Article Search

Here you can search for articles that have been published in our newsletter. Our newsletter is primarily written by and for prisoners, their friends, and families. You can receive a paper copy at your home (or send one to your relative or friend in prison). We request a donation of $20 or more for four issues to help cover editing, printing, and mailing costs.

Please visit our archive if you would like to download pdf versions of our past issues.


Click on an article's title to see the full text.

Jun 10, 2016

Ashker Bulletin

Kim Rohrbach

keywords: Ashker settlement, adherence, compliance, March 2016

From Prison Focus Issue #49
Ashker Bulletin

This bulletin, as such, will not address all concerns held by all people impacted by the Ashker settlement. Nonetheless, this article endeavors to address below certain critical issues, as well as a couple of items of broad interest.

If you are a person still waiting to be released from the SHU to the general population under the terms of the Ashker settlement, we’d first like you to know that movement out of the SHU is definitively happening (although at a sluggish pace at Corcoran).

Information available through the CDCR’s website—specifically, the COMSTAT DAI Statistical Report for the thirteen months ending March 2016—show that, as of the end of March, there were:

• 582 people remaining at Pelican Bay’s SHU (in contrast to the around 1154 individuals caged there as of the end of March 2015)
• 131 remaining at Tehachapi (in contrast to the around 1197 individuals caged there as of the end of March 2015)
• 46 at New Folsom (in contrast to the around 53 individuals caged there as of the end of March 2015)
• 986 remaining at Corcoran (in contrast to the around 1030 individuals caged there as of the end of March 2015)*

The staggering reduction of numbers at Tehachapi seems to indicate that Tehachapi SHU is in fact closing, as many of us both on the inside and outside have heard. However, this has yet to be officially confirmed by CDCr officials.

Many prisoners have expressed to CPF understandable frustration about the order in which reviews are occurring. Enough is enough when you shouldn’t have been in the SHU in the first place!

The Ashker settlement states (at ¶ 25) that the ICC reviews called for “shall be prioritized by the inmates’ length of continuous housing within a SHU [emphasis added] so that those of the longest duration are reviewed first.” The Ashker legal team has received confirmation from CDCr officials that they are doing their best to follow the protocol, yet we continue to receive outside information confirming that the protocol set forth under the Ashker settlement isn’t always being followed.

And even where the protocol is being followed, the situation can become complicated.

For example, if you were held four years at one SHU, then were directly sent to a second SHU where you spent another three years, it’s possible that you may rank comparatively low on the priority list for review. This, in spite of the fact that you’ve spent seven straight years in a hell-hole.

Further compounding the matter: The length of time in the SHU for purposes of processing out of the SHU is considered to be continuous, rather than a combination of multiple SHU stays. For example, if you spent x amount of time in the SHU, then paroled out, then were later returned to prison and the SHU, it may be that your pre-parole time spent in the SHU won’t be counted towards your total SHU time. This is the situation of one man we spoke with at Pelican Bay in March.

CPF has recently received a few letters from people that may be collectively summarized as follows:
“I recently had my ICC review and am in SHU only because of my validation. But at my review, I was told that I’d have to wait to see the special committee before they’d let me out.”

To clarify things, here’s the basic deal with ICC reviews:
People are getting their reviews under the Ashker case either according to their position on the priority list, or at their annual reviews. Nobody is getting their so-called Ashker review at their 180-day review.

Where the term “special committee” has come from, we can’t say, but we assume the ICCs must be using it.

In March, we learned from one interviewee that there were people on the mainline who were in Step 5 of the SDP (Step Down Program). We are unsure of what to make of this. Not only is Step 5 abolished by the settlement, but the settlement explicitly provides (at ¶ 25): “Inmates currently assigned to Step 5 in the General Population shall remain in the General Population and shall no longer be considered Step Down Program participants.”

We also heard from another interviewee that he had been in Step 5 prior to the settlement, but upon transfer to the Restricted Custody General Population (RCGP) Unit, was told that he would have to “start over” with the SDP. Others in the RCGP, he indicated, were in the same boat. It is unclear to this writer why a person who was in Step 5 prior to the settlement would have been assigned to the RCGP to begin with, barring any new rules violations.

It has been quite some time since Prison Focus has published anything concerning the COMPAS Assessment. Well, last month CPF received from a female prisoner a copy of an August 19, 2015 memo concerning this topic. Millicent Tidwell, CDCR Director of Rehabilitative Services, is the author.

In the memo, Tidwell says that prisoners who refuse to complete COMPAS assessments should be issued Rules Violation Reports (RVRs). Then she convolutedly/obtusely adds that RVRs "shall not delay transfer unless the outcome of the RVR impacts the inmate's level of placement." She further specifies that, during the annual review process, verification that the inmate has completed an assessment is "necessary," and that if an assessment is "incomplete," a new one should be “administered." She additionally specifies, for reasons that she doesn’t state, that those with life without parole and the condemned are “no longer excluded” from the Assessment.

