Previous: First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter, Sep. 2020
Welcome to the October edition of First Amend This!: An IDOC Newsletter that addresses Idaho Corrections concerns.
Brought to you by The Captive Perspective and made available at bookofirving82431.com.
This publication provides an insider’s look at issues affecting the Idaho Department of Correction’s community. If you wish to assist this effort, share the link, cut and paste, or print and send a copy to another
…
Our Mission: To better develop our current state of Corrections.
The Idaho Legislature shares our mission and welcomes your comments! Feel free to send them your thoughts attached to a copy of this publication.
…
GET INVOLVED
Offender friends and families interested in receiving updates or networking concerns are encouraged to join the Idaho Inmate Family Support Group on Facebook.
The IIFSG is run by a collective of volunteers that operate autonomously. Please do not assume them to condone any of our actions.
…
EDITOR’S NOTE
A busy bunch of journalists are responsible for helping us fill this month’s issue. We thank them and their publishers for keeping everyone informed as IDOC has been casting more accusations to censor our news briefs from coming and going. Apparently even the professional media is secretly encouraging violence in prisons.
Not to worry, though: There likely is no better way to get the creative juices flowing through one solitarily-confined newscasting arsonist who takes pride in broadcasting under a call sign that literally translates into “Fuck You, Censorship! Come Get Some.”
That said, this publication’s not for everyone. So if you prefer your updates filter the effects that tend to accompany one’s long-term confinement, I’m happy to recommend you to the following professionals: Ruth Brown, Rebecca Boone, Scott McIntosh, Tommy Simmons, Jacob Scholl, Blake Jones, Gemma Gaudette and George Prentice.
Otherwise…
‘Sup? I’m Patrick Fucking Irving, and thank YOU for supporting how I First Amend This!
…
IDAHO SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON THE PUBLIC’S ACCESS TO EXECUTION RECORDS
SEPTEMBER 14 — The ACLU’s Ritchie Eppink squared up with deputy attorney general Jessica Kuehn in front of the Idaho Supreme Court to battle over University of Idaho professor Aliza Cover’s 2017 public records request for documents related to how offenders are put to death by the State.
Cover’s lawsuit is a product of IDOC’s refusal to turn over the supplier of lethal injection drugs used in Idaho’s most recent executions.
In 2019 a state judge ruled in favor of Professor Cover and the ACLU’s request for information. To which IDOC appealed, concerned that identifying “their guy” would label them narcs forever, making it extremely difficult to score anything in the future.
In September’s video hearing, Mr. Eppink informed the court that IDOC has continuously missed public records request deadlines and refused to provide hundreds of pages of documents. The ACLU argues that this conflicts with their public obligation to behave like “good dudes.” He also illustrated how IDOC does not follow their own rules, as the board has never formalized the policy which allows them to hide public documents.
Apparently, IDOC is concerned it will become harder to dispatch residents if they’re required to detail how they do it, though, to date, the Department of Correction and the Board of Correction have been unable to provide any evidence at all to support their claim that pharmaceutical death brokers actually care if such information is made available: All executions thus far have taken place on a schedule and the Department’s lethal injection drug dealers have never cut them off before.
To paraphrase the attorney for the state, Jessica Kuen: Up until now, our Legislature has allowed the Board of Correction to call their own shots in terms of coverups and bucking public records. So what’s the big fuckin’ deal, man? Just because they’re called public records doesn’t mean our asshole taxpayers deserve actual access to them.
Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick says the court will issue their ruling in the future.
It’s worth mentioning that local media coverage related to this story was censored from reaching our editor in March, and we too have been able to document the Department’s inability to follow their own procedures. (See: IDOC Conducts Damage Control, Regarding Disciplinary.)
[Source: Rebecca Boone, “Idaho Supreme Court Considers Lethal Injections Records Case.” 9-24-20.]
…
WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE’S PROBLEMS WITH ARIZONA?
The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of inmates at the Central Arizona Florence Correctional Complex.
The lawsuit, which has been requested to proceed as class-action, contains allegations of due process rights violations and cruel and unusual punishment–and claims that CoreCivic has shown deliberate indifference towards multiple COVID-19 risks throughout their facility.
Complaints supporting these allegations range from residents being forced to share masks (when they’re required to wear them at all) to up to 14 inmates being crammed into a cell with little access to soap. There are also concerns that only symptomatic individuals are being tested for the virus, along with reports that staff have lied about cases existing in the inmate population.
IDOC has contracted 320 beds at this facility for offender overflow.
