New hunger strike: Petition for improved conditions in Administrative Segregation Unit at Corcoran State Prison

This is a petition to those in power, not yet signable for us, but if someone posts it on a petition page, we're sure it will reach a lot of people who agree.

Posted On December 30, 2011 in SF Bay View

by Pyung Hwa Ryoo, Juan Jaimes and William E. Brown

(Written Dec. 19, 2011) To: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director Matthew Cate, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283-0001, and Chief Deputy Warden C. Gipson, Corcoran State Prison, P.O. Box 8800, Corcoran, CA 93212

Mr. Cate and Mrs. Gipson:

We, inmates currently housed in Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) of CSP (California State Prison) Corcoran, hereby petition California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director Matthew Cate and Corcoran State Prison Chief Deputy Warden C. Gipson for the redress and reform of current inhumane conditions we are subjected to which violate our constitutional rights.

Furthermore, this petition will serve as a constructive notice for the peaceful protest which will be carried out as an alternative means of petition in the event that our conditions and demands are not met in a timely manner. [A notation on the cover letter to this petition says the hunger strike started Dec. 28, 2011.]

Petitioners have attempted to address the issues brought up in this petition by filing numerous inmate appeals and grievances and requests for interviews to no avail. Our constitutional rights under the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments are being violated by CDCR and CSP Corcoran officials and therefore we demand the following:
Demand No. 1: THAT INMATES HERE IN ASU BE ALLOWED TO POSSESS TVs AND/OR RADIOS

We are daily being subjected to sensory deprivation which imposes a substantial risk of serious harm to our mental health. As established in numerous scientific studies, prolonged subjection to sensory deprivation has serious adverse effects to one’s mental health. We are subjected to these conditions for months and even years. Our numerous attempts to address this problem by filing 602s are being shut down. The officials are acting with deliberate indifference to our health and well-being, and our Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is being violated.

Although mandated by a court order to allow inmates in ASUs to possess an entertainment appliance, CSP Corcoran officials refuse to do so citing a memorandum dated Dec. 15, 2008, that permanently exempts a number of prisons, including CSP Corcoran, from having to comply with the court’s mandates due to their “current fiscal situation and costs to retrofit housing units.” This policy is illegal, for our constitutional rights must be protected regardless of CSP Corcoran’s financial problems or the costs to make necessary installations to protect those rights.

Also, the aforementioned exemption memo states that CSP Corcoran is permanently exempt from allowing the use of entertainment appliances in the ASU. The only explanation provided on how and why this prison is exempt is a brief mention of the current fiscal situation of the prison. There is no mention of any follow-ups in a set period of time – e.g., every six months – in which the prison’s budget will be reviewed by the Division of Adult Institutions to see whether the prison still qualifies for the category that justifies exemption.

In other words, once a prison “passes the test” by showing that they currently cannot afford the costs to retrofit the housing units and get accepted in the “exemption list,” that prison is permanently exempt regardless of their financial situation in the future. This exemption policy is clearly unreasonable, and we assert that this policy is merely used as a loophole to get around the court’s mandates to allow us our entertainment appliances.

Furthermore, the exemption memo cannot apply to us because there is no extensive retrofitting required for giving us our radios. The electric outlets are in place and the radios merely need to be distributed and plugged in to work.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) CSP Corcoran officials immediately allow us to possess and/or stipulate to allow us to possess our TVs within two months.

B) CSP Corcoran officials make the necessary installations and/or stipulations needed to allow us to possess our TVs within two months.
Demand No. 2: THAT WE ARE PROVIDED ACCESS TO AN ADEQUATE LAW LIBRARY AND/OR LEGAL ASSISTANCE

The ASU law library is inadequate. Its contents do not comply with CCR (California Code of Regulations) Title 15 §3121 and DOM (Department Operations Manual) §53060.11. There is only one computer that contains the only essential law books in the law library, which is supposed to be shared by 200 inmates. This results in unreasonable delays with inmates not being able to sufficiently access the law library.
There is only one computer that contains the only essential law books in the law library, which is supposed to be shared by 200 inmates.

Furthermore, there is no copy machine in the ASU law library. All our legal copies are therefore forwarded to the 4A facility law library for copying. This results in delays of days or even weeks for us to receive our copies back. Also, there have been instances where our copies have been lost resulting from this unreliable practice.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) CSP Corcoran officials allow us access to an adequate law library and reasonable amount of time to use such law library by: 1) Ordering and replacing all current law books listed in CCR Title 15 §3121 and DOM §53060.11 which are missing from the ASU law libraries contents, or 2) Installing three more computers that contain essential law books for inmate use, or 3) Providing us with adequate legal assistance from persons trained in the law.

B) CSP Corcoran officials install a copy machine in the ASU law library for its use for legal copies and all essential legal supplies be kept in stock.
Demand No. 3: THAT INMATES NOT BE FURTHER PUNISHED UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR SHU TERMS

Inmates are being placed in the ASU after the completion of their SHU terms supposedly “pending transfer.” These inmates are then stuck here for four, five months, in many instances even longer, before finally being transferred to general population. This practice of illegally placing inmates in ASU upon the completion of their SHU terms for long periods of time without proper procedure and with excessive delays on their transfers is resulting in unjustified punishment for these inmates.

Furthermore, inmates undergoing the DRB (Departmental Review Board) process after the completion of their SHU terms are being held in ASU for months and even years while the counselors and committee ignore their repeated requests for a timely hearing on their case. This is in blatant violation of their procedural due process rights.

Inmates undergoing the DRB (Departmental Review Board) process after the completion of their SHU terms are being held in ASU for months and even years while the counselors and committee ignore their repeated requests for a timely hearing on their case.

The inmates submit numerous inmate requests to ASU counselors regarding the delays on their transfers and/or DRB process, but those inmate requests are not being responded to and are being ignored. The counselors are not doing their jobs because of their incompetence and/or negligence; we are suffering these undue delays explained above.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) The counselors here in ASU do not unreasonably delay inmates’ transfers and DRB process and respond to inmate requests in a timely manner.

B) Inmates who are placed in ASU after the completition of their SHU terms be afforded the same privileges as those inmates who are classified as A2-B inmates, which includes but is not limited to quarterly packages, one phone call per month and $120 monthly canteen draws.
Demand No.4: THAT WE BE AFFORDED ADEQUATE AND TIMELY MEDICAL CARE

Medical staff here in ASU unjustifiably delays medical attention and denies proper medical treatment for inmates. Although required by the court’s order in Coleman/Plata v. Schwarzenegger to provide us with adequate medical care, which the CDCR has failed to provide before, CSP Corcoran’s medical department is not in compliance with the court’s mandates. We are suffering violations to our Eighth Amendment rights daily for lack of adequate medical care, and our health and well-being are severely jeopardized.