The use of the Assessment to punish people is contrary to the intent of the very legislation (the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Service Act) that authorized its development in the first place. It is also contrary to the stated intent of researchers involved in developing it. Yet, when we first started hearing about COMPAS and wrote on the subject two years ago, we expressed strong concerns that the Assessment would be so used. In fact, we directly broached our concerns with Millicent Tidwell in a letter. She never responded.

The subject is one that needs follow-up, and we hope to revisit it in our next issue.

In our last issue, we reported on Hinojosa v. Davey, (No. 13–56012 9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2015). (See Supplementary Report: News as the Final Fairness Hearing on the Ashker v. Brown Settlement Pends.) Hinojosa unfortunately has since been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 15-833, May 16, 2016), and remanded to the Ninth Circuit. We are grateful nonetheless for a stinging dissent by Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.

In a more favorable legal development—one that many readers are likely already aware of—Jorge Gomez has achieved a significant victory in the California Court of Appeals (In re Gomez, Ct. of App. No. 142470, Mar. 25, 2016). The upper court ruled that it was inappropriate to issue Gomez a rules violation for having refusing consecutive meals during the 2013 Hunger Strike. As a result, the affirmative ruling on the RVR Gomez received must be reversed. The ninety days’ credit Gomez lost as a result must also be restored. Finally, all references to the RVR must be expunged from Gomez’s central file.

Until his recent transfer, Gomez had spent over a decade in Pelican Bay’s SHU.

The Gomez opinion was initially uncertified for publication. But, thanks to the efforts of Gomez’s court-appointed counsel, as well from National Lawyers Guild members in the Bay Area and CPF volunteers, the Court of Appeals has agreed to publish the decision. This makes it able to be referenced as authoritative law for any others who are currently challenging their own RVRs for participation in the hunger strike.

Oct 16, 0006

Corcoran Report (California State Prison – CSP)

Taeva Shefler

keywords: Corcoran, Ashker settlement, conditions, March 2016

From Prison Focus Issue #49
Corcoran Report (California State Prison – CSP)

This report is based on information received through written correspondence and interviews conducted in March 2015 with incarcerated men at Corcoran State Prison (“Corcoran”). In this period, we conducted visits with individuals in the SHU and in general population yards. All quotes come directly from the men’s written reports or interviews. As in the past, we report all information anonymously to prevent retaliation from prison guards by replacing individuals’ names with random letters. The repetition of a letter does not mean that the information is from the same individual.

Before the Ashker settlement, validated Security Threat Group (“STG”) members were entitled to a six year “inactive” review, as well as 180 day Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”) reviews. Now, the institution is required to conduct so-called “Ashker” reviews, evaluating people with indeterminate terms in the SHU, starting with those whomever has been in the unit the longest.

The staff at Corcoran appear to be overwhelmed by their obligations to fulfill the terms of the Ashker settlement and process people out of the SHU. The Ashker legal team is unable to explain Corcoran’s difficulties in complying with the settlement. Multiple people reported that classification reviews are extremely behind, if they are happening at all. Mr. S cited incidents such as house counselors sending case files to the wrong person inside because their case loads are so immense and disorganized.
In addition to delay, the classification committee continues to pressure individuals to debrief, even when they must process that person out under Ashker. Mr. N experienced this at his ICC review, and expressed concerned about retaliation for his refusal to debrief.

Several reported that staff regularly tell them that if they cause trouble at Corcoran they will be moved to Pelican Bay’s SHU. In general, people would prefer to stay at Corcoran than go to PB. There is still pressure from Correctional Officers (“COs”) to debrief, move you to the Bay, or the new Restricted Custody General Population (“RCGP” unit), where there are less privileges than general population yards (“GP” or the “mainline”).

One area of concern regarding SHU placement are those who return to prison after previously serving time and are immediately placed back in the SHU. Mr. M reported that he had been validated as a gang member while serving a sentence over 10 years ago. He paroled, and last year was sent back to prison on an unrelated conviction. After reception, he was sent directly to Pelican Bay SHU, and now to Corcoran SHU, even though he has had no disciplinaries since his return. Placing someone in the SHU without a finding that the person committed a SHU-able offense is prohibited under Ashker.

There has been a lot of movement recently for people in and out of the SHU. The Corcoran SHU continues to hold more people than any other SHU, with 986 prisoners in a Corcoran SHU unit as of March 2016. There is currently a 5-6 month wait list to be moved to the mainline once you have been approved for release.

Mr. J has been awaiting transfer to a Corcoran S.A.T.F. mainline (another prison located across the road from Corcoran State Prison) for over five months. He had heard there were people with indeterminate SHU sentences who had been working on the Step Down Program getting moved from the Corcoran SHU to Pelican Bay’s SHU. They are told the Step Down Program is no longer.

On the day of CPF’s visit, about 48-50 long termers in the SHU (approximately 10 years or more) were all moved to the mainline.

Mr. W reported that there continues to be a large influx of people transferred into 4A from Tehachapi’s SHU, because that SHU is closing down [closure of the Tehachapi SHU has not been confirmed by CDCr officials].

