claiming qualified immunity (QI). On October 11, 2022, the district court granted the motion.
First, the district court held, Thompson failed to overcome Defendants’ claim that their censorship decision was “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests,” as permitted by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). As to Count II, the district court found no support for Thompson’s claim that an author has a clearly established right to notice of censorship or to appeal the censorship. Moreover, her claim as a sender failed because the book was mailed from Amazon; since Defendants were unaware that Thompson sent it to Dansberry, they were entitled to QI. See: Thompson v. Baldwin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185470 (C.D. Ill.).
Meanwhile, DOCCS reached a settlement with Thompson in June 2023, agreeing to lift the ban in New York prisons, provided that a two-page image of Attica’s layout could be cut from any copy before delivery to a prisoner. DOCCS also agreed to place two copies of the book in each of its 44 prisons, also paying $75,000 in costs and fees to Thompson’s attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of New York. See: Thompson v. Annucci, USDC (S.D.N.Y.), Case No. 1:22-cv-02632.
Six months after that, Thompson agreed to drop her challenge to the Illinois ruling at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on December 11, 2023, after DOC reportedly agreed to lift the ban, pay an $8,500 settlement and place a copy of the book in every state prison. She was represented in that case by attorneys with the Uptown People’s Law Center in Chicago. See: Thompson v. Baldwin, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 34254 (7th Cir.).
Though she was “thrilled” with the settlement, Thompson warned that “[d]espite earlier civil rights victories to ensure people could read inside, prisons have become ground zero for book banning.”
Additional sources: New York Focus, WBEZ
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login