Furthermore, we are having difficulties pursuing timely medical appeals and grievances. The medical appeals coordinators do not follow time requirements set forth in CCR Title 15 §3084.6 and there are substantial delays on getting responses for our appeals.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) Inmates be provided with timely medical attention upon request and provided with adequate medical care as mandated by the court in Coleman/Plata v. Schwarzenegger.

B) Medical appeals be promptly responded to pursuant to CCR Title 15 §3084.6.
Demand No. 5: THAT WE BE AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN OUR 115 HEARINGS

We are being placed in ASU and sentenced to SHU terms without being afforded due process of law. The hearing officers automatically find inmates guilty regardless of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence, and their biased perspectives and opinions go unchallenged.

Although the hearing officers are acting as lawyers and/or triers of fact in 115 hearings on the question of guilt, clearly under the guidelines of established case law concerning due process, they are not required to be trained in the law nor registered with the State Bar.

Resulting from their lack of knowledge and competence in this matter, frivolous and false charges not supported by any reliable evidence, which would be thrown out in a court of law, are being upheld and imposed on us. This violates our 14th Amendment rights to due process.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) Hearing officers be required to follow guidelines established by the courts concerning due process, burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence when conducting 115 hearings.

B) Hearing officers be trained in the law so they may be deemed competent to carry out the duty of a trier of fact in 115 hearings.
Demand No. 6: THAT WE BE ALLOWED PHONE ACCESS

Inmates placed in ASU are not allowed access to phones. The only way we are allowed to maintain family and community ties are by writing letters and receiving visits. Not all of us are literate, and not all of us get visits. So the denial of phone access is depriving many of us of the only way to keep in contact with our families and loved ones.
The denial of phone access is depriving many of us of the only way to keep in contact with our families and loved ones.

Furthermore, those of us currently litigating cases who need access to the phone to contact witnesses, private investigators, attorneys, courtroom clerks etc. are not allowed phone access. This results in an impingement on our First Amendment rights to access to the courts.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) Inmates in ASU be allowed one phone call a month on an inmate telephone pursuant to CCR Title 15 §3282(a)(3).

B) Inmates in ASU be allowed confidential calls pursuant to CCR Title 15 §3282(g).
Demand No. 7: THAT WE BE PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE LAUNDRY EXCHANGE

We are being denied adequate laundry exchange. There are weeks where laundry exchange is not run; most of the time during laundry exchange they are short on pillow cases, sheets and towels; and we are only allowed to turn in one of each item for laundry exchange. This clearly is not in accordance with CCR Title 15 §3031(b).

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) We be provided with a weekly laundry exchange pursuant to CCR Title 15 §3031(b).
Demand No. 8: THAT OUR CANTEEN FOOD ITEMS BE GIVEN TO US IN THEIR PACKAGING

Our canteen is being opened and food items – such as rice, soups, cookies, chips, beans, etc. – are being placed in paper bags before they’re given to us. This attracts ants and insects that go into the bags containing food and thereby pose a serious health risk. Furthermore, the food becomes stale and inedible after a few days due to the food being placed in paper bags.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) Inmates be allowed to keep their canteen items in the plastic bags they come in and/or be allowed to purchase zip lock plastic bags from the canteen to place the food in.
Demand No. 9: THAT WE BE AFFORDED EDUCATIONAL AND REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS AND/OR OPPORTUNITIES

Inmates in ASU are not allowed any educational and/or rehabilitative programs and/or opportunities. There is no school; we are not allowed to receive any form of correspondence course for lack of proctors, those of us who wish to learn a trade are not able to and those of us who wish to better ourselves to be better individuals of benefit to our society and other citizens are not given that chance.
Inmates in ASU are not allowed any educational and/or rehabilitative programs and/or opportunities.

Furthermore, we are currently not allowed TVs, so we are not able to partake in educational opportunities by watching educational channels or programs or participating in educational programs that are provided by the institution on the institutional channels.

This contradicts what CDCR supposedly stands for, which is to make the communities safer and rehabilitate our prisoners. We wish to better ourselves by participating in educational and/or rehabilitative programs, but we are denied this right.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) We are afforded educational programs such as correspondence courses, proctored exams, vocational courses etc.

B) We are afforded rehabilitative programs in self-help, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous etc.

C) We be allowed to possess our TVs for educational purposes such as to partake in educational opportunities provided by the institutional as well as educational channels.
Demand No. 10: THAT WE RECEIVE THE SAME PRIVILEGES AS SHU INMATES

The inmates housed in the SHU are allowed certain privileges and items from canteen and packages that we are not allowed. These privileges include but are not limited to TVs; educational courses; beanies, sweats and shoes from package; photo ducats; and art supplies from canteen such as colored pens, pastels and sketch pads. Furthermore, SHU inmates are allowed exercise equipment in the yard cages, such as pull-up and dip bars.

Inmates housed here in ASU are D1/D assigned, same as the SHU inmates. Most of us are stuck in this ASU for months and even years. The fact that we currently are not afforded the same rights and privileges as SHU inmates violates our equal protection rights.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) We be afforded the same rights, privileges, items and programs as are afforded to inmates in the SHU
Demand No. 11: THAT NO REPRISALS BE TAKEN FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF OUR RIGHT TO PETITION

We are exercising our legal right to petition in participating in a peaceful protest. This right is protected by the United States Constitution and thereby any sanctions and/or reprisals placed on us for the reason stated above is illegal and a violation of our rights.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND THAT:

A) No reprisals be taken on petitioners in any form or manner for the exercise of our right to petition.

Conclusion

We petitioners are not deprived of our constitutional rights simply because we are incarcerated behind these prison walls. We are bound by the Constitution of the United States, and therefore its protection extends to us as well. These rights have been violated and disregarded by CDCR and CSP Corcoran officials and therefore petitioners, with the support of members of their class, hereby come together to demand the redress and remedies that have been long overdue.
We are bound by the Constitution of the United States, and therefore its protection extends to us as well.

Petitioners pray that this petition and the issues addressed herein are remedied and the relief sought in each demand granted.

Pyung Hwa Ryoo, F-88924, Corcoran State Prison, ASU 1-167, P.O. Box 3456, Corcoran, CA 93212

Juan Jaimes, V-08644, Corcoran State Prison, ASU 1-165, P.O. Box 3456, Corcoran, CA 93212

William E. Brown, T-58106, Corcoran State Prison, ASU 1-169, P.O. Box 3456, Corcoran, CA 93212

This petition was sent to S. Vargas to be forwarded to the Bay View. It was typed by Kendra Castaneda. Readers are urged to write to these brothers on hunger strike.

Pelican Bay Short Corridor Update

Received per email from supporters on Dec 30th 2011:
Pelican Bay Short Corridor Update
22 December 2011
See also: SF Bay View

A Shout-out of respect and solidarity – from the Pelican Bay Short Corridor – Collective – to all similarly situated prisoners subject to the continuing torturous conditions of confinement in these barbaric SHU & Ad/Seg units across this country and around the world.

This is our update of where things currently stand and where we’re going with this struggle – for an end to draconian policies and practices – summarized in our “Formal Complaint” (and many related documents published and posted online, since early 2011).