Mr. O reports that the 4A and 4B SHU units are about to be under construction. He was told that 4B will shut down first because the whole building is being made into general population [This is also unconfirmed by CDCr officials].

CPF investigators did speak to some individuals who had already been transferred from the SHU to a GP yard at Corcoran. The majority of adjustment for people is psychological. Mr. A noted that he struggles with the feeling that he is being watched constantly by people now that he has gotten out of the SHU. Representative of many people who correspond with CPF, Mr. U reported that he has had difficulty adjusting to physical touch and contact with others. He had a contact visit with his mother and family members, which was profound for him. “I got to hug my Mom.” He noted that there were so many more sounds to hear, so much more sensory input. It was “shocking” especially when there were more than 2-3 people—“rooms come alive.” He said he knew he had to take his time and adjust to it because ultimately it was all positive and he had to take his time dealing with other people. “It’s bittersweet,” because after 8 years in the SHU, he has lost contact with a lot of people in his immediate family and circle of friends because letters don’t work well for some people.

“Welfare checks” at Corcoran SHU continue every 30 minutes around the clock. The consensus from reporters are that the disruption of the checks depend entirely on the CO who is conducting them – some pound the walls hard and keep the beeping sound on all night long; others try harder to be quiet. The COs also use a flashlight irregularly as they start the night rounds and as the morning rounds begin, to wake people. The COs “can still see in, there’s no need for that!” Lights in the cell are already on 24 hours per day. Many people are woken up every half hour and are unable to sleep through it. The lack of sleep especially affects those with mental health issues. They are too exhausted to keep to their routines and start to act out.

Although people in Pelican Bay are provided earplugs, COs here will not provide them. It appears that the COs are annoyed at being forced to conduct the checks, but if anyone complains about the noise or the flashlights getting shined in their face, the COs will take the person out of their cell in cuffs and tear the cell apart.

Medical care at Corcoran continues to fall below appropriate standards of care. One key complaint for those who have recently arrived at Corcoran is the lack of consistent treatment standards across prisons. Upon arrival to Corcoran, medications are taken away and appointments take months to get, leaving people without continuity of needed treatments. Many reporters told us that they have to file 602HC forms before they will ever be seen by medical.

Mr. U reported that one physician only sets appointments on days when he also has a classification or other committee hearing, so he is never able to go. Meetings like that happen so rarely that it is hard to see this continual conflict as a coincidence.

Many reported that they rarely see a certified physician in person. Appointments are either with nurses or doctors via tele-medicine, which is not ideal, especially for those with serious medical conditions that require daily or weekly treatment.

Access to mental health care is especially slow. The Coleman case dictates standards of care, including the frequency of access to psychiatric care providers. Several people reported that they have gone months without seeing a psychiatrist, and that there are no group treatments, which are offered elsewhere throughout the prison system.
Dental care is nothing less than atrocious. Mr. P had a few teeth pulled several months ago, which led to an infection in his jaw. He was provided anti-biotics but not pain medication. He was in so much pain he was unable to eat, but was denied emergency care. The nurses put him on a medical psychiatric hold rather than respond to his needs for pain medication. Mr. T also reported that the dental care is “aggressive—they cut men’s mouths up all the time.” Mr. V said he had been waiting over three months for a filling, and was called out for the procedure on the very day of our visit. Mr. L stated that he intends to wait as long as he can for dental care, in hopes that his transfer will go through soon.

There are also concerns with getting access to needed medical devices. For example, Mr. B was assigned a wheelchair, and was provided one with no legs. After going through the appeal process, the facility granted him a new wheelchair, contingent on his ability to pay for it himself. Once his wheelchair finally arrived, he was not allowed to keep it inside his cell, but told he must park it outside of his cell. COs then took the wheelchair and used it to transport other prisoners, never returning it to the cell. Mr. B was forced to purchase another wheelchair out of his own money, which again, coincidentally arrived on the very day of our visit.

There are continuing issues at Corcoran with access to hot water. Mr. T reported that in 4A, one half of the building claimed the water was too hot and burning them, so the COs turned off the hot water completely. Last summer, Corcoran prisoners reported going without hot water for 6 months. Mr. J reported that at some point in February, there was hot water for one week, but then it was turned off again.

In general, the facilities are very dirty. In the year that Mr. R has been in Corcoran, he has only seen the facility swept 3 times, because many of the 4A inmates complained. The floors were only mopped once. “Cleanliness is an issue.”

There are also issues with the lights. Two prisoners reported that the lights would occasionally go off for days at a time.

COs do not respect mail and many prisoners reported significant delays in receiving mail. Sometimes the delays are many weeks, other times they are up to two months. This has been a consistent issue at Corcoran and something that we have reported multiple times.

Mr. Y reported that on February 22, 2016 about 60 people received notices from CO M. Magana that their annual packages were being thrown away. The COs claimed that people were working the system by adding items for cellmates to annual packages. Instead of returning to sender, the boxes were thrown away and their annual packages wasted.

