The IDOC last month refused my public records request for the winning proposal to replace JPay services. Per Idaho Code, claims the department, trade secret information contained within the proposal exempts it from public disclosure.
In the past, the IDOC has filled my requests for similar proposals and contracts with sensitive information redacted. It’s only within the last nine months that it has denied my lawful efforts to inform you of its business dealings, evening going so far as to claim that the publicly registered name of one its contractors is “trade secret information.” (Click to view documents.)
Whatever.
The following memo appears to be the maximum amount of information that the IDOC is currently comfortable sharing about its new service provider. It was posted in my dayroom February 7, 2025.
“Resident Communications Update/Memo #1”
The contract between IDOC and IC Solutions has been updated to include a transition to a new tablet system. The exact transition date is still being determined. We anticipate the transition to begin during the month of May 2025. IDOC will communicate additional details, including the proposed transition schedule, as the plan is finalized.
IDOC is working diligently to minimize the impact of these changes, but we also recognize that these changes can cause concern and raise questions which we will try to address through regular weekly communication with you.
1. JPay tablet technology is becoming obsolete. New tablets will replace the current JPay tablets and will be available for each resident, at no charge. Each resident will also receive one set of ear buds (with microphone) and one charger. Replacement ear buds and chargers will be available for purchase through commisary.
2. Kiosks will be replaced with a panel (docking station) to be used for video visits. Your tablet will be utilized for video visits by placing the tablet into the docking station.
3. In coming weeks, you may see technicians in your facility completing a site survey. The results of the site survey will provide us with a more detailed timeline and a more accurate transition date.
4. Due to the amount of time it takes to order and receive a JPay tablet, it is recommended to not order a tablet after Thursday, February 06, 2025.
5. The information on your current JPay tablets will not transfer to the new tablets.
Frequently Asked Questions:
What about all the things I have on my JPay tablet? — Per JPay, the content on your JPay tablet can be accessed for 30 days from the last sync to a kiosk. — We have reports that some JPay tablets are working beyond 30 days, however, IDOC cannot guarantee this functionality. — You will be allowed to keep the JPay tablet as long as it is functional and doesn’t become a security concern. — There is a process if you would like your tablet unlocked and sent to a residential address. More to come on this process . . .
Is it worth it to buy a JPay tablet? — It is not recommended after Thursday, February 6th. Please keep in mind the delivery of a newly purchased tablet takes approximately 45 business days, which would put delivery on April 7th or later.
What if I buy music, games, or other content for my JPay tablet after February 6th? — Please refer to the information above and know that you may only have access for 30 days from the last sync to a kiosk. Purchase additional content at your own risk.
What will happen to the current kiosks? — After the deployment of the new tablets, the current kiosks will be removed from all IDOC facilities. The new tablets communicate wirelessly with the network and kiosks are no longer needed.
We understand your excitement and curiosity. IDOC will continue to provide you with information on the change, rates and fees, overall functionality, services, and timelines on a weekly basis through scheduled communications related to this change. If you identify other concerns or questions, please feel free to submit a concern form to Central Office — Contracts.
IDOC Data Sensitivity Classification — L3 Restricted
A grievance—a complicated complaint process imposed on incarcerated individuals who depend absolutely on their captors for even the most basic of life’s necessities. (Jails, prisons, and other like facilities (private, state, or federally operated) use similar grievance systems, and are referenced interchangeably throughout this article.)
Prisoners rely on guards for adequate food, hygiene, medical care, and safety. Those few rights remain behind bars. To redress a loss of those rights, most state and federal correctional facilities impose rigorous grievance procedures that prisoners must navigate to the letter or be denied relief. Success rates vary, but often prisoners don’t lose because their issues lack merit. Rather, grievances may fail because, frankly, prisoners generally lack the skills to communicate concisely, clearly, and consistently. That’s not an insult, but a fact of life and poor education that this article is designed to address. Here, steps for making a successful grievance are explained in detail, as well as guidance for clear communication and writing.
Lack of motivation is another problem. Prisoners often don’t initiate or complete grievance procedures because they believe it’s pointless to do so, which belief may not be wholly unjustified. Be that as it may, there’s good reason to push through a grievance that’s doomed to fail, rightly or wrongly. First, a grievance forces a response from someone in charge. Staff members must take time to address the issues, and multiple grievances about the same issues—whether or not individually successful—can nonetheless cumulatively affect officials’ interpretation of policy for the better or result in policy revision when a persistent problem becomes apparent, and some kind of action is unavoidable. Second, institutional grievances are usually logged into a larger department system, and together can point to negative trends within a prison administration. Executives, legislators, and prisoner advocates (via public records requests) can and do mine such grievance statistics for evidence to support prison improvement.
As a practical matter, exactly how prisoners should approach grievances really depends on whether those grievances can be won at the institutional level, or whether they’re simply completing a bureaucratic process (“exhausting administrative remedies”) in order to later take the issues to court. (Federal and state law require prisoners to complete institutional grievances as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. See more about that below.) The difference is between attitude and detail, but otherwise the steps in either approach follow in the same order: verbal requests, written requests, grievance, and appeal. Each stage factors in strategically.
VERBAL REQUESTS
A prison newbie might think it a matter of routine to try to resolve a matter by submitting a formal grievance. For the public, dealing with a government department usually involves documenting requests and pushing paper, and it’s understandable a person unfamiliar with prison reality would view the act of filing a grievance as no big deal. More familiar prisoners, however, know that a county jail or a Department of Corrections is not a city bureaucracy the public can complain to and expect courteous, timely responses. Often the opposite is true, if responses are forthcoming at all.
For this reason, you are far better off trying to fix a problem by personally talking with the officer who has direct authority to help. It’s not tactical to go over an officer’s head, at first. Rather, the officer responsible for the problem or the lowest ranking officer with authority to help should be addressed first. (Some institutions have policy that requires prisoners to work through the chain of command in this way.)
If the issue is small, or involves a creative interpretation of the rules, you probably will have more success by avoiding ranking officers such as sergeants and lieutenants. They’re inclined to strict interpretation of policy or, if a lower-ranking officer already denied the issue, they might say no, too, solely to back up their officer.
When dealing with any officer, it’s inadvisable to blurt out a bald complaint and punctuate it with a string of expletives “This s**t is f****d up!” That just puts an officer on alert, and the demonstrative behavior might elicit a demonstrative response from staff—”Get on the wall and put your hands behind your back!” Even amicable officers might not care less that you are upset and may mollify you with platitudes or empty promises until you
walk away peacefully. It’s also a bad idea for you to stand on your “rights” too much (“. . . it’s unconstitutional to treat us this way!”) because many correctional officers would disagree that any rights remain to prisoners whatsoever—”You don’t like it, you shouldn’t have come to prison!”
To communicate about a problem effectively, the best practice is to stick to the facts of the problem (avoiding legal arguments) and speak politely. Of course, it’s always a bonus to speak with a familiar officer, with whom the conversation can be organic and easier to receive. But a prisoner without previous (or positive) interaction with an officer should remember this whenever talking to staff: Maintain good eye contact, calm and measured tones, and stick to the point. Diplomatic, mild arguments are okay. Assert each point but keep aggression out of the expression. If you can’t manage this, you should find someone else who’s acquainted with the officer to speak on your behalf.
If the officer ultimately can’t help, you should ask if the officer would be willing to personally talk to the higher-ups to resolve the problem. If things need to escalate to a written request, you may ask whether it should be sent to that officer or to higher rank. If higher rank is suggested, then the officer shouldn’t get too bent out of shape when you go to the boss with a problem the officer couldn’t (or wouldn’t) resolve. The officer is less likely to work against you in this scenario because the officer was consulted in the decision to press the concern further.
Taking all the above into consideration, however, there’s a problem with making verbal requests to staff, no matter how it’s done. You are more likely to get the runaround (wasting time that might count against a timeline to file grievances) and a written record isn’t being created, which record might end up being needed as evidence in court. A written request can solve that problem. (However, the verbal request stage can’t be skipped if prison policy requires it as prerequisite to further action in the grievance process.)
WRITTEN REQUESTS
It might not be necessary to put anything in writing when prisoners have direct access to officers who can assist with problems. These officers can be spoken to directly and politely reminded of continuing issues. That kind of circumstance, though, is unusual when you have a personal issue (as opposed to one that affects numerous others), and more commonly you will have to send a written request to cover all bases and provide precise detail. A written request also is, essentially, formal notice and reminder that a problem persists.
For me it’s been effective to ask officers (when I first talk to them) if they’d like me to send a written request, detailing the issue. I’ve never had one say no, and if they agree, they’ve had a heads-up to expect it, or even invited it. That invitation makes them more receptive and cooperative in a process that ultimately creates more work for them.
Whether sending a courteous request as a friendly reminder or sending a stern demand and quoting policy, always write a request as if someone other than the addressee will be reading it. Just because you send a request to a particular officer doesn’t mean that officer will be responding to the request. (Your request might even be rerouted to an entirely different department.) People new to the issue will lack context, so you should reiterate important facts they can follow. Try to make it easy for others to help by being concise and clear. Do not send a request as ambiguous as, “I still haven’t got the book the mailroom confiscated. You said it’s allowed under policy.”
