Regarding Disciplinary

(Included as a cover letter:)

Dear Mailroom,

Under the Idaho Public Records Act, Disclosure of Idaho Department of Corrections Records Under the Idaho Public Records Act, IDOC Public Records User Manual v3.0, section 2 (Types of Records) – you must allow this communication to proceed to its intended recipient so that it can be received and placed in my case management file and IDOC’s Department Business Operations Records.

This is NOT a disciplinary appeal.

Irving 82431

(Actual Letter)

Dear Mr. Fraser,

Thank you for reviewing my Disciplinary Offense Report. I appreciate your consideration. While I respect your ruling and understand its finality, I’m confused by your understanding of prisoners’ rights, Federal Guidelines for Disciplinary Due Process Procedures, Idaho Department of Corrections Policy 318 and IDOC Policy 316. Of specific interest to me is your phrasing that disciplinary “is not a criminal prosecution and does not require the same evidentiary thresholds or processes.”

I can understand these are not identical processes. I can not understand how that allows a person to be served with an offense, offered a hearing for that offense, given sanctions for the same offense, be denied their ability to appeal through forms and instructions made unavailable, and then have the offense they were served with and had a hearing for changed four months later.

The purpose of policy 318 is to “establish guidelines for ensuring the inmate disciplinary system is managed consistently, effectively, and ethically throughout the Idaho Department of Corrections.” This policy states, “Staff have specific authorized responsibilities for the inmate disciplinary system processes.” This is clearly made to extend to contract facilities under section 8 of this policy.

While IDOC may have neglected to have properly trained Grievance and Disciplinary Officers at Eagle Pass Correctional Facility, that is through no fault of the inmate. Had IDOC taken the time to inform EPCF that we classify offenses and process them differently from their usual non-English speaking immigration detainees, this wouldn’t be at issue. That being the case, because you plead guilty to and pay for a speeding ticket in Mexico, you would never reasonably expect that agreement to be discarded so you could be punished for vehicular assault four months later, in Idaho.

EPCF staff aren’t the only people “responsible” for the disciplinary system being managed “consistently, effectively, and ethically” as purposed by this policy. Although I have documented a great deal of references I’ve made to IDOC Agreement Number A18-002, no one person at GEO Group or IDOC appears interested in becoming familiar with section 5.5. This states, “Once all appeals processes are exhausted at the Facility, Inmates may submit an appeal to the IDOC Contract Monitor or designee.”

As my first appeal was never processed, I grieved a policy that was ineffective. Contrary to popular belief, this was not an appeal for disciplinary. This was an appeal for the basic human decency needed to provide the Appeals process offered by IDOC Policy 318. My grievance regarding retaliation was also not a disciplinary appeal. It was a grievance concerning classification that resulted from disciplinary action, and, according to Policy 316.02.01.001 (3. Exceptions:, Example 3), never should have been dismissed citing Policy 316. Furthermore, the response to this grievance recommended I could only present this issue using the appeals process that I previously grieved for not being made available.

If my attempt to use the provision placed in IDOC Agreement Number A18-002, section 5.5 was a test, the result was predictable. Tim Higgins and Monte Hansen, IDOC Contract Monitors, delegated their responsibility to Warden Waymon Barry – the same man responsible for my first nonexistent and disappearing appeal.

In my experience, the only thing being applied “consistently” and “effectively”, in regards to Policy 318 at IDOC’s Contract Facility, is a complete lack of morals, ethics, and competence. This is of an inmate’s concern. Please log it as such.

Patrick Irving 82431

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × three =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.