The food at Corcoran is notoriously cold, bland, and served in small portions. Reports from men this spring were no exception. Many people reported that a main source of “protein” in meals consists of artificial meat that is reconstituted with water and lacks nutritional value. Mr. C reports that while the kitchen in Corcoran has a heater to keep food warm before it is delivered to the men, it is not used, so that by the time the trays are delivered to cells, the food is very cold. Those who are able augment their food through access to the Canteen, although there are not many nutritious options there either, and many do not have the resources.

While educational programming is theoretically available in both the SHU and in GP, reports of access are varied. One individual told us that his access to his books and proctored exams are satisfactory. He asked and received information on the educational options he had. Two others reported that COs do not volunteer information about educational opportunities. Mr. K stated that he studies through correspondence courses that he found through his own initiative.

Educational tablets, music and books are supposed to be available for purchase but reporters are told they are not allowed in the SHU. On the mainline, there are more educational opportunities, but they cost money, which is prohibitive for many.

Several reported that they would like to begin or continue educational programming, but are in a holding pattern until their long-awaited transfers go through. It is frustrating, Mr. P stated, that he is unable to educate himself or work toward rehabilitation certificates because he would lose any progress upon transfer, which could happen at any time.

As previously reported, Corcoran is well known for obstructing the 602 appeals process. Mr. D reported witnessing COs throw away completed 602 appeals forms right in front of him. Others reported that submitted 602 forms are never returned—“They simply disappear.” Mr. I reported that every 602 he has ever filed has been denied.

Many people struggle with the catch-22 of needing paperwork to substantiate their grievance, but are unable to access the information prior to filing a 602 form. For example, Mr. H believes he was wrongfully validated as an STG member based on an incident where he was not present and is unaware of who was involved. He filed a 602 form but it was rejected because he did not have the evidence used against him. When he filed another 602 requesting the evidence, it was rejected because the validation was based on confidential information.

Unbelievable to some new arrivals at Corcoran, staff attitudes are even worse at Corcoran than at Pelican Bay. Mr. V explained how at Pelican Bay, COs inform you of changes to policy and schedule; here they provide no information. Mr. W described his efforts to keep his relationships friendly with COs (in order to avoid excessive searches and aggression), but said that at best COs are “chill and unfriendly” with him. Cell searches are common, especially while individuals are at yard or showering. Mr. Q reported that it is common for COs to go through and toss out legal materials during searches.

Mr. F believes that the current political climate (with Trump running for President) has led to more overt racism from COs recently. He hears COs talking about how “all Mexicans are criminals,” which creates tensions on the unit.

Mr. H stated that the COs befriend certain individuals who they believe will be informants for them, providing them with extra food packages and TVs appropriated from other prisoners.

There is general consensus that the law library is not sufficient for individuals to complete research in time for court deadlines. Mr. E reported that he has put in multiple requests for the law library but never received a response. He has heard from others that if he does not have an active court case, he is not eligible for the law library, but questions how he would be able to write a viable complaint without first conducting research.

The law library offers copying services, but only once your case is active. This presents another catch-22, because one needs copies of their 602 or other paperwork in order to initiate a lawsuit.

Loss of property is a common issue throughout all of CDCr, but it has become especially problematic in light of all the recent transfers. Several reporters told us that they have had to wait months for their property upon arrival to Corcoran. Mr. Z reported that he waited 6 months; Mr. W waited 2 months; Mr. P waited 4 months, and when his property finally arrived, many of his possessions were missing.

After months of waiting, Mr. Q filed a 602 form requesting his property. It was rejected because he had no proof that the property had gone missing, as opposed to still in transit. After 6 months of persistent advocacy, the Unit Sargent told him that his property had been located at a different prison entirely.

Mr. B explained that there are inconsistencies in the property matrix across prisons; things that are allowed one place are prohibited at Corcoran. New arrivals to the GP yards reported confusion around the fact that things which were allowed in the SHU are not allowed on the mainline. Mr. A reported that in the SHU, he was allowed pens, but in GP they are prohibited and they are not sold in the Canteen. As a result, he is unable to work on his drawing, which is an important creative outlet for him.

The men are told that they are allowed yard three times a week, but this rarely occurs in practice. Mr. X, a recent arrival from Tehachapi, expressed appreciation that they occasionally do get yard three times a week, because at Tehachapi they never got yard more than once per week.

Sometimes, COs will leave men at the yard for hours at a time. They say they are making up for days where they were not allowed yard, but it can be disruptive to miss educational programming, access to the law library, or needed medical appointments while left in the yard for an entire day. As it turns into summer, people worry about being left in the sun for too long.

Mr. U reported that his tier operates on a “split tier” schedule, where each month the upper tier will get yard and the lower tier will get shower and phone access, and the next month it will switch. Neither tier gets both.

Awareness of the Agreement to End Hostilities (AEH) is mixed, especially on the GP yards. Mr. R told us, “Everybody thinks it’s a good thing.” Mr. Q confirmed that in general, people respect the AEH, although not everyone is aware of it.