An officer may not remember your entire conversation, so your message to that officer could elicit a response that asks for more details, which causes delay while you send yet another written request to supply additional information. Furthermore, anyone who was not part of the original conversation would have no idea what you’re talking about. Your request will be more effective if you take extra time to add detail, like the following:
“Property Officer Smith, as we discussed on 10/28/24, I’m sending you a reminder about my book that was mistakenly confiscated. On 10/20/24, Mailroom Sgt. White confiscated my incoming book “MEISTER MANUAL Drawing Tips for Prisoners,” claiming the book didn’t come from an approved vendor. But that is not right. Policy 308 states that books can be mailed directly from the publisher. I bought the book from Wynword Press, who mailed the book here, and who’s listed in the book as the publisher. Thanks for looking into this for me.”
The message is clear, including dates and names. I’ve cited policy that supports my argument (which you should always do in policy disputes). It’s not combative, but the thoroughness shows I’m serious. And anyone new to the problem can easily understand the request. The message does not explicitly ask that the book be delivered, but that is implied. Consider making an explicit demand—”Please forward the book to me”—if there’s room on the written request form (a.k.a., Concern Forms, Inmate Requests, Kites). Should things escalate to the grievance stage, you’ll have to be a bit more thorough and make explicit demands for how you want the problem addressed by staff.
FILING A GRIEVANCE
Occasionally an officer would like to help but will be outranked by another officer who wants to deny the issue. Or maybe an officer wants to help but thinks policy prevents it. If the prisoner can touch base with either officer and ask if a formal grievance would be helpful, that might ease the tension enough to make progress. That officer likely will be the first tier of responders to the grievance anyway, and it can’t hurt to attempt to smooth over what could end up being a hassle for the officer when higher security staff or administration come to investigate the issue. If things are going to get ugly (when litigation looms), a prisoner will need all the help he or she can get. Even just getting officers to be honest about a controversy is almost too much to expect, so it pays to stay on friendly terms with staff when possible.
All the above presumes a reasonable chance your problem will be resolved by the grievance system, when being diplomatic counts. A problem destined for court, on the other hand, is more likely to be stonewalled by officers, and you should prioritize punctuality and detail over politeness throughout the grievance process. This is so because the grievance system can trip you up and give the government an advantage against you if the issue goes to court. The rest of this section describes typical grievance hurdles and how to get past them.
Many prison grievance systems require you to first attempt to resolve a problem by using the informal methods of verbal requests and written requests as a prerequisite to filing a formal grievance. You might be required to prove your informal efforts by explaining who you talked to and when, and/or by attaching your copy of a response to a written request. This multistage process is the government’s first line of defense, used to dismiss grievances (and lawsuits) on procedural grounds.
Here’s how it works. Policy might allow, for example, thirty days from the incident in question to file a formal grievance. But you’re also required to make a verbal and/or written request before filing the grievance. The prisoner waits in good faith for a response, but the verbal/written request process takes longer than thirty days to complete. You file the grievance, but it’s kicked back to you, unprocessed, because you’ve missed the thirty-day deadline while waiting to finish the informal process.
Prison officials use these procedural defaults to defeat lawsuits because your state has made laws requiring prisoners to fully complete (“exhaust”) prison grievances (strictly according to prison policy) prior to filing lawsuits in state court. The federal government has created a similar law, requiring the same, called the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). It states that prisoners cannot take legal action in federal court “with respect to prison conditions” until “such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 USC $ 1997e(a). What this means is that, whether filing in state or federal court, your lawsuit (no matter how good) will be dismissed if you haven’t first exhausted your jail’s or prison’s grievance process, from beginning to end, following the facility’s rules exactly.
Courts aren’t blind to such shenanigans, however. If you file the grievance on time and indicate somewhere in the grievance (and/or attach a copy of an unanswered written request, as proof) that you’ve timely and properly pursued the informal process but staff have been late in responding, you should be okay. If officials kick back the grievance for failure to complete the informal process, resubmit it when the informal process is finally finished. If they kick it back again, saying the grievance is now too late, you have two choices: Start a separate grievance about the catch-22 in the process, arguing the grievance was frustrated (effectively “unavailable”) by its own time limitations, or go ahead and file your lawsuit and hope the judge sees through the nonsense. In either scenario, if you’ve followed the steps and prison officials still refuse to accept the grievance, a court probably will excuse your inability to exhaust the grievance process and allow your lawsuit to proceed. (But it’s never ideal to go to court with an incomplete grievance.)
The below bullet-point paragraphs describe the usual failure-to-exhaust-grievances issues that government lawyers and federal courts raise to dismiss prisoner lawsuits under the PLRA. Reference is limited to the PLRA and federal case law interpreting it. However, because state law surrounding this subject usually mimics federal law, my suggestions for navigating PLRA-exhaustion requirements are not totally inapplicable to questions of state-law exhaustion requirements as well.
You must complete the grievance process even if it is pointless to do so. For example, if you’re asking for money to redress pain and suffering, prison policy prohibits officials from granting money damages. You must try, regardless, and attempt to appeal the issue to the highest prison authority. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001).
If you’ve only just learned of an incident and the time to file a grievance has expired, you should still be able to file the grievance so long as you file within time limits that start after you learned of the incident. For example, a book was confiscated by the Mailroom, but no one told you for forty days. The timeline to file a grievance on the confiscation is, say, thirty days. If the prison refuses your grievance as untimely because you didn’t file within thirty days of the confiscation, submit it again and explain that it was not your fault, that the Mailroom didn’t give timely notice. Courts should excuse this grievance exhaustion conundrum if you follow these steps, and the prison still won’t process your issue. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (officials’ conduct can make a grievance process effectively “unavailable”).
If the problem is ongoing (e.g., an untreated medical issue), you might be able to initiate the grievance process at any time (as opposed to when the issue first occurred), so long as prison authorities have power to address the problem. Weiss v. Barribeau, 853 F.3d 873, 874 (7th Cir. 2017); Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 2001). However, you should always attempt to file grievances within policy time limits.
“[P]risoners need not file multiple, successive grievances raising the same issue (such as prison conditions or policies) if the objectionable condition is continuing.” Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2013); Parzyck v. Prison Health Servs. Inc., 627 F.3d 1215, 1219 (11th Cir. 2010) (prisoner “not required to initiate another round of the administrative grievance process on the exact same issue each time” a depravation occurred).
However, you may be required to file a new grievance if you are transferred to another facility before officials have had opportunity to address your original grievance. Chambers v. Sood, 956 F.3d 979, 984 (7th Cir. 2020).
If you mess up somewhere in the grievance process, but prison officials don’t call you out on it and instead process your grievance, they can’t later in court use your procedural mistake as an argument to have your lawsuit dismissed for failure to exhaust. Rinaldi v. U.S., 904 F.3d 257 (3rd Cir. 2018); Whatley v. Smith, 898 F.3d 1072, 1083 (11th Cir. 2018); Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654 (9th Cir. 2016); Reed-Bey v. Pramsteller, 603 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2010); Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004); Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2004); Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004).
I recommend waiting, but if the authorities unreasonably delay your grievance, you might be able to go ahead and file your lawsuit and have the court excuse the failure to exhaust the grievance. Hays v. Dahlke, 976 F.3d 259 (2nd Cir. 2020); Andres v. Marshall, 854 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 2017); Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008). That is to say, if prison officials haven’t responded within their own policy time limits, haven’t given you notice why, and aren’t responding to your written inquiries about the grievance’s status, then you might be able to initiate the appeal stage. If that’s ignored too, you can proceed with the lawsuit.
A court might excuse a failure to exhaust if the grievance process is so confusing that the average prisoner can’t be expected to understand or complete it. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016).
If guards or officials invent steps that aren’t part of the published grievance policy, a court might excuse your failure to follow those additional steps in the process. Prisoners cannot be required to exhaust administrative remedies that aren’t specified, outlined, or required by a facility’s grievance system. Troche v. Crabtree, 814 F.3d 795, 801 (6th Cir. 2016); King v. McCarthy, 781 F.3d 889, 896 (7th Cir. 2015) (prisoners are not required to exhaust “procedures they have not been told about”).
If a grievance system instructs you to use a specialized process, you must use that process and not the inapplicable grievance process. This issue usually occurs in relation to an appeal of a disciplinary sanction. Disciplinary measures often have a built-in appeal process that’s separate from the facility’s general grievance process. If you fail to use the special appeal, and instead file a normal grievance about the disciplinary proceeding, a court will not consider the matter properly exhausted. Richardson v. Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495, 499 (5th Cir. 2001).
If you file a grievance and receive no response at all, a court likely will excuse your failure to exhaust the grievance process. Andres v. Marshall, 854 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir. 2017); Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006).