As many of you know… beginning in early (2010), the PBSP – SHU Short Corridor Collective initiated action to educate people and bring wide spread exposure to – the (25+) years of ongoing – progressive human rights violations going unchecked here in the California Department of Corruption –via dissemination of our “Formal Complaint” to 100’s of people, organizations, lawmakers, Secretary Cate, etc… wherein, we also sought support and meaningful change.

The response by CDCR – Secretary Cate was “file an inmate appeal” (collectively, we’d filed thousands); therefore, after much reconsideration and dialogue, the collective decided to take the fight to the next level via peaceful protest action – in the form of hunger strike.

With the above in mind – beginning in early (2011)… we again sought to educate people about the ongoing torture prevalent in these prison systems –solitary confinement units; and pointing out our position that – the administrative grievance process is a sham, and the court system’s turned a blind eye to such blatantly illegal practices – Leaving us with no other meaningful avenue for obtaining relief, other than to put our lives on the line and thereby draw the line and force changes, via collective peaceful protest hunger strike action.

We believed this was the only – fully advantageous – way for us to expose such outrageous abuse of state power, to the world and gain the outside support needed to help force real change.

We requested support in the form of – asking people to write letters to those in power… we received more support than we ever expected – in the form of letters, rallies, and hunger strike “participants” – more than (18,000) similarly situated prisoners and some people on the outside!

All united in solidarity, with a collective awareness – that the draconian torture practices described in our “Formal Complaint” are prevalent across the land; and that – united in peaceful action, we have the power to force changes.

The hunger strike actions of (2011) achieved some success, in the form of – mainstream world wide exposure – solid, continuing outside support – some small improvements to SHU/Ad-Seg unit conditions … and assurances of more meaningful – substantive changes to the overall policies and practices re: basis for placement and amount of time spent, in such units – a substantive review of all prisoners files, per new criteria – and more change to the actual conditions in such units.

However, this fight is far from over! Notably, the second hunger strike action was suspended in mid-October … in response to top CDCR administrator’s presentation that the substantive changes be finalized… would be provided to “the stakeholders” (this includes our attorneys), within 60 days for comment. To date, CDCR hasn’t produced anything re: SHU/Ad-Seg policy changes; and PBSP’s Warden has not even replied to the (2) memo’s we’ve sent him concerning – additional program – privilege issues, per core demand #5 (see footnote #1 below).

Naturally, many people are not happy about CDCR’s failure to abide by their word – again – and they are asking… “what’s the next move in this struggle?”

Based on our collective discussions, our response is … people need to remain focused, and continue to apply pressure on CDCR, via letters, emails, fax, etc… summarizing the continuing core demands – immediately! There’s real power in numbers!! (see addresses to contact below, at footnote #2).

It’s important for everyone to stay objective and on the same page – remember… united we win, divided we lose. And, if we don’t see real substantive changes within the next 6 months… we’ll have to re-evaluate our position.

Additionally, now is a good time for people to start a dialogue about changing the climate on these level IV mainlines… As it stands now, these lines are warehouses, with all the money meant for programs – rehabilitation, going into guard pockets.

It’s in all of our best interests to change this in a big way, and thereby force CDCR to open these lines up and provide all of us with the programs and rehabilitative services that we all should have coming to us!!

Respect and Solidarity,

T. Ashker, A. Castellanos, Sitawa (s/n Dewberry), A. Guillen

-Dec. 2011-

Footnote#1: To date, we’ve received zero improvements re: core demand #5 … while Corcoran and Tehachapi have gained on canteen and dip-pull up bars – which, is all good. This is an example of what we pointed out in our “Formal Complaint” re: disparate treatment at PBSP-SHU compared to other SHU’s.

This is also a typical CDCR attempt to create discord and disruption to our unified struggle…we’re certain this feeble move will fail because all of us understand what our main objective is – an end to long term torture in these isolation units! It is our fundamental right to be treated humanely… we can no longer accept state sanctioned torture – of our selves! (and, our loved ones!) and we remain unified in our resistance!!

Footnote#2: Addresses of people to write:

1. Tom Ammiano, Assemblyman
Capitol Bldg. Rm# 4005
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone 916-319-2013
Fax 916-319-2113

2. Gov. Edmund G. Brown
State Capitol, Ste #1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone 916-446-2841
Fax 916-558-3160

3. CDCR – Secretary Matthew Cate
1515 S. St. Ste. #330
Sacramento, CA 95811
Phone# 916-323-6001

4. Carol Strickman, Attorney at Law
1540 Market Street, Ste. #490
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone 415-255-7036
Fax 415-552-3150

All inmates writing to these people should be sent ‘confidential mail’ and anyone outside of prison, supporters, family members, etc… please write and also email.

---
Five Core demands

See also: SolitaryWatch

To witness people say no to state-sanctioned torture is a beautiful sight indeed

From: SF Bay View
Posted On December 18, 2011
by Randall Sondai Ellis

Written Oct. 2, 2011 – I want to thank everyone for all the warm support they’ve shown in these crucial moments. The support we feel from the people has forever changed me. To witness people in the world stand up and say no to state-sanctioned torture is overwhelming and a beautiful sight indeed. Thank you all!
[1]
World renowned Black Panther artist Emory Douglas stands in solidarity July 18 in front of CDCR headquarters in Sacramento.

On Sept. 27, 2011, the state took the first steps at trying to break the hunger strike [which had resumed the previous day, on Sept. 26, after the first round in July]. At around 9 a.m. they called a number of individuals – whom they considered to be involved in some way or another with the negotiations surrounding the strike – telling them that a state senator sent the inspector general to meet with them to see what’s going on up here.

Well, these men never returned from this supposed meeting with the inspector general and instead were moved to the ASU (Administrative Segregation Unit) building to isolate them from the rest of us. About six or eight men were moved from D2 to the ASU building. I do not know how many were moved from the other buildings, but they were moved from there as well. Their personal property and other belongings were confiscated and put in storage.

Only you, the public can demand to know what kind of conditions these men are being forced to endure inside the freezing cold ASU building. One is not even permitted to keep their shoes inside their cells. The strike will not end until these men are returned. [See “Hunger strike organizer: Ad-Seg/ASU units are bad news [2]” by Todd Ashker and “They took the 15 of us hunger strikers to ASU-Hell-Row [3]” by Mutope Duguma (James Crawford) for reports from two of the men taken to the Pelican Bay ASU.]

Only you, the public can demand to know what kind of conditions these men are being forced to endure inside the freezing cold ASU building.

On Sept. 29 at 7 p.m., prison officials conducted a search of D2 and confiscated all food items, canteen, coffee, kool-aid, all food items from every cell – even from those who were not participating in the hunger strike – in typical group punishment fashion.
[4]

When the July 8 Bay of Rage march brought the noise to the North County Jail at Seventh and Clay in Oakland, prisoners could be heard banging on the windows of the jail to show they were aware of the demonstration outside.