In the GP yard, COs work to keep the races separated, and there is less awareness of the AEH. Mr. T reported that race-based violence still occurs regularly on the mainline and that tensions have been heightened since the murder of Hugo Pinell last August at New Folsom prison. Mr. C observed that attacks against individuals coming out of the SHU are common, and he believes they are considered easy targets, vulnerable due to the psychological effects of the SHU. The violence is usually a stabbing or an assault where at least one person is punched.

Several individuals who have left the SHU and are now in GP promote the AEH with others and try to live the values of the Agreement by refusing to play by the race game. “I have no hang ups about that stuff.”

Jun 10, 2016

RCGP: The New Modern SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison

Art Ramirez, Unit B-1, C-Section (RCGP), Pelican Bay State Prison

keywords: Ashker, Restricted Custody General Population, January 2016, Pelican Bay

From Prison Focus Issue #49
RCGP: The New Modern SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison
Editorial note: Mr. Ramirez submitted his below article to CPF in late February 2016. We have minimally edited portions, with his permission, with updates and for clarification and brevity.

The Restricted Custody General Population Housing Unit (RCGP) occupies a unit at Pelican Bay that was vacant for two years before the Ashker v. Brown decision. The creation of the RCGP is outlined in the Ashker settlement. I will not repeat what it says. This article is to share with readers what the settlement doesn’t tell you about the RCGP. [As of February 2016,] there are nine prisoners on B1, C-Section who seem to have been selected from Corcoran, Tehachapi, and Folsom. As of right now both A and B Sections are empty and may be for future Step Down Program. The A-Section has had one inmate housed there. None of these prisoners have debriefed, are drop-outs, rats or SNY. All are placed here on account of 1030s coming from confidential prison informants (flesh eaters). Confidential, unverified information influences what prison administration place in our C-files [central files].

We arrived on January 27th, 2016, to Pelican Bay State Prison RCGP. Most of you know me by “Big Smiley” Art Ramirez after being in Corcoran SHU’s two year Magnification SHU Program, coming then from the Short Corridor PB SHU November 7, 2013. I was the first to come out of the Short Corridor by the Departmental Review Board (DRB). All of that was the result of the third Hunger Strike. When the DRB finally starting releasing us after all those years in the Short Corridor and the SHU, many of us had been there since in opened in December 1989. Many or most were just as grey-haired as myself. My best to all, I wish upon all to decompress and continue on with your time in much more comfortable surroundings. Now we can use our five senses for what they were intended and our eyes and ears back in place.

I was told this RCGP is a mainline program but the only mainline we can see is from our cages, or when we go to visit or to the law library. There was nothing in place for us when this unit opened. This used to be a Psychiatric Security Unit (PSU). All of us have strong morales and ethics and have encountered plenty of obstacles on account of 1030s already. Not debriefing is also a strong factor why we were placed in the RCGP. This “pilot program” is the new SHU: a secret type of prison program controlled directly by Sacramento for reasons yet unknown. We are told the RCGP is first of its kind in the California prison system. A more friendly unit, the public was told, disguised on paper as a mainline program, yet what we experience is not so different from the SHUs of our past. We are each at or over fifty years old, maybe one or two a bit younger, who have been in SHUs for over twenty years of our lives. We can clearly see what is behind the curtain.

We were told we would have a concrete yard where we could congregate, but instead have been placed in cages. There were no pull up bars. After our complaints, we have been told pull up and dip bars will be placed in the cages. With more firm complaining, a basketball hoop was drilled into the wall and handballs for when it is decided that we will be allowed on group yard.

For those who didn’t read my article in Prison Focus number 42, Spring 2014, pages 9–10, on the STG Inactive Magnification SHU Program, let me share that what the DRB talked about then is happening now with this RCGP Unit today. A “more modern SHU:” where you are not cuffed as you walk to the medical clinic, law library, or canteen, but still being deprived of group yard or group day room except for one prisoner allowed one hour in the day room every other night. One and a half hours every day in “exercise” cages. We are allowed one six-hour contact visit every ninety days and three-hour window [non-contact] visits weekly Saturday and Sunday.

Every day continues to be a struggle, but because we continue to shake the tree hard, some things are coming into place, such as shower shoes and coffee packs in lunches. All we are asking is for Pelican Bay to follow Title 15, for us to receive our attorney visits, confidential phone calls with attorneys, weekly contact visits, and the other basics that we are entitled to. It does not help with roughneck guards obsessed with giving out 115s. We did not come here for more punishment.

This RCGP has only been open one month. We’ll see how it develops since the strings are pulled from Sacramento capitol. Yet there are a lot of things that need to be fixed now. We should be allowed the same number of phone calls and visits as those on the mainline. Now, phone calls and visits are tied to whether you have A1-A status, only available to those with jobs. In other places, we were given A1-A status if we were in education, but not here. We were told we would be going to a “restricted” mainline; we expected full mainline privileges, just separated from the other GP units. That has not been the case.