[Sources: Dale Chappell, Prison Legal News, July ’20. Tommy Simmons, “IDOC releases First COVID-19 Tests From Inmates At Private Arizona Facility,” 9-2-20.]
…
CORECIVIC’S SAGUARO STAFF FORCED TO WORK WITH COVID-19 SYMPTONS
ABC 15 News in Arizona reports an employee at the Saguaro Correctional Center has alleged COVID-19 safety precautions are lacking at their facility.
The employee told ABC 15 Investigators that, even when reporting symptoms of illness, as long as staff are able to pass a temperature check, they’re still required to work.
CoreCivic uses the Saguaro facility to house inmates for Idaho, Hawaii, Kansas and Nevada. At the time this story ran, CoreCivic had only confirmed 12 cases of COVID-19 among their employees. The Kansas Department of Correction reported none of their inmates had tested positive, while the State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety and our IDOC reported one and 124 cases respectively. Numbers for the Nevada Department of Corrections were unknown.
According to reporter Lilian Soto: “The whistleblower says Saguaro keeps admitting new inmates with COVID-19 every week and that some arrive without masks, putting staff at risk during their transport.”
CoreCivic maintains that they are taking appropriate precautions at all times, to include providing Personal Protective Equipment and adhering to recommended social-distancing protocols. They also claim to request employees quarantine for 14 days if they’ve been exposed to the virus or experience symptoms. Which is interesting because Saguaro’s continuously short-staffed employees were able to provide the media with actual examples of staff who’ve worked sick.
Approximately 440 Idahoans are currently housed at SCC.
…
ARIZONA PRISON SERGEANT FACING MULTIPLE CHARGES
A sergeant at the Florence Prison Complex has been charged with sexual assault, kidnapping and sexual abuse. Unfortunately, because IDOC intends to censor us from reporting criminal misconduct of staff, we’re gonna say, Fuck it — have a link:
https://ktar.com/story/3472753/arizona-prison-sergeant-charged-with-sexual-assault-kidnapping
….
ISCC NURSE BLOWS THE COVID-19 WHISTLE OVER MEDICAL CONCERNS
Four days of treating COVID-19 patients at ISCC was all it took to offend the qualified sensibilities of one Laura Davis. As a registered nurse, Davis had been treating COVID patients all over the country before landing in Idaho to help at our prisons. But after witnessing the medical mistreatment of inmates by her fellow staff, she was inspired to quit and contact the press.
IDOC has stated they will now investigate her claims, which appear not to be limited to pandemic control.
Regarding her COVID concerns: In addition to medical staff not wearing masks, Davis claims they are not adequately decontaminating between handling patients. She’s also shared concerns over IDOC’s method of cohorting COVID-19 patients and provided at least one example of how a person who tested negative contracted the virus after being forcibly exposed to positive cases.
This story’s initial coverage by reporters Blake Jones and Tommy Simmons also includes inmate accounts of COVID concerns in other facilities.
View the full article here.
[Source: Blake Jones, Timmy Simmons. “Former Idaho Prison Nurse: Medical Staff ‘Not Following Proper Infection Controls’ Amid Pandemic.” 9-2-20.]
…
OTHER COVID NEWS
GEO Group’s Warden Waymon (The Gaymon) Barry failed to detect that over 1/5 of his Eagle Pass Correctional Facility’s inmate population was infected with COVID-19.
As of September 26, GEO had still only issued 33 tests among the population of 610 once housed. Because more than 1/3 of the 438 offenders transferred to Saguaro Correctional Center from Eagle Pass this month tested positive during intake, it’s safe to assume a similar percentage of the 170 waiting to return to Idaho will likely return infectioned. (Remember how this publication once asked: Is GEO Group’s Warden Waymon Barry the Angel of Death? Well, I think we have our answer.)
IDOC spokesman Jeff Ray has yet to comment on whether the way he once touted EPCF’s ability to contain the virus was overstated bullshit.
As of September 26, IDOC had issued over 9157 tests for offenders housed in-state. Of those, 1616 have tested positive and two have died. To date, over 120 members of staff have tested positive as well.
The Department is now working with state epidemiologists to develop a plan for resuming Visitation. Community Re-entry Centers will resume visiting before other facilities. Visiting locations are to be outfitted with temperature kiosks, plexiglass barriers and a supply of PPE masks. Capacity will be limited and the scheduling process will likely be different. More updates will follow
For real-time IDOC coronavirus updates: https://www.idoc.idaho.gov/content/careers/covid-19
…
IDOC: OFFENDERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REPORT THE CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT OF STAFF USING JPAY
Remember how our August issue was censored for reporting on violence and the sexual misconduct of staff? Well, having formally exhausted the grievance process, we’re now able to showcase the logic IDOC employs to prevent offender allegations from reaching the public. The following documents can be verified by way of a public records request, should the Department not attempt to redact them.