On Oct. 1, all visits for those on hunger strike were cancelled.

It’s important to understand that we are at this critical moment in history because the judicial system has failed to act and have made numerous excuses disguised as legal opinion to overlook blatant constitutional abuses.

When the 4th Circuit first came down with its ruling dealing with the segregation of suspected gang affiliates in Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1101 (9th Cir. 1986), the court said because the segregation of suspected gang affiliates was not a disciplinary measure, prisoners were only entitled to minimal due process protections when they are placed in segregation for suspected gang involvement.

The court said because the segregation of suspected gang affiliates was not a disciplinary measure, prisoners were only entitled to minimal due process protections when they are placed in segregation for suspected gang involvement.

This meant that anyone suspected and/or accused of so-called gang activity is entitled to only the most minimal due process protections, these being 1) notices, some notice of what you’re suspected of; courts have ruled that this notice doesn’t need to be detailed and 2) an opportunity to express your views to the gang investigator about his decision.
[5]
On Friday, July 8, Bay of Rage held its third anti-budget cut demonstration, this time in solidarity with hunger strikers at Pelican Bay and across the California prison system. After a short rally at Telegraph and Broadway, a defiant march snaked its way through the streets of downtown Oakland toward the North County jail at Seventh Street and Clay, where chants and speeches rang out calling for an end to the prison industrial complex and the capitalist system that necessitates incarcerating so many people. – Photo: Dave Id, Indybay

This meant that prison officials did not have to prove anything, anything at all, about your suspected gang involvement. All they had to do was write a sensational report about the so-called gang, fit you into the story and, boom, you’re done unless, of course, you’re willing to snitch and compound those lies with sensational lies of your own.

Over the years prisoners subjected to the whimsical accusations of the gang investigators and their informants have attempted to bring about some sort of constitutional protections to such broad arbitrary authority, only to fall short in the face of a judiciary afraid to act and place some kind of constitutional protection against these wild, frenzied accusations that cannot be proven against the individuals to whom they are leveled.

Again the 9th Circuit addressed the subject in Bruce v. Elfist, 351 F.3rd 1283, 1287 (9th C.R. 2003), again stating that the segregation of gang members is not a disciplinary measure and therefore all that is required is “some evidence” to support the administrative decision. Again the court refused to place any protections at all (beyond the minimum) on this unbridled authority to accuse without proof by simply requiring that the administrative decision contain “some evidence” which of course is the word of the administrator.
[6]
The last thing CDCR seems to want to do is what these protesters at CDCR’s Sacramento headquarters want them to do: Meet prison hunger strikers’ demands! – Photo: Grant Slater, KPCC

The court in Toussiant did require that prisoners placed in segregation must be reviewed every 120 days – now 180 – for consideration for release and those reviews must amount to more than meaningless gestures. Again courts have refused to enforce this footnote when prisoners began showing how their 180 day reviews were in fact meaningless gestures. They had become nothing more than a session where the prisoner is asked, “Would you like to debrief?” The committee elects to retain the prisoner in SHU based on his membership or association with a prison gang who’s involved in criminal conspiracies against others.

The 9th Circuit briefly addressed the issue of debriefing in Castro v. Toebune, 29 Fed. Appx. 463 (9th Cir. 2002), saying the debriefing process, by which prisoners leave the prison’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) and during which prisoners are given opportunity to receive more lenient treatment from prison officials in exchange for information concerning gang activity in prison, did not violate the inmate’s privilege against self-incrimination where inmates were not compelled to debrief. Obviously the court does not consider conditions that amount to torture inflicted for the sole purpose of forcing one to debrief to be a compelling act. Justice truly is blind.

The 9th Circuit said the debriefing process did not violate the inmate’s privilege against self-incrimination where inmates were not compelled to debrief. Obviously the court does not consider conditions that amount to torture inflicted for the sole purpose of forcing one to debrief to be a compelling act.

It boils down to the court’s continued failure to act and its continued insistence on twisting logic to justify draconian policies and practices. The so-called Castillo settlement, we were told, was going to improve the process and afford us more protection against arbitrary state action under the guise of so-called gang activity. Well, that turned out to be the same old window-dressing, hidden with codes and tricks.
[7]
The signs and resolute faces tell the story at this hunger strike solidarity rally.

The first thing it did was abolish the 180-day review requirement for consideration of release to a so-called inactive review every six years. We’ve found that the review is arbitrary and is really a slick method used to temper indefinite confinement. For example, instead of saying the prisoner was validated in 1976, they now say the prisoner was validated in 1976 as a gang member and re-validated in 2004, again in 2010 etc.

Therefore each inactive review constitutes a re-validation, requiring only the whim of the gang investigator to determine one’s fate. A prisoner is not allowed to refuse an inactive review. The IGI shows up at your cell saying cell search, cuff up, when they walk you down to a holding cage. They will then tell you this is your inactive review and proceed to removing all your property from your cell. They have already determined your fate; this is just an exercise in brute state authority.

If your cell doesn’t turn up a newspaper or a book that belongs to another prisoner, they will recycle something – such as saying your name was discovered on a roster in another prisoner’s cell. Anything can be and is considered gang activity. The Castillo settlement only required that the IGI now write their nonsensical reasons down on paper and give the prisoner a copy. That’s all.

Anything can be and is considered gang activity.

I’ve personally witnessed this sham. In 2000 I was transferred to Corcoran SHU for the lack of documentation for gang participation after a so-called inactive review. Obviously their goal was to manufacture documentation of gang participation in Corcoran SHU and tell state controlled media outlets that Pelican Bay has begun releasing prisoners under the new inactive program.
[8]

After the first round of the hunger strike ended in July with promises of reform, the silence from state officials was deafening. This rally aimed to prompt the governor, a champion of just causes in his younger days, to declare and enforce an end to torture. – Photo: United for Drug Policy Reform

What many prisoners were never told is the settlement contains a clause that forbids a court from granting any prisoner relief for a violation of any of its terms. The courts in a series of unpublished decisions held the Castillo settlement to have corrected unconstitutional practices, but it didn’t establish any additional rights at all. So again the courts played the old bait and switch.

The Castillo settlement contains a clause that forbids a court from granting any prisoner relief for a violation of any of its terms.

The Supreme Court ruled in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1963), that solitary confinement cannot be used as a pretext for indefinite confinement. However, these words have no meaning at all, especially since they were overruled in Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 477-75 (1995), finding that to even have any due process protections at all, state action must impose an artificial and significant hardship on the prisoner within the ordinary incidents of prison life.

The District Court in Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F.Supp. 1155 (N.D.Cal. 1995), recognized the conditions in the SHU exposed a prisoner to an artificial and significant hardship but stopped short of taking any action beyond the minimum to address it. Instead, the court said more torture could mean more time is needed to see just how such confinement would affect the prisoner. Some comfort to all the men who have died thus far from state-sanctioned torture!