I only hope the Ashker v. Brown team do not give up on us in this program since the RCGP Unit is a product of the Ashker v. Brown settlement. It now appears that in negotiating that settlement, not much thought was given to how this program should work. Whatever planning went into this RCGP unit should have been in place when we arrived on January 27, 2016. When I say “team” I acknowledge those attorneys who won this victory and to us finally seeing justice done through the release of many long term prisoners from SHU. We would like the same justice to continue with this new RCGP Unit to function as a mainline with education programs, weekly contact visits, group yard, and group day room. We would like all who come into RCGP given A1–A status. There has been abuses of power from the prison administration long enough, especially against those of us who spent decades in Pelican Bay SHU. Myself a total of 33 ½ years in the SHU straight. Where is the acknowledgement that we deserve more now? Where is the common sense and logic coming into the development of the RCGP? Why begin all over when none of us in this section did anything “wrong” to be placed here.

Excerpt from The New Jim Crow

Michelle Alexander

keywords: racism, modern day slavery

From Prison Focus Issue 49

“…I am writing this book for all those trapped within America’s latest caste system. You may be locked up or locked out of mainstream society, but you are not forgotten.”

The Birth of Slavery
Back there, before Jim Crow, before the invention of the Negro or the white man or the words and concepts to describe them, the Colonial population consisted largely of a great mass of white and black bondsmen, who occupied roughly the same economic category and were treated with equal contempt by the lords of the plantations and legislatures. Curiously unconcerned about their color, these people worked together and relaxed together.3 —Lerone Bennett Jr. The concept of race is a relatively recent development. Only in the past few centuries, owing largely to European imperialism, have the world’s people been classified along racial lines.4 Here, in America, the idea of race emerged as a means of reconciling chattel slavery—as well as the extermination of American Indians—with the ideals of freedom preached by whites in the new colonies.

In the early colonial period, when settlements remained relatively small, indentured servitude was the dominant means of securing cheap labor. Under this system, whites and blacks struggled to survive against a common enemy, what historian Lerone Bennett Jr. describes as “the big planter apparatus and a social system that legalized terror against black and white bondsmen.” 5 Initially, blacks brought to this country were not all enslaved; many were treated as indentured servants.

As plantation farming expanded, particularly tobacco and cotton farming, demand increased greatly for both labor and land. The demand for land was met by invading and conquering larger and larger swaths of territory. American Indians became a growing impediment to white European “progress,” and during this period, the images of American Indians promoted in books, newspapers, and magazines became increasingly negative. As sociologists Keith Kilty and Eric Swank have observed, eliminating “savages” is less of a moral problem than eliminating human beings, and therefore American Indians came to be understood as a lesser race—uncivilized savages—thus providing a justification for the extermination of the native peoples.6 The growing demand for labor on plantations was met through slavery. American Indians were considered unsuitable as slaves, largely because native tribes were clearly in a position to fight back. The fear of raids by Indian tribes led plantation owners to grasp for an alternative source of free labor. European immigrants were also deemed poor candidates for slavery, not because of their race, but rather because they were in short supply and enslavement would, quite naturally, interfere with voluntary immigration to the new colonies. Plantation owners thus viewed Africans, who were relatively powerless, as the ideal slaves.

The systematic enslavement of Africans, and the rearing of their children under bondage, emerged with all deliberate speed —quickened by events such as Bacon’s Rebellion. Nathaniel Bacon was a white property owner in Jamestown, Virginia, who managed to unite slaves, indentured servants, and poor whites in a revolutionary effort to overthrow the planter elite. Although slaves clearly occupied the lowest position in the social hierarchy and suffered the most under the plantation system, the condition of indentured whites was barely better, and the majority of free whites lived in extreme poverty. As explained by historian Edmund Morgan, in colonies like Virginia, the planter elite, with huge land grants, occupied a vastly superior position to workers of all colors.7

Southern colonies did not hesitate to invent ways to extend the terms of servitude, and the planter class accumulated uncultivated lands to restrict the options of free workers. The simmering resentment against the planter class created conditions that were ripe for revolt. Varying accounts of Bacon’s rebellion abound, but the basic facts are these: Bacon developed plans in 1675 to seize Native American lands in order to acquire more property for himself and others and nullify the threat of Indian raids. When the planter elite in Virginia refused to provide militia support for his scheme, Bacon retaliated, leading an attack on the elite, their homes, and their property. He openly condemned the rich for their oppression of the poor and inspired an alliance of white and black bond laborers, as well as slaves, who demanded an end to their servitude. The attempted revolution was ended by force and false promises of amnesty. A number of the people who participated in the revolt were hanged.

The events in Jamestown were alarming to the planter elite, who were deeply fearful of the multiracial alliance of bond workers and slaves. Word of Bacon’s rebellion spread far and wide, and several more uprisings of a similar type followed. In an effort to protect their superior status and economic position, the planters shifted their strategy for maintaining dominance. They abandoned their heavy reliance on indentured servants in favor of the importation of more black slaves. Instead of importing English-speaking slaves from the West Indies, who were more likely to be familiar with European language and culture, many more slaves were shipped directly from Africa. These slaves would be far easier to control and far less likely to form alliances with poor whites.