You can’t be faulted for failing to exhaust a grievance if the facility has no grievance system. Hubbs v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, 788 F.3d 54 (2nd Cir. 2015); Malik v. D.C., 574 F.3d 781 (D.C. Cir. 2009). This question usually arises when incidents occur at temporary holding facilities, or during transports, where prisoners aren’t expected to stay long enough to be able to pursue an administrative remedy such as a grievance.
A court will excuse your failure to exhaust if officers refuse to provide assistance, instructions, or grievance forms in a language you can understand. Ramirez v. Young, 906 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2018).
A court will excuse your failure to exhaust if you have a medical condition that prevents you from using the grievance process and (after you’ve made a written request) facility staff have not tried to accommodate your condition so you can pursue a grievance. Smallwood v. Williams, 59 F.4th 306, 314 (7th Cir. 2024); Rucker v. Giffen, 997 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2021).
A court will excuse your failure to exhaust if officers interfere with the grievance process, fail to accept a properly filed grievance, refuse to supply the appropriate forms, or misrepresent what the grievance process requires. Hardy v. Shaikh, 959 F.3d 578 (3rd Cir. 2020); Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2018); Davis v. Mason, 881 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 2018); Davis v. Hernandez, 789 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2015); Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010).
A credible threat of retaliation or actual retaliation for pursuing a grievance is legal cause to excuse your failure to exhaust a grievance process, provided the threat or retaliation would deter “a reasonable inmate of ordinary firmness and fortitude” from filing or finishing a grievance. Lucente v. Cty. of Suffolk, 980 F.3d 284, 313 (2nd Cir. 2020); McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2015); Himmelreich v. Federal BOP, 766 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2014); Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011); Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2008).
“A grievance need not include legal terminology or legal theories unless they are in some way needed to provide notice of the harm being grieved.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009).
Moreover, “no administrative system may demand that the prisoner specify each remedy later sought in litigation[,]” because the PLRA “requires each prisoner to exhaust a process and not a remedy.” Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). This interpretation gives you a little flexibility when requesting a remedy from a court (e.g., an injunction, or compensatory damages, or punitive damages), and a court shouldn’t preclude you from asking for a type of remedy just because it wasn’t first requested in the grievance.
Finally, if you prevail on a grievance but officials don’t deliver on their promise of relief, you shouldn’t have to file another grievance before going to court. “A prisoner who has not received promised relief is not required to file a new grievance where doing so may result in a never-ending cycle of exhaustion.” Abney v. McGinnis, 380 F.3d 663, 669 (2nd Cir. 2004). Nonetheless, I recommend that you file another grievance about prison officials’ failure to do as they said they would.
Most of the above examples focus on procedural problems you can easily avoid if you are careful. But blundering the facility’s grievance process is by no means the only failure-to-exhaust technicality that could undermine a subsequent lawsuit. If they can’t throw out your lawsuit for a procedural failure-to-exhaust error, government lawyers and courts will then scrutinize what you wrote in your requests and grievances, or, rather, look for things you left out. Specifically, they’ll attack the substance of a grievance by arguing that it didn’t state an important fact an official would need to know to be capable of fully addressing the issue, and, therefore, the grievance was too vague to give adequate notification of the problem.
Considering the lack of education, cognitive ability, and emotional challenges prisoners often face which may impede their ability to clearly express themselves, many courts have held that a statement of facts in a grievance is sufficient if the prison reviewing authority can figure out the problem and who’s responsible for causing it. See e.g., Patterson v. Stanley, 547 Fed. Appx. 50 (5th Cir. 2013). But other courts are less forgiving and require prisoner grievances to list the names of people being accused, what they did, what they knew, and how they caused the prisoner harm. Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2020); Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2018). It’s hard to say where any given judge will land on this subject or how extensively government lawyers will dissect your grievance. The safest course, then, is to be thorough when writing a grievance.
If you have, say, a medical issue that the facility’s medical provider is ignoring and you expect the matter will end up in litigation, do not attempt to resolve the problem with a vague grievance like this: “Medical providers are not providing adequate care for my hip injury. You’re violating my Constitutional right to medical care!” The statement is too vague for all the reasons this next example is not:
“I have a torn labrum in my right hip. On 11/12/21, I was transported offsite to consult with an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Barry Hurst. Dr. Hurst reviewed my MRI and X-rays, and said the torn labrum required surgery as soon as possible, that it will not heal otherwise, and will continue to cause pain and fold into the hip joint, eventually destroying it. He said that if the torn tissue is not repaired, it will continue to scratch the femoral head, causing severe arthritis in about a year or two, at which time I’ll need a hip replacement.
On 11/18/21, prison medical provider Nurse Rollins told me that he had reviewed Dr. Hurst’s recommendation with Dr. Haggard and the Utilization Management MD (name withheld from me), and they decided to reject the specialist’s recommendation for surgery, and instead prescribe an ‘alternative treatment plan’ of 600 mg ibuprofen, three times daily.
The treatment plan is inadequate. Pain management will not treat the underlying damage to my hip or prevent further deterioration. I am requesting the medical care recommended by Dr. Hurst.”
The statement is specific. It includes dates, injury, names, and what I’m asking for. I didn’t waste space citing case law or accusing them of violating my Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. And yet, I was careful to show that all the people named (who could end up being defendants in a lawsuit) were aware of my medical issue, and deliberately chose an inadequate course of treatment. (The statement, in fact, alleges the elements of an Eighth Amendment medical claim: deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.) Notice that I couldn’t include the name of the Utilization Management doctor but used space to point out that the name was being concealed. It’s not my fault I can’t provide the name, it’s theirs, and I can use that fact in my defense later in court. Notice, too, that I didn’t run on about how ibuprofen is inadequate for pain management of a torn labrum. That’s really a separate issue, and I would file a separate grievance about insufficient pain therapy if I planned to sue over it.
FILING A GRIEVANCE APPEAL
A successful grievance should not have to be appealed, but I’d consider doing it anyway. Why would I appeal a win? To preserve the issue for court, to avoid any question that I failed to exhaust my administrative remedies. If you win the grievance and prison officials renege on the deal or just don’t follow through with what they said they’d do (happens all the time), and then you file a lawsuit, the court should not fault you for failing to appeal the grievance.
Failure to file an appeal is playing with fire, though. If l won a grievance, but it looked like officials weren’t going to honor their promise of relief, I’d file the grievance appeal if the time limit to do so hadn’t yet run out. If the time to appeal had run out, I’d start a new grievance. If they kick back that grievance and say I already grieved the issue and can’t do so again, then I’ve done all I can do and a court will likely side with me on the exhaustion question, if it comes up.
When a grievance is lost, it MUST be appealed, or you won’t be able to pursue a lawsuit. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). The time to appeal could be a few days or as long as a month—you must read your prison’s policy on this point. And you must file the appeal within that policy’s time limits. Id., 548 U.S. at 90.
A hitch in the exhaustion process sometimes occurs when a grievance response is not physically sent back to the prisoner until the deadline to appeal the response has lapsed. If this happens to you, try submitting the appeal anyway, and include a written request explaining that the appeal was late because the grievance decision was delivered late (be sure to say exactly when you received it). If they refuse to hear the appeal, submit another grievance about the facility’s failure to timely give notice of the grievance decision. If it’s your word against the word of prison officials about when exactly you got notice of the grievance decision, you will lose in court, unless you can produce something to bolster your credibility, such as a subsequent grievance complaining about the delay that interfered with the appeal process.
There are limitations on the substance of what can be included in an appeal, as well. Prisoners often screw up a grievance by changing the facts when writing an appeal, even when that may be a logical reply to what officials have decided in their grievance responses. This is a trap. Don’t get drawn into arguing with their responses (which may be infuriating nonsense) and forget to stand on your original issue. At this point, your objective is to preserve the issue for court, not persuaded prison officials. You can and should add clarifying facts on appeal, so long as they support your original grievance.
Exhaustion trouble also arises from raising more than one issue in a single grievance. Prison policies usually restrict a grievance to a single issue. Look above at the detailed example of the grievance statement concerning the medical issue I supplied earlier. I could have very easily included a statement that the ibuprofen prescription isn’t sufficient to manage pain caused by a torn labrum. But if I had done so, I would’ve effectively been making two grievances, one about lack of treatment for the injury and the other about lack of adequate pain therapy. If officials rejected the grievance for stating two separate issues, a court would agree.
Prisoners also sometimes introduce additional issues at an intermediate or appellate stage of a grievance and end up undermining all the issues. Again, look at the example grievance statement above, and suppose I submitted it as is, focusing on my request to repair my hip surgically. Then suppose that the officials’ response to my grievance totally ignored the surgical recommendation from Dr. Hurst and instead went on about how ibuprofen is medically sufficient to treat my pain. They’ve missed the point. I’m not grieving the pain issue, so I wouldn’t let them draw me into arguing about medications. I would appeal and say the surgery will stop the pain by fixing the underlying injury, and, more importantly, I’d argue the surgery will prevent further deterioration of the joint and avoid a hip replacement procedure.