The court said more torture could mean more time is needed to see just how such confinement would affect the prisoner. Some comfort to all the men who have died thus far from state-sanctioned torture!

In Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223-25 (2005), the Supreme Court threw prisoners yet another rebuke when it endorsed the concept of limited due process addressing a claim brought by the prisoners of the Ohio supermax facility. The court said since prisoners’ placement in the Ohio supermax renders them ineligible for parole, some due process must be provided before they are placed there. Some due process simply means the minimum process allowed.
[9]
San Francisco’s progressive Assemblyman Tom Ammiano held a hearing in Sacramento Aug. 23 on the conditions that led to and the demands that came out of the hunger strike. The historic hearing drew prisoners’ families and supporters from all over California. – Photo: Revolution

For decades – me personally for 28 years – we have sat here and watched this process develop into an arrogant and abusive monstrosity, when it was first publicly proclaimed that the only way to leave the SHU is by debriefing, paroling or dying. It should have been a clear indication that prisoners confined to the SHU indefinitely were in fact in punitive segregation.

When the state legislature passed SB 16X taking good time credits away from anyone housed in the SHU for disciplinary reasons, with a footnote that added “or upon validation as a gang member or associate,” it should have been a clear indication that prisoners housed in the SHU indefinitely are in fact in punitive segregation without having been found guilty of breaking one single rule.

Prisoners housed in the SHU indefinitely are in fact in punitive segregation without having been found guilty of breaking one single rule.

As luck would have it, the 9th Circuit has also addressed this issue in Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1997), stating the fact that a non-disciplinary finding about Munoz’s gang affiliations may one day influence a purely administrative classification decision should he someday return to prison is far too “ephemeral to constitute collateral consequence for mootness purposes.” Again the court chose to be blind to the core facts of punishment being doled for non-disciplinary reasons. Essentially it’s an accusation that because we think you’re a gang member we think you might do something wrong, so here’s your punishment.
[10]
This banner graced the site of Occupy Oakland at newly renamed Oscar Grant Plaza outside City Hall on its opening day, Oct. 10. – Photo: Sharon Peterson

However, the court in Munoz, did say that associating with gang members is not standing alone a crime even outside of prison. Now ain’t that something? The court seemed to recognize that to be guilty of a crime, it requires more than mere association.

Yet on the other hand, they openly allow an entire class of people to be subjected to torturous conditions admittedly to extract information and then refuse to call it punishment. In fact a federal judge boldly has said that validated prisoners are serving life without parole as long as they are housed in the SHU, contributing to the abuse that has brought us to this moment.

They openly allow an entire class of people to be subjected to torturous conditions admittedly to extract information and then refuse to call it punishment.

In Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006), the Supreme Court said courts must accord substantial deference to the judgment of prison officials. This even goes beyond just deference. Now they are entitled to double deference.
[11]

The same banner led the another march to CDCR in Sacramento as the second round of the hunger strike was ending, on Oct. 15. – Photo: Bill Hackwell
Prison officials are stuck in a mindset that began in the 1940s-1960s when the first case ever decided in California was filed, entitled Jordan v. Fitzharris. In an unprecedented move, the federal court in San Francisco decided to hear the case. It would be the first time a federal tribunal would investigate state prison conditions.

The case went to trial on Aug. 9, 1966, before U.S. District Court Chief Judge George B. Harris, who found “conditions of a shocking debased nature.” And the song and dance began to sweep and reform cruel constitutional abuses under the rug for all time.

The fomenting of gang violence – the pitting the races against each other as a means of keeping control – is the only methodology they know and have ballooned into a billion dollar industry. At a time when other states are being forced to slash budgets and cut spending, California has been quietly building four new prisons. The majority of the stimulus money sent to California was used to pay correctional guards without one word of an outcry.

The fomenting of gang violence – the pitting the races against each other as a means of keeping control – is the only methodology they know and have ballooned into a billion dollar industry.

Prisoners have become cogs caught in the grip of an ever widening prison industrial complex – the subjects of pensions and budgets. No wonder any changes will have to be approved by the stakeholders. At a hearing held in the Del Norte County Superior Court in 2002 relative to the confiscation of mail, the state’s gang expert – who, by the way, is Correctional Counselor Specialist II D. Hanks – had the following exchange:
[12]
Photo:
The prisoners who organized the hunger strike succeeded in spreading the word – relayed by their families and supporters – to prisons and prison activists around the world. This banner appeared in Philadelpha. Even in Palestine, prisoners held a hunger strike in support.

Q: What is a terrorist?

A: A terrorist group is a group that has been identified as accomplishing their means through acts of terrorism, such as bombs, as murder, weapons manufacturing and dissemination, looking to attack individuals and groups based on their nationality.

Q. So what you’re talking about is terrorism groups that would fit the definition of Penal Code 186.22?

A: That’s part of it. That’s part of what’s identified as street terrorism, for which individuals could be prosecuted and given enhancements to their sentences.

Q: That’s a gang enhancement, isn’t it?

A: That’s what’s known as a gang enhancement, but it’s also identified as street terrorism.

Q: So it’s a fancy name to talk about street terrorism – gangs – gangs and street terrorism can be the same thing?

A: They could be.

Q: Is gang as defined under 186.22 and street terrorism groups synonymous?

A: They can be synonymous, yes.
[13]
This hunger strike solidarity rally was held outside the Harlem Office Building on July 9.
Q: Okay. When aren’t they synonymous? Let me rephrase that. What gang that would fit the definition of 186.22 would not be a street gang or a street terrorism group?

A: Well, an individual can be identified under 186.22, prosecuted or receive a gang enhancement under that for participation in a gang without necessarily contributing personally to an act of terrorism.

Q: Well, acts of terrorism – let me stop you there. Aren’t you talking about a gang event? Isn’t that what’s defined under 186.22, a gang-assisted event?

A: Yes.

Q: OK, and you’re saying that that also is an act of terrorism, street terrorism?

A: Prison gangs fall under 186.22 as well.

This is actual testimony from their correctional specialist and in their minds they are trying to work towards the development of a model to condition the public to the belief that they are dealing with a bunch of terrorists using the euphemism of gang. With a validation protected by only minimal due process protecting but carrying such enormous collateral consequences and in the face of court ruling after court ruling refusing to recognize these consequences, prisoners have come together to shout, Enough!
They are trying to work towards the development of a model to condition the public to the belief that they are dealing with a bunch of terrorists using the euphemism of gang.

George Jackson reminded us over 40 years ago to “(s)ettle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are already dying who could be saved, that generations more will die or live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act.” It certainly is refreshing to see prisoners finally heeding that advice, as we have certainly pushed ourselves into a corner mindlessly being pawns in their game.
[14]
Prisoners in the Collins Bay Federal Penitentiary in Kinston, Ontario, hung this banner July 4 from a window overlooking the Kingston City Hall.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. The five core demands of the hunger strikers are simple, reasonable, just and dynamic: 1) End group punishment and administrative abuse, 2) abolish the debriefing policy and modify the active/inactive review criteria, 3) comply with the recommendations regarding long-term solitary confinement, 4) provide adequate and nutritious food, 5) expand programming, correspondence courses and other privileges for indefinite SHU housing status prisoners.