Note: The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the grievance process be exhausted prior to inmates’ claims reaching the courts. Which is why this reporter exercises his every grievance appeal, sometimes in a manner creative enough to provide outsiders with additional context. The results assist in documenting responses the Department might otherwise suppress. These responses, when accumulated, are extremely useful as references for other presentations.
View how we present grievances for reference: “Exhausted Grievances in Summary (for legal and investigative purpose).”
—
EXHAUSTED GRIEVANCE 1
Summary: IDOC censored the article “Busted” (August, 2020), which reported criminal charges being brought against staff for sexual misconduct with inmates.
Date: 8-14-20
Location: IMSI
Number: IM 200000403
Category: Security
The Problem Is: JPay censorship notice 8.1.20 stated message was censored for containing offender information, when in fact it only contained information regarding the sexual misconduct of staff.
I have tried to solve this problem informally by: Alerted Investigations by way of concern form 8-3-20. They refuse to respond.
I suggest the following solution for the problem: Release the JPay message. Retrain Investigations staff to understand the importance of allowing offenders to discuss the sexual misconduct of staff as needed.
LEVEL ONE RESPONDER: Sgt. Develbiss
Since the email you sent contained the name of the individual and the alleged crime they were being accused of, this email would then fall under the guidelines of SOP 503.02.01.001 (Telephones and Electronic Communications:Inmate) for confiscation, since it violated and gave information regarding the crime and identity of the individual in the JPay email.
LEVEL 2 REVIEWING AUTHORITY RESPONSE: Nicholas Baird
Grievance Disposition: Denied
Your grievance has been reviewed and I find: I concur with Sergeant Develbiss. Communication violates SOP as explained.
OFFENDER APPEAL
IDOC doesn’t provide adequate therapeutic support for people who’ve fallen victim to the sexual misconduct of staff. Therefore preventing discussion of this conduct — and solely because it’s already merited charges — denies all victims (both established and potential) the emotional support they need and deserve from friends and family who are only able to help them dissect their trauma on JPay. Which appears to be both cruel and unusual. Of all people, those working in corrections should know that silencing the victim is never the answer. Thus I suggest you either change your policy or establish therapeutic support for those who’ve been sexually abused by the staff.
LEVEL 3 APPELLATE RESPONSE: Tyrell Davis
Grievance Disposition: Denied
I have reviewed the grievance and concur with the Level One and Two responses [that] the email violates SOP 503.02.01.001
—
EXHAUSTED GRIEVANCE 2
Summary: A JPay message containing the articles “Assaults On Staff Appear To Be Increasing” and “Staff Pummels Inmate At IMSI” (August, 2020) was censored for encouraging violence. The concern form initiating this grievance was returned with the accusation that our editor is attempting to spread disinformation through prison.
Date: 7-30-20
Location: IMSI
Number: 200000377
Category: Security
The problem is: JPay message confiscated 7-27-20 encouraged discourse to prevent violence. It also contains nothing that could be construed as an attempt to propagate disinformation, as it is clarified throughout the report that information presented has been relayed concurrently through several accounts, and the early morning 7-17-20 incident that woke many in my unit to witness most certainly did happen. Furthermore, these reports are circulated to press, legislators and legal advocates, not through IDOC prisons.
I suggest the following solution for the problem: Carefully deliberate for the exchange of ideas.
LEVEL 1 INITIAL RESPONDER: Sgt. Develbiss
The JPay email that was confiscated on 7/27/2020 was because you sent a JPay email with descriptions of violent acts in it. IDOC Policy 402.02.01.001 (Mail Handling In Correctional Facilities, section) #4. Prohibited Mail items — Publications or items that encourage violence. Also, though not a reason the email was confiscated, the information contained in your email was incorrect and why you received a response from me via your concern form regarding you sending disinformation.
LEVEL 2 REVIEWING AUTHORITY: Nicholas Baird
Disposition: [Initially listed as Denied due clerical error.]
Your grievance has been reviewed and I find: The JPay message will be approved. Information describes violence but does not encourage it.
OFFENDER APPEAL
Please change the grievance disposition to reflect my grievance as granted. I’d also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the event reported was initially described as taking place in June, and DeVelbiss is right to suggest the report was inaccurate, as the event actually took place in July. This error was corrected in editing. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. It should also be noted that JPay messaging does not fall under Policy 402.02.02.001 (Mail Handling In Correctional Facilities). The policy staff should be referencing is 503.02.01.001 (Telephone and Electronic Communications). Please retrain staff accordingly.