If you raise issue “A” at the outset, and then raise issue “B” at the appellate stage of a grievance process and neglect issue “A”, a court might decide that neither issue was fully exhausted. An issue is only exhausted if it is raised at the outset of a grievance (not at an intermediate or appellate stage of the grievance) and appealed all the way through the highest tier of review. Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d 40 (2nd Cir. 2009). However, if you raised more than one issue in a grievance, be it at the outset or at an intermediate stage, and the prison nonetheless processed it, addressing the multiple issues, then you have an argument for exhaustion because the prison didn’t reject it for the procedural mistake and instead decided the grievance on its merits (see Reyes v. Smith, above). Of course, it’s better to avoid exhaustion questions by doing things right in the first place, rather than arguing against dismissal in front of a judge who might be looking for any reason to throw out your lawsuit.
Provided you’ve successfully navigated your prison’s grievance system and timely pursued an appeal, you will receive a final decision from the prison’s highest appellate review authority, usually the warden. Often, the warden’s answer will refer to responses already given at the grievance stage and give a rubber—stamp decision like “Staff responses are appropriate . . .” with little or nothing more said. This is the end of the grievance process, and you’ve exhausted all “administrative remedies as are available.”
If you intend to sue the Federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or sue a State under its own tort claims act, you will still need to file a Notice of Tort Claim with the proper executive offices. Notwithstanding the Notice of Tort Claim process (which you can read about in MEISTER MANUAL For Prisoners’ Lawsuits), if you follow the grievance-exhaustion steps outlined in this chapter, you will also effectively preserve the underlying facts to later support claims in a lawsuit.
Hayden Beverage Corp.
2910 East Amity Rd.
Boise, ID 83716
12.17.24
Dear Mr. Hayden,
Three years ago I wrote you from the Idaho Maximum Security Institution to thank you for personally sponsoring an entire Boise State University humanities class at the Idaho State Correctional Institution. Today I write you as a student who recently completed what I’m told was the fifth class in the series you’ve since continued to sponsor, Storytelling and Re-storying with Dr. Reshmi Mukherjee.
You will be happy to know that Dr. Mukherjee exceeded our class’s combined expectations. Her selected materials, homework assignments and amazing talent for energizing robust group discussions thoroughly impacted us all. After giving our class more hours and weeks than scheduled, she helped us (in what she called our “final project”) to facilitate a critical empathy-building, re-storying exercise between corrections staff and residents.
Enclosed is a sketch and a custom-made bookmark from a 61-year-old man named Tim Yates (#41425), who until recently had never commissioned his artwork or been asked to share his story. Tim is as delighted to know why I chose you to receive these works as I am by his permitting me to share his art and story.
While surviving this year’s holiday season in one of the Idaho State Correctional Institution’s most disappointing and obnoxious open dorms, I met 61-year-old artist Tim Yates, and immediately we became friends.
Tim tells me that prior to drawing this card, he’d never been paid for his artwork. But in 2022, he says, after filling in on the drums for a musician couple he met on a whim, the couple offered him $3,650 to produce one drawing a day for a year. After inviting them into his house and handing over ten choice sketches, Tim watched them leave without paying, never to see them again.
That I offered Tim a 3 oz. bag of low-grade, freeze-dried coffee to draw this card makes it his fist commissioned artwork. That he called the transaction a gift and a blessing speaks volumes of his character.
It is my hope to connect Tim with others who appreciate and encourage his artistry before I lose the ability to track him. Let me know if you fall into this category—I’ll be happy to put you in touch.
Happy Holidays everybody,
Tim Yates #41425 and Patrick Irving #82431
Welcome to the November edition of First Amend This!
This publication provides an insider look at issues affecting the Idaho Department of Correction community. If you wish to assist this effort, share the link, copy and paste, or print and send this issue to another.
Looking to help improve Idaho’s criminal justice system? We ask that you contact Erica Marshall with the Idaho Justice Project. The Idaho Justice Project works to bring the voices of people impacted by the criminal justice system to the legislative table to work on solutions.
***
IN THIS ISSUE
Idaho jails lack oversight, detainee deaths go underreported; IDOC upgrades execution procedures and policies to reflect death chamber renovations; Creech’s on-again, off-again execution; another death at SCC amid water quality concerns; IDOC Corporal Wilske’s shooter is cleared of all wrongdoing; Laserfiche makes client management easier for the department; and the Idaho Sagebrush in Prisons Project restores burn-scarred land.
Let’s First Amend This!
***
IDAHO JAILS LACK OVERSIGHT, TRANSPARENCY INTO DETAINEE DEATHS
InvestigateWest last month published a series on the lack of oversight into Idaho jails.
“Idaho is one of three states where sheriffs police themselves using voluntary jail protocols and inspections,” writes InvestigateWest journalist Whitney Bryen. “Sheriffs and jail commanders set their own standards. Annual inspections are voluntary, scheduled months ahead of time, and the sheriffs association conducting the inspections is exempt from the state’s public disclosure law.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association is a nonprofit organization staffed by former law enforcement that advocates for sheriffs. The association’s director, Jeff Lavey, refused InvestigateWest’s request to view the association’s inspection reports, saying they are provided to sheriffs as a courtesy.
The nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization filed public records requests to each of Idaho’s 35 jails and found that 14 this year failed to meet the association’s minimum standards. Zero were penalized for failing or instructed to course correct. (Click here to view the last three years of Idaho jail inspection results, courtesy of InvestigateWest.)
Regarding detainee deaths, InvestigateWest compared public record information with official announcements and media coverage. “Some jails are failing to disclose any details to the public,” writes Bryen. “Others are failing to report them to the state. Even when Idaho jails do submit a report, few details are provided and investigations into what happened are voluntary.”
Idaho jail officials aren’t required to notify the public when deaths occur within their facilities.
Though Idaho jail officials aren’t required to notify the public when deaths occur within their facilities, states who seek federal grant funding for law enforcement operations are required under the federal Death in Custody Act to track and analyze in-custody deaths. The jail death database maintained by the Idaho State Police counts 32 deaths in Idaho jails since 2019. But according to Bryen, it captured zero deaths in 2022. This despite media reports of a 52-year-old woman perishing in Boundary County Jail.
Michael Planty researches jail deaths for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Research Triangle Institute International. He also leads a research team hired by the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice. “What you’re seeing is some jails are more worried about how they’ll look if they report a death, and they assume, as the public, you don’t understand the context or circumstances if they do tell you about it. So, they don’t,” Planty told InvestigateWest.
More than 800 of the 1,200 people that died in U.S. jails in 2019 were not convicted of a crime, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Idaho’s jail death rate currently ranks 15th in the nation.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
1 pc — Cinnamon Roll
2 oz — Bran Flakes
2 oz — Breakfast Sausage
16 oz — Milk 1%
10 gm — Margarine
2 pkt — Sugar
8 oz — Vitamin Beverage
———————————————— Click here for video of last year’s meal.
Source: IDOC Food Service Menu
***
IDOC UPDATES EXECUTION PROTOCOLS, BUILDS PREPARATION ROOM ONTO DEATH CHAMBER
The IDOC has updated its execution procedures and protocols to reflect the summer renovations made to its execution chamber.
I wrote last month that the agency has begun retrofitting F Block at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution to facilitate executions by firing squad. The department has since confirmed that it also added a lethal injection preparation room. The room is equipped with an audio-visual, closed-circuit camera feed through which spectators will be able to witness the preparation process.
“Our previous protocols proved effective at protecting the integrity of the process and ensuring adherence with 8th Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment,” Tewalt said in a written statement. “These changes enhance the state’s ability to carry out an execution by lethal injection by ensuring we have the infrastructure in place to establish IV access.”
If unable to establish peripheral IV access, IDOC’s medical team will yield to a qualified physician to establish a central IV line deep in the groin, neck or chest.
The Idaho Legislature earlier this year allotted Idaho corrections $750,000 to retrofit the death chamber to facilitate firing squad executions. The total cost of renovations is now approaching $1.3 million, according to the Idaho Statesman and KTVB News.
Idaho’s death row currently houses nine individuals awaiting execution.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
1 ea — Fruit
2 oz. — Peanut Butter
1 oz. — Jelly
2 oz. — Whole Grain Bread
3 oz. — Vegetables
1 oz. — Potato Chips
———————————————— Click here for video of last year’s meal.
Source: IDOC Food Service Menu.
***
THOMAS CREECH AND THE EXECUTIONER: WILL THEY OR WON’T THEY DO IT?
On Oct. 16, the day after multiple media outlets announced the IDOC’s new execution protocols and death chamber renovations, the state issued its 13th death warrant for Thomas Creech, setting his execution for Nov. 13.
Creech was sentenced to death for the 1981 killing of fellow prisoner David Dale Jensen. He’s been convicted of five murders and admitted to losing count of the number of people he’s killed. The state in February attempted and failed to execute him by lethal injection when its volunteer medical team was unable to establish an IV line.
Creech’s lawyers have since requested a new clemency hearing and filed multiple appeals in state and federal venues.
The Commission of Pardons and Parole denied their request for a hearing and all but one of his appeals have been rejected by the courts.