Fearful that such measures might not be sufficient to protect their interests, the planter class took an additional precautionary step, a step that would later come to be known as a “racial bribe.” Deliberately and strategically, the planter class extended special privileges to poor whites in an effort to drive a wedge between them and black slaves. White settlers were allowed greater access to Native American lands, white servants were allowed to police slaves through slave patrols and militias, and barriers were created so that free labor would not be placed in competition with slave labor. These measures effectively eliminated the risk of future alliances between black slaves and poor whites. Poor whites suddenly had a direct, personal stake in the existence of a race-based system of slavery. Their own plight had not improved by much, but at least they were not slaves.

Once the planter elite split the labor force, poor whites responded to the logic of their situation and sought ways to expand their racially privileged position.8 By the mid-1770s, the system of bond labor had been thoroughly transformed into a racial caste system predicated on slavery. The degraded status of Africans was justified on the ground that Negros, like the Indians, were an uncivilized lesser race, perhaps even more lacking in intelligence and laudable human qualities than the red-skinned natives.

The notion of white supremacy rationalized the enslavement of Africans, even as whites endeavored to form a new nation based on the ideals of equality, liberty, and justice for all. Before democracy, chattel slavery in America was born. It may be impossible to overstate the significance of race in defining the basic structure of American society. The structure and content of the original Constitution was based largely on the effort to preserve a racial caste system—slavery—while at the same time affording political and economic rights to whites, especially propertied whites. The southern slaveholding colonies would agree to form a union only on the condition that the federal government would not be able to interfere with the right to own slaves.

Northern white elites were sympathetic to the demand for their “property rights” to be respected, as they, too, wanted the Constitution to protect their property interests. As James Madison put it, the nation ought to be constituted “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.”9 Consequently, the Constitution was designed so the federal government would be weak, not only in its relationship to private property, but also in relationship to the rights of states to conduct their own affairs. The language of the Constitution itself was deliberately colorblind (the words slave or Negro were never used), but the document was built upon a compromise regarding the prevailing racial caste system. Federalism—the division of power between the states and the federal government —was the device employed to protect the institution of slavery and the political power of slaveholding states. Even the method for determining proportional representation in Congress and identifying the winner of a presidential election (the electoral college) were specifically developed with the interest of slaveholders in mind. Under the terms of our country’s founding document, slaves were defined as three-fifths of a man, not a real, whole human being. Upon this racist fiction rests the entire structure of American democracy.

4. For an excellent analysis of the development of race as a social construct in the United States and around the globe, see Howard Winant, The World Is a Ghetto: Race and Democracy Since World War II (New York: Basic Books, 2001).
5. Bennett, Shaping of Black America, 62.
6. Keith Kilty and Eric Swank, “Institutional Racism and Media Representations: Depictions of Violent Criminals and Welfare Recipients,” Sociological Imagination 34, no. 2-3 (1997): 106.
7. Edmund Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975).
8. Ibid.; see also Leslie Carr, Color-blind Racism (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997), 14-16.
9. Gerald Fresia, Toward an American