LEVEL APPELLATE RESPONSE: Tyrell Davis
Disposition: Granted
I have reviewed your grievance and find that the grievance was granted on 8/20/20 and it was noted on the disposition. Staff were following policy 503.02.01.001 as noted on the confiscation denial form that you received on 7/29/20.
EXHAUSTED GRIEVANCE 3
Summary: Articles mentioned in Grievance 2 were sent again with several paragraphs removed from “Assaults On Staff Appear To Be Increasing.” (As the other had successfully found FAT! 7.17.20, I assumed after the receiving the first notice that reporting assaults on staff was the issue.) The concern form was returned arguing the same message had been censored and grieved already. But it wasn’t the same message, and it was censored for an entirely different reason, requiring a entirely different grievance, which, oddly enough, received an entirely different response. The article, sent a fourth time, untitled and unformatted, finally found its recipient.
Date: 8/18/2020
Location: IMSI
Number: IM 200000411
Category: Security
The problem is: JPay message censored 7-28-20 for “containing information regarding crime, sentence, or identity of offenders or inmate” didn’t contain any such information. This message was also dramatically different than the 7-27-20 message that was confiscated for different reasons. It is a separate issue from that being grieved already.
I suggest the following solution for the problem: Release the JPay message and forward it to the recipient
LEVEL ONE INITIAL RESPONDER: Sgt. Develbiss
The information contained in the email was in regard to an incident that could potentially give information about the identity of another offender and therefore falls under the guidelines for confiscation as per SOP 503.02.01.001 (Telephone and Electronic Communication: Inmate). It states “information to the crime or identity of another offender.”
LEVEL 2 REVIEWING AUTHORITY: Nicholas Baird
Disposition: Denied
Your grievance has been reviewed and I find: I concur with Investigations’ response.
OFFENDER APPEAL
There is no way to surmise the crime or identify of the offender [who was] treated to a beating by staff unless one were to conduct a formal investigation. And nothing in the policy referenced prevents discussing events that could “potentially give information.” The policy is very clear that no specific information shall be given regarding the crime or identity of another offender. To even suggest inmates aren’t allowed to report staff-on-inmate violence for such a reason surely requires immediate oversight attention. It is worth noting that Nicholas Baird already approved the same content in Grievance IM 200000377, in a decision which was upheld by Warden [Tyrell] Davis. The article was also allowed to pass through JPay on 7-17-20 and again on 7-29-20. Which only proves that, even if I’m wrong, whoever is censoring messages requires more training.
LEVEL 3 APPELLATE AUTHORITY: Tyrell Davis
Disposition: Modified
I have reviewed the grievance and find that we conduct formal investigations on situations where there is staff misconduct. Depending on the outcome of the investigation and if warranted there is accountability for the staff involved. We do not however share those outcomes with the offender population. As it pertains to the JPay message mentioned in the grievance, I concur with Investigations’ response.
—
LAST WORD
What Warden Davis confirms, and then goes on to suggest with his response–while acting as the appeal authority for IDOC–is that offenders aren’t allowed to report to their families staff-on-inmate violence because IDOC is concerned that the victims of the violence might be identified, and that only IDOC decides if IDOC deserves to be investigated for incidents involving questionable use-of-force on residents.
Huh.
Strange.
…
MUSINGS FROM AN OPEN CRAPPER
In the rec cages the other day, my neighbor, telling a story:
One morning his friend found a note on his car, under the windshield wiper, in front of his apartment, informing him he had an admirer who enjoyed watching him leave for work every day.
The next day, another note, describing how he was attractive. The day after that, another one, wondering if destiny would schedule a moment.
And it was somewhere around the fourth day when the secret admirer, losing patience, conveyed an urgent need to feel a fist inside his asshole.
Shocked, the gentleman in the cage next to me, also absorbing the story, immediately ruled it to be “crazy as hell.” And while he and our storyteller proceeded to mull over what kind of sinister f*** would do such a thing, I told them it reminded me of The Notebook.
And that’s when the conversation turned on me, and whatever kind of sinister f*** I must be. To which I assume I’m the best kind. But all I have to say is that I’m equally disturbed by the sociopath that doesn’t appreciate a good love story.
…Sometimes I don’t understand how it is that I’m the weird one.
…
And there it is, folks.
Happy Halloween and shout out to George Carlin!