On Nov. 5, a federal judged stayed Creech’s execution to allow time for the Idaho Supreme Court to consider one his legal team’s latest claims: that a second attempt to execute him by lethal injection would amount to cruel and unusual punishment, as well as double jeopardy. (Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Double Jeopardy–twice trying and punishing a person for the same crime–is prohibited by the Eight Amendment.) That same evening the state court announced that it was refusing both claims.
Creech’s legal team is now relying on the federal court to accept a similar argument. The deadline for all related legal filings is Nov. 29.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
4 oz — Turkey
2 oz — Cranberry
1/2 cup — Mashed Potato
1/2 cup — Gravy
5 oz — Green Beans
1/2 — Cup Stuffing
1 — Margarine
1 — Roll (2 oz.)
1 pc — Pumpkin Pie
———————————————— Click here for video of last year’s meal.
Source: IDOC Food Service Menu.
***
ANOTHER MAN DIES AT IDOC’S ARIZONA CONTRACT FACILITY
Soosoo Motu, 36, on Oct. 18 was found unresponsive in his cell at Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC), according to Honolulu Civil Beat Reporter Kevin Dayton.
Motu was serving a 10-year sentence for a robbery on the Hawaii side of the facility when he apparently hanged himself, Dayton writes.
The Hawaii Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released a statement saying that prison staff called emergency services and administered lifesaving techniques before pronouncing Motu dead. The Eloy Police Department and the Hawaii Department of Law Enforcement are investigating his death.
Motu is at least the fifth man this year to have died at the facility.
SCC is privately owned and operated by CoreCivic in Eloy, Ariz.. The facility currently houses residents from Idaho, Hawaii and Montana.
CoreCivic and Hawaii corrections are denying claims that the water at SCC is undrinkable and creating medical issues for people incarcerated at the facility.
The ACLU of Hawaii last month sent a letter to CoreCivic and Hawaii corrections officials, sharing accounts from Hawaii prisoners who describe the water as toxic, causing gastrointestinal issues, eye irritation and cracked and bleeding skin. The letter alleges that staff are being given bottled water and told to avoid the tap.
The ACLU requested that the water be immediately tested by an independent party. It also called for CoreCivic to install water filters and provide Hawaii men with free bottled water.
SCC’s Hawaii population currently pays $11.85 for a case of bottled water–down from $16.06 earlier this year, according to ACLU of Hawaii’s legal director Wookie Kim.
CoreCivic and the Hawaii Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released a joint statement refuting all claims that the water is unsafe. But out of an abundance of caution, the statement said, CoreCivic has begun installing water filters on the Hawaii side of the facility.
CORPORAL WILSKE’S SHOOTER CLEARED OF ALL WRONGDOING
The Valley County Prosecutor’s office has cleared the Boise police officer who earlier this year shot at IDOC Corporal Wilske following an assisted prisoner escape from a Boise-area hospital. Officer Wayne Anderson claimed to mistake Wilske for an active shooter. Idaho Statesman journalist Alex Brizee has the story: “Boise Officer Cleared in IDOC Corporal’s Shooting. When Will Ambush Details Be Known?”
***
IDOC EXPLOITED TO INCREASE THE STOCK OF LASERFICHE
In an article written by Ashley Silver and published by Govtech.com, IDOC Project Manager Cassie Lint describes how the department is using the content management system Laserfiche.
Lint says the department inherited Laserfiche from Correctional Industries (CI) in 2016 after CI switched to a superior inventory management system. She credits Laserfiche with helping to modernize the IDOC’s administrative operations, saying that scheduled updates to the system will further benefit the agency.
“The new client system will help with IDOC’s caseload management for probation [and] parole officers, letting clients submit information digitally instead of having to come into the office or use outdated technology,” Silver writes.
Women incarcerated in South Boise Women’s Correctional Center (SBWCC) last month helped to plant 300 prison-raised sagebrush and rabbitbrush seedlings on burn-scarred land east of Boise.
The Sagebrush in Prisons project is a collaboration between the IDOC, Idaho Fish and Game, the Bureau of Land Management and the Institute for Applied Ecology. It has been operating in Idaho prisons since 2015. According to KTVB reporter Audrielle Tacket, Idaho prisons today have raised and planted 850,000 seedlings.
Alyson Singer, the Regional Project Manager for the Sagebrush in Prisons Project, touted the programs benefits to KTVB. “It’s allowing people that are incarcerated to learn new skills, to have some peace of mind outside of the prison, to connect with nature, to learn how to work together, to potentially help them get jobs in the future and just be a more well-rounded human,”
With nearly eight years of episodes available for streaming, Mark Renick hosts Victory Over Sin on Boise’s KBXL 94.1 FM, Saturdays at 12:30 p.m. The program, funded by the Southwest Idaho advocacy arm of St. Vincent de Paul, shares what it’s like to live incarcerated in Idaho and then to come out of incarceration and live on parole.
10.5.24. Mike Rivers represents the Boise chapter of The Phoenix, an all-inclusive, active sober community that organizes free events across the nation. Visit http://thephoenix.org to learn more.
10.12.24. St. Vincent de Paul marketing manager Raelyn Young shares how she came into the organization and how new changes to the reentry side of the faith-based nonprofit’s website has made it more user friendly for IDOC case managers.
10.19.24. Bob Anderson is the director of thrift stores for St. Vincent de Paul. He discusses new changes coming to the stores and how his relationship with the IDOC allows him to meet people in prison with employment opportunities..
10.26.24. Conflicted Motorcycle Club prospect Travis Raby compares his life today with his life during addiction. Rabie, who says he feels fortunate to have found sobriety through a 12-step program, now works with his wife to provide sober housing to others.
Contact Mr. Renick at 208-477-1006 or visit svdpid.org for more information on reentry resources in Southwestern Idaho.
***
RECENTLY ACKNOWLEDGED
Lt. Miguel Tamez as IMSI Supervisor of the Quarter. Ofc. Miles Dibbern for his service in IDOC’s North Region Honor Guard. Mishelle Montano as Employee of the Quarter for District 5 Probation and Parole. District 5 Sr. PPO Vincent Ortiz with IDOC’s 2024 top Shot Award. Senior PPO Kevin Green, Lead PPO Landon Ladwig and Sr. PPO Lindsay McNally with five years of services. Sr. PPO Rosy Garcia for 20 years of service.
Twenty volunteers from as far away as Salt Lake City reported raising $8,000 to bring to 30 men incarcerated at ISCI a Christian-based spiritual event that ran from Oct. 31 to Nov. 03.
The public safety returns from such events are difficult to quantify. But several attendees agree that the wealth of love, purpose and community the volunteers instilled within them is invaluable.
***
RESOURCES FOR THE INCARCERATED
Prison Health News (PHN) is a free quarterly publication filled with tips and tricks for staying healthy behind the walls. PHN accepts submissions and handles requests for medical factsheets.
PHN cannot answer more than two questions per letter, interpret test results, diagnose symptoms, provide legal help or analyze complex cases.
Prison Health News
4722 Baltimore Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19143
To those who have suffered from the loss of food privileges after failing to produce their prison identification to access the cafeteria, I recommend approaching the problem in accordance with IDOC Policy 316.02.01.001 (Grievance and Informal Resolution Procedure for Inmates).
Clearly state that you did not refuse meal service but were deprived food as punishment for failing to comply with direct orders and/or prison policy. Be sure to advise the grievance coordinator that you received neither the notification nor the hearing IDOC Policy 318.02.01.001 (Disciplinary Procedures for Inmates) guarantees you when facing punitive measures.
***
SUGGESTION BOX
Call your mother.
***
Shout out to everyone who has either tolerated or encouraged my writing this newsletter for the last five years!
Pulled from a memo posted around the Idaho State Correctional Institution Nov. 15, 2024.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
__________________________________________
Reuben Cortes, Pete Kimball Roberts, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v. Josh Tewalt, et al.,
Defendants
__________________________________________
Case No. 1:18-CV-00001-BLW
Notice of Petition for Payment of Attorney Fees and Court’s Intent to Grant Payment with Modifications
__________________________________________
To: All current and future inmates in IDOC custody
This is a Court-ordered Notice directed to members of the Class affected by the [Hepatitis C] lawsuit. The purpose of this notice is to inform Class members of Class Counsel’s Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs and the Court’s Order and Notice of Intent to Grant Class Counsel’s Motion for Payment of Attorney Fees with Modification. Class members may file an objection to the attorney fee and cost application within 21 days after the posting of this Notice. Objections must be made in writing and addressed to the Court below:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Re: Cortes v. Tewalt Case No. 1:18-CV-00001-BLW
550 W. Fort Street, No. 400
Boise, ID 83724
All objections will be filed in the Court’s public docket and automatically provided to each of the attorneys of record. Written objections will not be confidential. Please do not call the Federal District Court regarding the attorney fee payment or this case.
A copy of the petition for attorney fees and Court’s order are available for review in the facility Resource Center. Please Submit an Access to Courts Request form if you are unable to visit the Resource Center due to housing restrictions.