Now the CDCR proclaims to be willing to make changes to its gang management policies. Those changes thus far seem to be the same old bag of tricks. They’re proposing now to come take all our property and evaluate us every six months to give us something back – in other words, to make us jump through a hoop where the hoop keeps moving until you eventually jump off a cliff.

They are proposing to recycle these same old allegations and require the segregated gang affiliate to sign the form admitting these allegations, and should one refuse to sign, that too is deemed to be an admission to membership and one’s refusal to debrief.

The CDCR should have to prove its accusations of gang activity, membership or association, providing the full panoply of constitutional protections. This is the only way to put an end to this frenzied, unbridled gung ho mindset that has developed unchecked for decades.
The CDCR should have to prove its accusations of gang activity, membership or association, providing the full panoply of constitutional protections.

Now the record is clear and the arbitrariness is adequately documented. If the courts will not discharge their duty to protect constitutional rights, then the people must demand a change as is our/your right. Please keep the men just moved to the ASU in your thoughts and prayers and demand that they’re treated justly and humanely in their courageous efforts to end state-sanctioned torture – because no doubt their torture has been taken up a notch.

Randall Sondai Ellis is a prisoner at Pelican Bay who’s been in the SHU for the last 28 years for allegedly associating with gang members and refusing to debrief. He has been in prison for the last 30 years since the young age of 16. He can be reached at Randall Ellis, C-68764, SHU D2-213, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95532-7500. Send our brother some love and some light.

Inhumane conditions at Calipatria State Prison ASU

Posted On December 14, 2011 in the SF Bay View
by Kendra Castaneda

[1]In the California prison system, Ad-Seg (Administrative Segregation) and ASU (Administrative Segregation Units) are classified as “temporary,” but many prisoners have been in the ASU for years. At Calipatria State Prison near the Mexican border in the Mojave Desert, Ad-Seg is a bit better than ASU because the ASU was purposely built away from the rest of the prison in a building of its own.

It’s so isolated the prison authorities can do anything they want to the ASU inmates without anyone knowing. They use the ASU to house the men they are holding longer than the “temporary” time. For example, almost all the men are validated – determined through a very flawed process to be members of a prison gang – and awaiting transfer to a SHU (Security Housing Unit).

They wait for years in ASU, while the men in Ad-Seg are mostly those “under investigation” or charged for a stabbing or a fight with a sentence of approximately one year in segregation. Ad-Segs are also attached to the prison itself so the conditions are not so protected from view as in a detached ASU building.

Conditions in Ad-Segs and ASUs vary widely from one prison to the next. Not every prison has an ASU, and some prisons with Ad-Segs are not as inhumane as others. The way the administration at a particular prison wants to run its segregation units determines their conditions.
Current inhumane conditions at Calipatria State Prison ASU (Administration Segregation Unit)

The men in the ASU unit wear dirty laundry; their boxers get changed approximately every three months. They are holey, dirty and gross.

The food is moldy, spoiled and rotten. Many men are not fed at all; the correctional officers state they “ran out of food.” The men in the corner cells are forced to go hungry most of the time.

There are no TVs or radios; therefore, hundreds of men are forced to stare at a concrete wall all day, which violates CDCR’s DOM (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Operations Manual). Although these units are already equipped with cables, Warden Leland McEwen refuses to allow the inmates an appliance (radio or TV) in their cell to stimulate their minds while in complete segregation.

Almost all of the men in Calipatria’s ASU have been placed there on “suspicion” of prison gang activity, but even if they commit no gang-related act and are not being disciplined, they are held in complete “temporary” segregation for years.

They are allowed outdoors three times a week to “exercise” in dog cages, but that schedule is not kept. Many correctional officers pick and choose which men they want to allow outside, and their outside time is often cancelled due to staff meetings or staff barbeques.

Some of the men have been sitting in a concrete cell and denied permission to go outside to any yard for a long time.

The men in ASU are allowed to receive books through a vendor paid by a family member or friend. But for the many men who do not have anyone to buy books for them, they have an inmate exchange, where Level 4 inmates donate books for the ASU men. These books frequently have pages ripped out, and the library’s selection of books isn’t sufficient for 200 men. Many men have read the same book 100 times. An inmate in ASU can only have one book in his cell a week, and the trading books with another inmate is difficult. The prison does not routinely allow them even to exchange their own books with each other.

There is only one nail clipper for 200 men to share, and the correctional officers do not clean the clipper.

There is only one hair clipper for 200 men to share, and the correctional officers do not clean that either.

The tiers are extremely dirty, and the correctional officers refuse to clean them. In January 2011 the men purposely submitted to a forced “cell extraction” so the prison would be cleaned. The cells are unsanitary, and black widow spiders often find their way into the cells due to Calipatria being in the desert.

The men are forced to go outside in the winter desert cold with no shoes on, with their bare feet and no clothing but boxer shorts. The temperatures at Calipatria can get down to 32 degrees; it is cold and extremely windy in the winter time. The men are forced to wear nothing but boxers, and some do not get blankets in their freezing cold cells.
[2]
Calipatria Warden Leland McEwen
All eight emergency exits at Calipatria ASU are purposely barricaded and blocked with boxes of sand on the orders of Calipatria Warden Leland McEwen.

The men are not given proper medical treatment, for there is NO MEDICAL facility at Calipatria State Prison. Men in the ASU currently have broken bones, internal health problems, Hepatitis C and many need surgery. These men have been waiting in ASU for years in pain. The prison purposely ignores the men’s request slips for medical treatment.

The men in the ASU have been there for one year, two years, three or four years, and one man has been there for seven years straight. The men ask the ICC (Institutional Classification Committee) why they are not being transferred to Pelican Bay SHU. They beg to be transferred to the SHU, yet the response from Warden McEwen, Assistant Warden Anderson and IGI (Institutional Gang Investigator) Sgt. E. Duarte and by all the other IGIs is to “parole, debrief or DIE.”

After the second hunger strike, Warden McEwen ordered IGI Sgt. H. Groth and his fellow officers to walk around in the ASU harassing the inmates.

In the Calipatria ASU, Hispanic men are being falsely validated left and right by IGI Sgt. E. Duarte abusing his power. Out of 200 men in the ASU, there are about 10 Black men, a few white men, one or two classified by CDCR as “others,” and the rest – over 150 inmates – are Hispanic.

The only African American inmate in my husband’s pod in ASU, in cell 159, died a few weeks ago. The inmates are saying it was a cover-up. The prison originally said it was a suicide, but the men are saying it was no suicide.

This man was harassed on purpose by IGI Sgt. Groth and his fellow officers right before he mysteriously died. As of a few days ago, the inmates are saying the officers are now being ‘hush hush’ about the man’s death but the family of the man who died says this was no suicide.