Jul 15, 2015

Mobilization Against Solitary Confinement

By Verbena Lea and Willow Katz

keywords: sleep deprivation, torture, Pelican Bay, PHSS

From Prison Focus Issue 46

Peaceful hunger strike protests by California prisoners involved over
30,000 people and lasted 60 days. Strikers and their loved
ones have met cold hearted retaliation from CA Department
of Corrections. Yet people in solitary and their families and
supporters continue to keep the pressure on, educate the public,
and organize to stop the torture-- the brutal prison practice
of solitary confinement. California keeps people in cages
and concrete cells in extreme isolation for years, with no human
contact, no natural light, no phone calls, and access only
to horrible food and negligent to abusive ‘medical care.’
A new massive state and now nation-wide mobilization
called Statewide Coordinated Actions To End Solitary Con-
finement began on March 23, 2015 and will continue on the
23rd of each month.
Ever since the spring of 2011 when CA prisoners in Pelican
Bay’s SHU Short Corridor sent 5 human rights demands,
in writing, to CDCr officials and sent those demands out to
their families, human rights organizations, and anyone else
who might listen, solidarity organizing on the outside has
attempted to match the intensity, geographical span, and astute
human rights work by the prisoners. During the three
hunger strikes in 2011 and 2013, people all over the world
were inspired to act, outraged at the exposed realities of
solitary confinement torture. The prisoners’ courageous actions
prompted worldwide media and United Nations attention,
legislative hearings, proposed legislation, some CDCr
changes, and national and international solidarity actions.
Indeed, most media formerly refused to even acknowledge
that California has people in solitary confinement and has
had individuals locked down for decades. Now, major media
openly reports “The horror of solitary confinement — which
often masquerades under names such as “prison segregation”
or “restricted housing” — remains clear today.” (Washington
Post Editorial, July 1, 2015).
However, the public at large seemed to lose momentum,
perhaps forgetting about the state torture happening behind
concrete and barbed wire, once the massive hunger strikes
halted. While hunger strikers, in unconscionable living conditions,
try to recover their health and restore their organs,
damaged by refusing food for so long to get the world’s attention,
the public buzz about the horrors of solitary and the
talk in classrooms and churches about the moral imperative
to abolish solitary quieted down. People seem distracted
from thinking about the thousands of people tortured in extreme
“We don’t want them to have to hunger strike again.”
Recently, in response to a proposal from people incarcerated
in the Pelican Bay State Prison SHU involved in the
momentous 2011 and 2013 California Hunger Strikes, the
Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition (PHSS) initiated
Statewide Coordinated Actions To End Solitary Confinement.
Statewide Coordinated Actions are re-focusing the spotlight
on the torture of solitary confinement, from the grassroots,
and revitalizing the general public’s attention to end it.
Since March 2015, community organizations, loved ones
of people in solitary, and human rights advocates have been
mobilizing monthly actions in cities across California, including
Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, Culver City, San Diego,
Oakland, Arcata, San Francisco, Pasadena, San Jose, Manila,
Pt. Reyes, and Santa Barbara, on the 23rd of each month.
“Our outside supporters…---across the state--- [are] publicly
rallying on the 23rd of each month for the purpose of keeping
the subject of our endless torture in public view, and thereby
exposed to the world!!! The 23rd of each month is symbolic
of our 23+ hours per day in these tombs-of-the-living-dead--
-and it is hoped such rallies will spread across the nation!!!”
(Todd Ashker, March 30, 2015)
Indeed, Statewide Coordinated Actions To End Solitary
Confinement are spreading across the nation. Organizations
outside of CA and outside of the US are excited to join this
effort. There are over 75 endorsers and co-sponsors in CA,
nationwide, and globally, and organizations and prominent
individuals keep adding on. Groups are currently organizing
23rd actions in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York,
and Pennsylvania. People mobilizing in numerous locations
at once are circulating much needed information and helping
to put the realities of solitary confinement and other prison
human rights abuses in the forefront of national concern.
Locations for actions on the 23rd range from busy downtown
centers in Chicago, LA, New York, and Oakland; the
site in San Francisco where tourists wait to tour the torture
chambers of now closed Alcatraz prison; university and college
campuses; gorgeous seascapes on the Pacifi c coast of
California; Chuco’s Justice Center, base for the Youth Justice
Coalition and others; the Kinetic Sculpture Race, a bicycle
“Triathlon of the Art World,” 70 miles south of the Pelican
Bay torture chamber; to a major metropolitan commuter
transit center in Boston. All this is in stark contrast to the
sensory deprivation of solitary confinement torture cells.
Actions have included public rallies with speakers, including
members of CFASC and formerly incarcerated persons;
informational booths; performances and discussions of If the
SHU Fits - Voices from Solitary Confinement: A Reader’s
Theatre Performance; rolling fasts; massive distribution of
literature at big festivals and fairs; chalk-ins about solitary
confinement; educational encounters with passersby; press
conferences; letter-writings to incarcerated persons; a giant
puppet performance of the people defeating the prison industrial
complex; reader’s theater of the Agreement to End
Hostilities, the 5 Core Demands, and the Proposals for Action;
public screenings of the documentary Breaking Down
the Box; and letter-writing in support of CA Senate Bill 124
to define and limit solitary confinement of youth.
Participants have given out thousands of handbills about
the inhumane conditions of solitary confinement, the prisoner-class
led human rights struggle, the CA Hunger Strikes,
the Agreement to End Hostilities, how to get subscriptions
to publications for people locked inside, invitations to help
grow CFASC in Northern CA, Human Rights Pen Pal applications,
etc. All of those materials are available at the
Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity website, so anyone has the
ability to set up an informative action.
These mobilizations outside the prisons help bring hidden
torture into the public eye, show the world that folks who are
incarcerated have support, update people on the conditions
inside and the needs and work of the Prisoner-class Human
Rights Movement, and make clear that solitary confinement
is unacceptable.
The courage that prisoners continue to demonstrate after
the three Hunger Strikes, while upholding their Agreement
to End Hostilities across racial/ethnic and geographic
lines, should give us all the strength to organize in our own
communities. It is up to us to demand that the torture ends.
People suffering in solitary confinement don’t have time for
silent bystanders or toothless legislation.
A massive public movement is essential to end this torture.
We must break through the silence and pressure the courts,
legislatures, halls of power, and media to act to end solitary
confinement. We do not want the people in prison to have to
risk their lives in another hunger strike! Please participate in
these important mobilizations on the 23rd of every month.
“We will be with the the courts, in the legislature,
and out in the community. We will use every venue
available to us, UNTIL THE TORTURE IS ENDED.” ●

For more information see:,

Displaying Article 51 - 55 of 56 in total