Date Posed: November 15, 2024
Objection Deadline December 6, 2024.
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PAYMENT FEES AND COURT’S INTENT TO GRANT PAYMENT WITH MODIFICATION – 1
Welcome to the October edition of First Amend This!
This publication provides an insider look at issues affecting the Idaho Department of Correction community. If you wish to assist this effort, share the link, copy and paste, or print and send this issue to another.
Looking to help improve Idaho’s criminal justice system? We ask that you contact Erica Marshall with the Idaho Justice Project. The Idaho Justice Project works to bring the voices of people impacted by the criminal justice system to the legislative table to work on solutions.
***
IN THIS ISSUE
Creech’s post-execution-attempt appeal for post-conviction relief falls short; Idaho death chamber upgrade underway; IDOC officer mistakenly shot by Boise PD files claim for $500,000; court orders Idaho prisons to temporarily continue providing hormone therapy to Idaho prisoners diagnosed with gender dysphoria; Idaho state relieves its counties of their obligations to indigent criminal defendants; and NFL Hall of Famer Steve Young goes deep at ISCC.
Let’s First Amend This!
***
JUDGE CLEARS CREECH FOR SECOND EXECUTION ATTEMPT
Idaho’s Fourth Judicial District Judge Jason Scott last month dismissed a post-conviction relief claim submitted by attorneys representing condemned prisoner Thomas Creech, who survived a lethal injection attempt in February.
Creech’s attorneys argued that another attempt to execute him by lethal injection would violate his Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy–a term used to describe twice prosecuting and punishing a person for the same crime–and his Eighth Amendment right to remain free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Scott rejected both claims, finding that Creech has yet to die, so his original sentence is not yet completed, and the U.S. Constitution doesn’t prevent executioners who practice proper kill etiquette from taking mulligans.
Scott also noted that Creech’s attorneys failed to attack the validity of his conviction or sentence, the two prongs on which all post-conviction claims must stand.
The state served Creech a death warrant on Oct. 16, setting his date of execution Nov. 13.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
2 each — Cinnamon Rolls
2 oz — Breakfast Sausage
2 oz — Bran Flakes
16 oz — Milk 1%
8 oz — Vitamin Beverage
2 pkt — Sugar
______________________________
Idaho is one step closer to becoming the second state in the last 50 years to perform an execution by firing squad.
Idaho Reports and KTVB News last month obtained building permits showing that the IDOC has implemented the footprint necessary to legally execute prisoners using high-powered projectiles before a live, splash-guarded audience.
IDOC spokesperson Sanda Kuzeta-Cerimagic wrote in an email to Idaho Reports and KTV, “Phase one of the F Block retrofit included making modifications to the existing configurations and is nearing completion. We are currently in phase two of the retrofit, evaluating design and layout options for accommodating the firing squad.”
Firing squad executions are currently legal in five states: Idaho, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma and South Carolina. But only Utah has applied the method (three times in total) since 1976, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
[Fruit and whole grain bread may be substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
1 each — Fresh Fruit/Orange
2 oz — Peanut Butter
1 oz — Jelly
2 oz — Whole grain Bread
3 oz — Fresh Vegetable
1 oz — Potato Chips
______________________________
IDOC OFFICER MISTAKENLY SHOT BY BPD DURING PRISONER ESCAPE SEEKS DAMAGES
When the Boise Police Department (BPD) earlier this year responded to an assisted prisoner escape from Boise’s St. Alphonsus Hospital, BPD Officer Wayne Anderson mistook IDOC transport officer Corporal Christopher Wilske for an active shooter.
Wilske, whose eye was injured either by shrapnel or bullet, has filed a $500,000 claim against the BPD, according to Idaho Statesman journalist Alex Brizee.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
1 cup — Beef Lo Mein
1-1/2 cup — Pasta (All Shapes)
10 gm — Margarine
2 oz — Whole Grain Bread
1 pc — Cream Pie
8 oz Vitamin Beverage
______________________________
GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE SAFE FROM IDAHO PRISONS, FOR NOW
Individuals incarcerated in IDOC facilities who have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and are prescribed hormone therapy will continue receiving medication while the legal challenge against Idaho House Bill 668 plays out in federal court.
The bill passed earlier this year by state legislators made it illegal for state agencies and employees to apply state resources toward therapies used to treat gender dysphoria. Government employees who violate the law face punishment of up to 14 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Two transgender individuals, previously reported as three, incarcerated in Idaho prisons and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho sued state and prison officials and Centurion Health, the medical provider for Idaho prisons, to prevent the bill from taking effect. Plaintiffs Katie Heredia (legal last name Robinson) and Rose Mills claim that halting their hormone therapy would be a form of cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.
Presiding federal judge David Nye last month issued a preliminary injunction preventing HB 668 from applying to all incarcerated individuals. “Nye said the plaintiffs raise serious questions going to the merits of their case, and they have shown they would experience irreparable harm from enforcement of the law,” Idaho Capital Sun reporter Mia Maldonado writes.
Nye also granted the case class action status, extending protections to all IDOC residents who have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and are receiving hormonal therapy.
According to court documents reviewed by the Idaho Capital Sun, Centurion reported that 60 to 70 people in IDOC facilities were diagnosed with gender dysphoria when HB 668 became active. But only 54 were being treated with hormones.
Nye’s order applies only to individuals in IDOC facilities.
The state of Idaho last month relieved its counties of their public defense obligations to indigent criminal defendants.
The sweeping change to Idaho’s public defender system comes in response to Tucker v. State of Idaho, a lawsuit filed in 2015 by the ACLU of Idaho, in partnership with National ACLU and the global law firm Hogan Lovells. The suit, filed on behalf of tens of thousands of individuals involved with Idaho’s criminal justice system, addressed what ACLU-Idaho communications director Rebecca De Léon described as an “under-resourced approach to public defense that violate the Sixth Amendment and state constitutional rights to an attorney.”
While the system overhaul may appear as forward motion, De Léon earlier this year wrote in a news release, it fails to remedy certain issues and makes some problems worse.
According to Ruth Brown with Idaho Reports, some attorneys who will make less money under the new state-run, public defender system have already begun filing motions to withdraw from their clients’ cases.
The Idaho State Bar has weighed on when it is ethical for attorneys to do so: only when the new pay structure will impact their ability to provide adequate material support to their clients.
Presiding judges are given broad discretion in determining whether to grant such motions. Elmore County attorney Terry Ratliff told Brown that his office has filed around 200 motions to withdraw, and that judges have granted most of them. Exceptions, he says, are cases where the defendant has yet to exhaust their 42-day timeframe to appeal.
A MESSAGE FROM IDAHO STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICES
[Delivered to Idaho’s prison population over JPay Sept. 24.]
The contact information for Idaho State Public Defenders in 14 counties has recently changed. Please see the below changes:
Ada County Main Office: 200 W. Front St., Boise, ID, 83702. Phone # (208) 605-4800. Fax # (208) 917-4879.
Bannock County Main Office: 353 N. 4thAve., Pocatello, ID, 83201. Phone # (208) 701-7355. Fax # (208) 840-7641.
Blaine County Main Office: 206 1stAve., Hailey, ID 83333. Phone # (208) 806-7700. Fax # (208) 913-3736.
Bonner County Main Office: 212 S. 1stAve., Sandpoint, ID 83864. Phone # (208) 920-6530. Fax # (208) 920-5100.(Scheduled to be active Sept. 25)
Bonneville County Main Office: 510 D. St., Idaho Falls, ID 83402. Phone # (208) 701-7300. Fax # (208) 534-6474.
Canyon County Main Office: 111 Albany St., Caldwell, ID 83605. Phone # (208) 605-4920. Fax # (208) 795-1371.
Gooding County Main Office: 145 7thAve., Gooding, ID 83330. Phone # (208) 644-7145. Fax # (208) 944-6300.
Jefferson County Main Office: 200 Courthouse Way, Rigby, ID 83442. Phone # (208) 701-7345. Fax # (208) 754-2461.
Kootenai County Main Office: 1450 Northwest Blvd., Suite 301, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83814. Phone # (208) 415-3800. Fax # (208) 626-4199.
Minidoka/Cassia Counties Main Office: 1521 Overland Ave., Burley, ID 83318. Phone # (208) 647-7500. Fax # (208) 808-2354.
Power/Oneida Counties Main Office: 543 Bannock Ave., American Falls, ID 83211. Phone # (208) 701-7335. Fax # (208) 534-6132.
Twin Falls County Main Office: 233 Gooding St., Twin Falls, ID 83301. Phone # (208) 644-7111. Fax # (208) 944-6900.
***
NFL LEGEND STEVE YOUNG SCORES WITH SPEECH AT ISCC
Former 49ers quarterback, Hall of Famer and author Steve Young last month visited the Idaho State Correctional Center (ISCC) to speak to a hand-selected group of men incarcerated at the facility.
Young spoke about how his success in the NFL, business, philanthropy and life all trace back to lessons of love, according KTVB reporters Brady Frederick and Zack Armstrong.