Calipatria State Prison refuses to speak to the family. CDCR refuses to speak to the family or give the family any information pertaining to how he died. Calipatria’s Sgt. Garcia, who works at the coroner’s office, tells the family of the man who died that the autopsy reports will be available in six to nine weeks, and the family has already laid his body to rest. The family mentioned to me that their son took part in both of the hunger strikes; therefore, the autopsy report should show deterioration of certain body parts. But the family is being denied all of his death reports.

In the ASU unit, visits to the men are often cancelled on purpose, or the prison ignores family requests for the ASU men. Visits are stripped from many of the men due to false charges made against them; therefore, these men are forced to never see their families.

Almost all the men in the ASU have been classified already as validated “SHU status inmates.” They sit illegally in an ASU cell for years on end, being denied a transfer to a SHU facility. Due to their classification, it does not matter that the hold is supposed to be temporary. These men are stripped of their privileges as if they were in Ad-Seg and live under the same constraints as if they were in an actual SHU facility.

As of today, the Calipatria ASU is full. Their A5 segregation unit is for the “overflow,” and it is almost full. The prison has started to make plans to construct another ASU. If they do, there will be two ASUs and one A5 overflow unit.

The men at Calipatria ASU call that particular ASU the “ASU/SHU,” because they say it is worse than a SHU facility.

Kendra Castaneda is prisoner human rights activist with a loved one currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison ASU (Administrative Segregation Unit).[3].
---
Notes:
Article printed from San Francisco Bay View: http://sfbayview.com

URL to article: http://sfbayview.com/2011/inhumane-conditions-at-calipatria-state-prison-asu/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Calipatria-State-Prison-California.jpg

[2] Image: http://sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Calipatria-Warden-Leland-McEwen.jpg

[3] Email suppressed.

[4] Hunger strike organizer: Ad-Seg/ASU units are bad news: http://sfbayview.com/2011/hunger-strike-organizer-ad-segasu-units-are-bad-news/

[5] Hunger striker dies mysteriously at Calipatria, family reports funeral is Tuesday, Nov. 22, in Oakland: http://sfbayview.com/2011/hunger-striker-dies-mysteriously-at-calipatria-funeral-saturday-in-oakland-family-contact-needed/

[6] Medical condition of hunger strikers deteriorates, some days away from death: http://sfbayview.com/2011/medical-condition-of-hunger-strikers-deteriorates-some-days-away-from-death/

[7] CDCR: Bay View is contraband for mentioning George Jackson and Black August: http://sfbayview.com/2011/cdcr-bay-view-is-contraband-for-mentioning-george-jackson-and-black-august/

[8] As hunger strikers’ medical crises worsen, marchers will ‘bring the noise’ to downtown SF at rush hour Friday: http://sfbayview.com/2011/as-hunger-strikers-medical-crises-worsen-marchers-will-bring-the-noise-to-downtown-sf-at-rush-hour-friday/

California executions still on hold.

Judge rejects California execution plan

LA Times

December 16, 2011

A judge on Friday threw out California's new lethal-injection protocols, which have been six years in the making, because corrections officials failed to consider a one-drug execution method now in practice in other death penalty states.


The action by Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D'Opal sends the state back to square one in redrafting procedures for lethal-injection executions. The death penalty has been on hold for six years in California after a federal court ruling deemed the previously used three-drug method unconstitutional because it might inflict pain amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.

D'Opal said in her 22-page ruling that the state's failure to consider replacing the former execution practice with a single-injection method violated state law and ignored the courts' and public criticism of the previous protocols.

The de facto moratorium on executions imposed by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in February 2006, when he halted the scheduled lethal-injection execution of convicted murderer Michael A. Morales, has remained in place despite the state's revision of the procedures to address Fogel's concerns. Attorneys for Morales and other condemned inmates have made additional challenges to the new execution protocols, and Fogel left the bench earlier this year to head a judicial academic center in Washington.

D'Opal's ruling, though expected to be appealed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, would further stall federal court review of the new protocols and ensure that executions won't resume for years.

CDCR spokeswoman Terry Thornton said corrections officials were reviewing the ruling and had no immediate comment.

Anti-death-penalty activists cheered D'Opal's decision, casting it as a sharp reminder of the billions of dollars being spent on a broken capital punishment system.

“The time has come to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole," said Natasha Minsker, an American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California lawyer and campaign manager for a voter initiative to repeal capital punishment. "Any attempt to devise new lethal-injection rules will take an enormous amount of public employee time and cost hundreds of millions of dollars."

A three-year study published earlier this year by a federal judge and a Loyola Law School professor reported that taxpayers have spent $4 billion to carry out 13 executions since capital punishment was reinstated in 1978, and that it costs at least $184 million a year to maintain death row and the capital defense system.

NEW: Stealth Bonds Building New Prisons

From: Cal WatchDog, via Twitter:

DEC. 16, 2011
By Wayne Lusvardi

Welcome to pilotless California Budget Airlines Flight 22, a drone aircraft on total autopilot, departing from Sacramento and arriving back at Sacramento after hovering in circles for hours. But can it land safety in a budget storm with major malfunctions while losing jet fuel fast? And because it is a stealth aircraft, neither radar nor flight controllers can see it.

This scene out of a Hollywood sci-fi movie is apparently what is being played out under the dome of the state capitol in Sacramento when it comes to the construction of new prisons under Gov. Jerry Brown’s realignment of government and the triggering of automated budget cuts for other state programs and services.

The financing is coming from “lease-revenue bonds” that hide the actions of the government. This allows the construction legally to get around the requirement under Proposition 13 for the voter approval of bonds.

Rather than being funded from general obligation bonds, the new prisons are being funded with lease-revenue bonds typically intended for revenue-producing projects such as convention centers, toll roads and parking facilities. But prisons do not produce revenue from the users. They generate taxes per bed.

Citizens United for a Responsible Budget asserts that the last two times prison construction bonds were put to a vote they lost.

But lease-revenue bonds have been used to finance prison construction in California since the 1980s. Other states that use lease-revenue bonds for prisons are New York, Texas, Michigan, Florida and Alaska.

CURB opposed using lease-revenue bonds for building prisons authorized under Assembly Bill 900, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007, which was sponsored by Assemblyman Jose Solorio, D-Santa Ana.

Lease Revenue Bonds are an Exotic Hybrid

Read the rest here.

CCA giving Sayre cops "the runaround" on prison riot.

Interesting follow-up coverage from what appears to be the Oklahoman's on-line edition, newsok.com. In addition to exploring the attempts of local police to investigate the riot, it goes into the distribution of California prisoners in for-profit facilities across the country. 

----------from newsok.com---------

Cause of October prison riot in Sayre continues to be withheld

The cause of the Oct. 11 riot at a private prison in Sayre has yet to be released due to ongoing investigation by local authorities.