The IDOC wrote on its Facebook page that those in attendance appreciated his message.
“As I told them, I didn’t come to speak to them because they’re in prison,” Young told KTVB. “I came to speak to them because they’re journeying with me and we’re on this path together.”
Young also visited patients at a local hospital and spoke at a pair of community events while in the Boise area.
With over seven years of episodes available for streaming, Mark Renick host Victory Over Sin on Boise’s KBXL 94.1 FM, Saturdays at 12:30 p.m. The program, funded by the Southwest Idaho advocacy arm of St. Vincent de Paul, shares what it’s like to live incarcerated in Idaho and then to come out of incarceration and live on parole.
9.7.24. Oxford House outreach manager Michael Reininger shares the democratically run, long-term sober-living model that his organization offers men and women in Eastern Idaho and the Treasure Valley. Visit Oxfordvacancies.com and oxfordhouse.org for more.
9.21.24. Digital creator and businessman Eddie Nicholoson did six years in prison, seven on parole. He attributes his success and happiness to a now-defunct, experimental faith-based prison program and the opportunities that he created following his incarceration.
9.28.24. East Boise Community Reentry Center volunteer Heidi Barker discusses her return to St. Vincent de Paul as a recovery coach and reentry specialist, pulling from own her wealth of knowledge and experience with addiction to help others.
The newly graduated class of probation and parole officers: Richard Vasquez, Top of Class Award; Mark Young, Tactical Edge Award; Nikolas Hansen, Top Shot Award; Austin Anderson, Most Improved on Target; Bethany Fitch, Top Instructor.
Clinical Supervisor Bryan Gimmeson for 15 years with the IDOC. Lt. Dixie Hoyt for an extensive list of positive attributes and her overall value to the department. Cpl. Daniel Burton as ISCC Employee of the Quarter. Ofc. Kaitlyn Murray as IMSI Employee of the Quarter. District 5 Presentence Investigator Jaime Staples for contagious positivity and five years with the IDOC.
District 4 probation and parole officers for working with the Boise Rescue Mission to take kids staying at the mission shopping for school supplies.
My public records request for the names, date of death and autopsy status of all IDOC residents who have died at Saguaro Correctional Center has been filled and denied in part. The department cited “ongoing investigation” as its reason for denying all information on the second of two deaths.
After being led for many months to believe that they were awaiting pay raises, resident workers at Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI) are now reporting dramatic decreases in pay rates and working hours.
***
RESOURCES FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS
Level is an organization dedicated to providing people incarcerated in U.S. prisons with free printed educational, job training and personal development guides. Its mailing address has recently changed to:
[From a recent batch of letters sent to university criminologists.]
9.8.24
Greetings!
My name is Patrick Irving. I was told that you and your students may have an interest in the makeshift prison project that I run with the help of my father at bookofirving82431.com. Enclosed is the monthly newsletter that I have published to the site for nearly five years. Online subscriptions are free. I hope you find this helpful and consider me a resource in the future.
Cheers,
Patrick Irving
ISCI Unit 14B
PO Box 14
Boise, ID 83707
***
SUGGESTION BOX
I suggest better suggestions from all of you.
***
Shout out to Wingnut! Thanks for donating a bag of coffee to help me offset the cost of producing this newsletter!
Also–if you’ve found your way to this page as a supporter of Kashawn or Cesar, please pass on to them my love and appreciation for their contributions to our amazing prison journalism community.
Welcome to the September issue of First Amend This!
This publication provides an insider look at issues affecting the Idaho Department of Correction community. If you wish to assist this effort, share the link, copy and paste, or print and send this issue to another.
Looking to help improve Idaho’s criminal justice system? We ask that you contact Erica Marshall with the Idaho Justice Project. The Idaho Justice Project works to bring the voices of people impacted by the criminal justice system to the legislative table to work on solutions.
***
EDITOR’S NOTE
In this issue:
Feds to investigate whether mother of Idaho’s anti-human trafficking task force used trafficking victims to perpetuate fraud; Idaho parole officer alleges civil rights violations in lawsuit against Nampa police and Canyon County prosecutors; two of this year’s most significant events at IMSI explained; prison employees gone postal at ISCC; criminal charges filed in Milo Warnock’s death; former PWCC resident settles prison employee rape lawsuit; ACLU-Hawaii calls for federal investigation into IDOC contract facility; CoreCivic’s profits increase as communities incarcerate more; and SBWCC switches gears with Boise Bicycle Project.
Let’s First Amend This!
***
IDAHO LAW ENFORCEMENT MAY HAVE FUNNELED HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIMS INTO FRAUD SCHEME
The federal investigation was prompted by a series of articles published by the independent, nonprofit news organization InvestigateWest.
Paula Barthelmess, the director of COBS, since at least 2020 has partnered with law enforcement to identify human trafficking victims and corral them into her safe houses. Some are ordered into her care by their probation officers and judges under the threat of incarceration; others may have been influenced by a county public defender who was found listed as a COBS board member. Once sequestered in COBS safe houses, victims are enrolled into case management services through ACTS, owned by Tylar Bell, Barthelmess’ son.
InvestigateWest spoke to whistleblower attorneys, federal investigators, multiple experts and several dozen people who are closely affiliated with the two entities. InvestigateWest journalists Kelsey Turner and Wilson Criscione write that their researchers also “reviewed formal complaints and inspection records, Medicaid billing records, government contracts and transactions with COBS, court records and social media accounts.”
Their findings:
“As COBS gained influence in Idaho, former COBS employees and residents say the program recruited women into the safe houses and kept them there using manipulative tactics mirroring those of traffickers. The residents were then drawn into a self-dealing scheme in which a for-profit counseling company–owned by Barthelmess’ son–tapped into clients’ Medicaid insurance and billed for services residents say the never received.”
COBS residents say they were pressured to provide unpaid labor: shoveling manure at an animal farm, attending gymnastics meets at a Ball-owned business, publicly promoting their traumas to help fund COBS–they could either get with the program or get back with their traffickers and jailors.
Former COBS employees say it wasn’t enough to isolate residents and strip them of their resources and autonomy, that Barthelmess also weaponized notes taken during their private ACTS therapy sessions to elicit their compliance.
InvestigateWest found that because Idaho’s halfway house market has long operated without oversight and regulations, complaints filed against COBS were neither taken seriously nor thoroughly investigated.
According to Criscione and Turner, Barthelmess and Bell have since refuted InvestigateWest’s reporting. But without specifying which claims are false or providing evidence to the contrary.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
1 pc — Frittata
2 lg — Pancakes
1 cup — Oatmeal
10 mg — Margarine
1-1/2 oz — Maple Syrup
2 pkt — Sugar
8 oz. — Vitamin beverage
8 oz. — Milk 1%
————————————————
IDOC PAROLE OFFICER SUES NAMPA POLICE AND CANYON COUNTY PROSECUTORS
Idaho Department of Correction parole officer Cliff Ohler has filed a lawsuit against the Nampa Police Department (NPD) and Canyon County prosecutors.
Ohler, who is also a task force officer for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Violent Crime Task Force, claims that members of NPD coordinated with local prosecutors to unlawfully search his property, complicate his work and defame his character. Actions that he alleges came as retaliation for refusing to perform a questionable interrogation and warrantless search on a man on his caseload suspected of murder.
Idaho Press reporter Haadiya Tariq writes that an affidavit filed by Ohler “names NPD Chief Joe Huff, Deputy Chief Curtis Shankel, Sgt. Shane Huston and Detective Curtis Carper as defendants, as well as Canyon County Prosecuting Attorney Bryan Taylor and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Eleonora Somoza.”
The Canyon County Prosecutors Office denies any wrongdoing and an NPD spokesperson says the department doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
1/2 cup — Turkey Salad
2 oz — Whole grain Bread
10 mg — Margarine
1-1/2 oz — Tortilla Chips
1 each — Fresh Fruit/Apple
1 each — Cookie #1 ( Blondie Bar)
————————————————
Source: IDOC Food Service Menu 7.1
***
TWO OF THIS YEAR’S MOST SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS AT IMSI EXPLAINED
Idaho Statesman reporter Alex Brizee last month unpacked two of the most significant incidents to take place this year at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution (IMSI): February’s tactical show of force by facility staff against residents and May’s six-day hunger strike that attracted participants from the Idaho State Correctional Center (ISCC).
When, in late February, a father whose son is housed at IMSI sought my interpretation of the tactical response, I felt it best to speak through several presentations that I pieced together during my years at the facility.
2) “First Amend This!, Oct. 2022 (The Ad-Seg Issue).” Illustrates how the extended use of adseg negatively impacts the spirit and mind, and how prison employees’ failure to abide by policies translates in terms of public safety.
3) “Request for Accord: From IMSI Residents to IMSI Leadership.” IMSI residents in July 2023 proposed “a meeting between IMSI leadership and representatives selected from the general population, to discuss the ongoing absence of parole-required programming, religious services and behavioral incentives,” only to have their peacefully organized, articulate effort go ignored.