 

BY ANDREW KNITTLE aknittle@opubco.com  

Published: December 10, 2011

SAYRE — Nearly a month after a riot that injured inmates at a private prison in western Oklahoma, prison officials say they do not have a cause that they can release.



They will say that 16 of the inmates who were hospitalized after the riot have since been released, but they won't say what types of injuries they suffered in the Oct. 11 melee.

Mike Machak, spokesman for Corrections Corp. of America, said it's too early to release details on the riot at the North Fork Correctional Facility.

“While we are not aware of any criminal charges that have been filed, we do know that the Sayre Police Department's investigation is ongoing,” Machak said.

“To that end, we do not want to release details that might undermine those ongoing efforts.”

Sayre Police Chief Ronnie Harrold said he has yet to receive anything from the prison regarding the riot. He said he thinks something is close to happening, but that the prison corporation has “been giving us the runaround.”

“It's coming close to the point where we would expect for them to turn it over to us,” Harrold said. “At some point, if they want charges filed, they'll have to turn it over to us.”

Prison spokeswoman Michelle Deherrera said the riot erupted just before noon, and the help of local law enforcement agencies was required to subdue the prisoners.

In addition to the 16 inmates who required hospitalization, another 30 were treated at a medical facility at the prison, she said.


Deherrera said no prison staff members or assisting law enforcement officers were injured.

The more than 2,000 prisoners held at the private prison are from California. Machak said inmates from Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Vermont have been housed at the prison over the past 12 years.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation website, the state has more than 9,588 inmates serving time in out-of-state prisons.

In addition to North Fork, Arizona has two prisons that house 4,596 inmates from California. A facility in Mississippi has custody of an additional 2,592 prisoners.

California began transferring prisoners to out-of-state facilities in 2007 to alleviate overcrowding and restore rehabilitation programs in its state-run lockups, according to the California department's website.

The move to transfer the inmates was prompted by an executive order issued in October 2006 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and was expected to be a temporary measure to allow prison reform in California.

Hunger strike organizer: Ad-Seg/ASU units are bad news - charges filed against peaceful hunger strikers by CDCR

Hunger strike organizer: Ad-Seg/ASU units are bad news
December 13, 2011
by Todd Ashker
In: SF Bay View

Written Dec. 4, 2011 – On Nov. 30, myself and several other men here – whom CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) has labeled as “leaders” of the peaceful protests – received serious rule violations, charging us with causing a riot or mass disturbance. They referred the charges for felony prosecution to the local D.A’s office. We’re all hoping the D.A. will file so we can expose these human rights violations even more.

Feeling as if he’s being buried alive, an unknown prisoner depicts the torturous effects of control units – called SHUs (security housing units), ASUs, Ad/Segs etc. – on the people confined in them. Fighting to end their use – or at least mitigate their abuses – is the purpose of the hunger strikes. – Drawing by unknown prisoner

With respect to Ad/Seg units having a voice, we’d included all SHUs and Ad/Seg units from the beginning in our formal complaint and in letters from me and others, and in the July protest, all the SHUs and many Ad/Seg units were referenced by the media.

It’s a good thing to have some exposure of related violations – torture going on in the Ad/Segs. We all need to be united and work together on making the wrongs in this system right!
It’s a good thing to have exposure of torture going on in the Ad/Segs. We all need to be united and work together on making the wrongs in this system right!

The Ad-Seg/ASU (Administrative Segregation Unit) units are bad news! I was never housed in them until being put in the one here on Sept. 29. This was CDCR’s retaliatory action against 15 of us here.

We were all isolated on a tier, in strip cells with nothing but a set of clothes and fish kit – spoon, cup, bar of soap etc. – with ice cold air blasting outta the vents! The warden personally told us, “As soon as you eat, you can go back to your SHU (Security Housing Units) cells.”

My “mattress” was not even a mattress. It only had lumps of padding in places and was only 50 inches long – on ice cold concrete. This was all intentional, by design. They know that when a person is subject to cold, the body requires more energy. When you’re not eating, the ice will cause your body to feed on muscle and internal organs and the brain etc. much faster. Permanent damage can happen a lot faster.

And the way it (the unit) is built, it’s next to impossible to get staff’s attention if one of us fell out in the cell. We’d have been through – DOA! We were there until Oct. 13, and I went from 200 pounds to 176 pounds. We were going to remain there to the death.

CDCR top administration begged us to come off of the hunger strike, promising real change soon, and made a presentation to our attorneys that satisfied them regarding CDCR’s sincerity. So we agreed to come off – we told our mediation team via phone conference on the 13th that our decision to end our hunger strike was ours alone, and it shouldn’t affect any other prisoners’ decision on their own hunger strike!

After my experience in the ASU, I can see the only major difference between ASU and here in PBSP SHU is the lack of a TV or radio in the cell. CDCR was supposed to retrofit the ASU cells for appliance capability since 2009 – I have the memo!

They’re able to buy the same canteen and get a yearly package after a year. Their yard cages actually are better than our cement ice box yards, because you can see and talk to other guys and have a better view of the outside.

Still, all of these lockup units are foul places to be – even temporarily. And the acts and omissions by staff in such units are illegal – in principle and especially in practice – long term!

It’s very important to include the ASUs in the SHU actions because it’s clear that when CDCR does revise (SHU) policy and men start getting out to general population, there’ll be a lot of abuses by some staff fabricating reasons to “investigate” such prisoners to getting off general population and they’ll be subject to a lot of ASU time – at least at first.

Once a pattern of such abuse of power is established, it can be exposed to the court. Therefore, if for no other reason, it’s critical to include ASUs in the process of challenging SHU issues!

Send our brother some love and light – he is one of the original organizers of the historic hunger strikes that involved over 12,000 California prisoners at their peak in late September, early October: Todd Ashker, C-58191, PBSP D1-119, P.O. Box 7500, Crescent City CA 95532.
They continue to torture us like animals

by the men in Calipatria State Prison Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU)

Written Nov. 22, 2011 – They continue to torture us like animals. These high ranking officials continue to promise us some change to our living conditions. We continue to stare at four concrete walls with not much to do.

A gang of prison investigators searches for reasons to label California prisoners members of prison gangs so they can confine them to control units, called SHUs, ASUs and Ad/Segs. – Drawing: R. Garcia

One goes to committee and asks as to our transfers to Pelican Bay SHU, and Assistant Warden S. Anderson, IGI (Institutional Gang Investigator) Trujillo and Warden Leland McEwen simply state that they aren’t changing anything, so “parole, debrief or DIE.” That’s what everyone is getting back in response to these ICC (Institutional Classification Committee) hearings; that in itself is torture.

We would also like to express an individual just hung himself due to this psychologically torturous environment. It’s ugly back here. Now where’s the rehabilitation in that aspect?

The conditions definitely has not changed and the validations has yet to yield. IGI Duarte is one of the main individuals abusing his power, continuing to place men in indeterminate isolation.

Conditions in Calipatria ASU have not changed, and all we continue to hear is lies, lies, lies and more lies! With this we close with our appreciation and respect.