According to the Statesman, IMSI management made minor improvements to the facility following the food strike. They also acknowledged the importance of communication between staff and residents.
Moving forward, it is not yet clear at what point the department’s close custody population will be included in its plans to improve their environment and behaviors.
[Fruit and whole grain bread is substituted at facilities flagged for excessively brewing alcohol.]
______________________________
3 oz — Chicken Filet
1/2 oz — Cheese
1/2 cup — Tomato Sauce
1-1/2 cup — Pasta (All Shapes)
1 cup — Garden Salad #2
1 oz — Ranch Dressing
2 pc — Garlic Bread
1 pc — Cake #6 (Marble)
8 oz — Vitamin Beverage
————————————————
Corrections Officer Scott Amos explains in emails obtained by Idaho News 6 why ISCC residents should follow up on all unanswered communications sent within the last four years:
“I found [residents’] incoming and outgoing mail, concern forms, diet slips, job applications, and many other personal documents discarded in the shred bins, drawers, and closets instead of being delivered to their intended recipients.”
According to Idaho News 6 reporter Riley Shoemaker, upon learning that Amos alerted residents to the fact, one ISCC supervisor responded, “Even if that was the case, informing offenders of this could have led to a serious incident. Could you please explain why you did this?”
Internal memos and complaints obtained by Idaho News 6 suggest that mail handling practices at the facility have been an issue since as far back as 2020.
To these, the IDOC responded:
“IDOC takes these allegations very seriously. We are committed to conducting a comprehensive investigation to uncover any wrongdoing and to appropriately hold staff accountable. It is equally important to us to thoroughly investigate these types of allegations to ensure staff who are wrongfully accused are exonerated. We are in the early stages of the investigation and have to be very mindful of not compromising the investigation by sharing information prematurely. As such, we have nothing to disclose at this time.”
Well, here’s something that I can disclose: documents showing how in 2019 and 2020, staff at Eagle Pass Correctional Facility, Southern Idaho Correctional Institution, IMSI and Keefe Commissary obstructed my letters to and from oversight bodies, legislators, media and advocates. Like other grievances mentioned in this newsletter, these too can be viewed in the presentation “Exhausted Grievances in Summary” (Grievances 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10), and also in my Sept. ’20 newsletter article “Editor Loses Gracefully.”
A grand jury on Aug. 27 indicted James M. Johnson on charges of first-degree murder and the destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence in the brutal death of Milo Warnock.
Warnock was killed Dec. 10, 2023 at ISCC, where the two men shared a close-custody cell.
Warnock’s sister, Hallie Johnson, writes on behalf of her family in an email to the Lewiston Tribune, “[W]e’ve agonized over the lack of information about Milo’s death as well as what has felt like a very slow investigation. It is a relief that the indictment has occurred, but we know it’s the beginning of more waiting as the judicial process plays out. It’s impossible not to be reminded of the senselessness of Milo’s death. I hope that these painful reminders for our family are reminders to the public that there are issues with the criminal justice system.”
FORMER PWCC RESIDENT RAPED BY FSO RECEIVES $62,500 COURT SETTLEMENT
The state of Idaho has settled a lawsuit filed by a woman who was allegedly raped by a Food Service Officer (FSO) while incarcerated at the Pocatello Women’s Correctional Center in 2021.
Idaho Statesman reporter Alex Brizee writes, “The Idaho Department of Administration’s Risk Management Program told the Idaho Statesman in an email that it paid $62,500 to settle the woman’s claims against Idaho and the state’s prison system.”
The woman, who remained anonymous in her lawsuit, was 37 years old when she says FSO Derek Stettler cornered her in a prison kitchen bathroom and forced her to perform oral sex on him. She filed the lawsuit in 2023, after Stettler was charged for crimes that Idaho State Police says he admitted to during an interview, and then committed suicide. Stettler’s estate and several corrections employees were listed as defendants in the lawsuit.
“The settlement, which was reached in the spring,” Brizee writes, “didn’t include any of the claims against Stettler, and was settled only with state agencies and a corrections officer who was accused of failing to report allegations, court records showed.”
The victim’s attorney, Susan Mimura, has since filed an amended complaint against Stettler’s estate. But after neglecting to serve it in accordance with legal guidelines, the court was forced to dismiss it, according to court records reviewed by the Statesman.
ACLU OF HAWAII CALLS FOR FEDERAL INVESTIGATION INTO IDAHO CONTRACT FACILITY
The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii is calling for a federal inquiry into Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC), and attorney Miles Breiner wants his client, Daniel Kosi, transferred from SCC back to Hawaii before he’s found dead.
SCC is a private, Arizona prison that is operated for a profit by the company CoreCivic. It currently houses prison overflow for Idaho, Hawaii and Montana.
***
CORECIVIC PROFITS INCREASE
Trading View reports that CoreCivic has released its second quarter financial report for 2024 and is showing positive gains over the same quarter last year.
Compared to the same period last year, CoreCivic saw a 6% increase in total revenue, reaching $491 million, and a rise in occupancy rates, from 70.3% to 74.3%.
With federal, state and local bodies boosting their rates of incarceration, CoreCivic projects that its 2024 adjusted net income will climb between $65.6 million and $73.6 million.
BOISE BICYCLE PROJECT BRINGS SKILLS TRAINING TO WOMEN’S PRISON
Idaho Press reporter Laura Guido last month spotlighted how the Boise Bicycle Project (BBP), through its program Switching gears, is teaching women incarcerated at the South Boise Women’s Correctional Center basic bike mechanic skills.
BBP volunteer Chris O’Brien visits the prison once a week to work with the program’s twelve participants. Those who fix 15 bicycles are considered to graduate the program and gifted a bike in recognition.
In addition to performing repairs, participants also help train youth to ride safely at BBP community events.
With over seven years of episodes available for streaming, Mark Renick hosts Victory Over Sin on Boise’s KBXL 94.1 FM, Saturdays at 12:30 pm. The program, funded by the Southwest Idaho advocacy arm of https://www.svdpid.org, shares what it’s like to live incarcerated in Idaho and then to come out of incarceration and live on parole.
8.10.24. Reentry advocate and halfway house operator Keri Raby is now collaborating with others to expand the support services available women returning from incarceration and rehabilitation. https://soberhomesunlimited.com.
8.17.24. Saenz House founder Treena Stephens-Saenz has successfully operated businesses employing justice-involved individuals. Now a halfway housing provider, she is looking to better support people who are navigating reentry and recovery.
8.24.24. Mario Hernandez, the legend who dramatically improved Idaho’s prison education programs while incarcerated, introduces his new nonprofit called Learning How To Live, Inc.
8.31.24. Launee Wolverton, the founder of Purses With A Purpose, a nonprofit organization that fills purses with hygiene products for women and teens in need, discusses working with different communities and donors to help others maintain their dignity.
IDOC employees Nicole Case and Jay Lau for 25 years of service; Chad Page, Nancy Volle and Laura Kelly for 20 years of service; Charlie Martinez for 15 years of service; Addy Matamoros, Melody Creech and Graye Wolfe for 10 years of service; Annue Munoz, Eric Murray and Bree Derrick for five years of service.
PWCC instructor Carlee Dille with the 2024 Career Guidance Award for Region 5.
Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI) Warden Ty Davis confirmed during an August Town Hall meeting that the IDOC will begin equipping select ISCI residents with ankles monitors.
Those housed in intake units and mental health units will not be required to wear them. Part of the reason for this, Davis said, is because it’s too expensive to equip everyone.
Citing security exemptions that apply to the general public, the IDOC denied my public records request for all legal agreements, statements of work and internal PowerPoint presentations involving the IDOC and service providers of wearable prison monitoring technologies.
***
RESOURCES FOR THE INCARCERATED
The cross-disability organization HEARD is the only organization in the U.S. that focuses on incarcerated advocacy, reentry support and community education for deaf and disabled people. The group is now asking for help to place its yearly survey in the hands of justice-involved individuals who are also deaf and disabled.
I am including my email to ACLU-Hawaii, which I am also sending to ACLU-Idaho and ACLU-Montana.
Take care,
Patrick Irving
__
To: ACLU-Hawaii
Subject: DOJ Investigation into Saguaro Correctional Center
[This message forwarded from a resident of the Idaho State Correctional Institution.]
9.3.24
Hello,
My name is Patrick Irving. I write the prison newsletter First Amend This! from Idaho. I understand that ACLU of Hawaii is calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona, and I have recently made available information that may support your call. You’ll find it in the article titled “Conflicting Accounts of Clark Cleveland’s Death” in my August newsletter at bookofirving82431.com.
You’ll note in my article that I submitted a public records request to the Idaho Department of Correction in an effort to confirm that it was Clark Cleveland who died on the Idaho side of SCC, and also to confirm the date and cause of death. The department denied my request in full after the article was published, citing “ongoing investigation” as its reason.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Best,
Patrick Irving
***
SUGGESTION BOX
The medical situation at IMSI: I suggest that someone fix it.
Aww Snap! News is a Prison Dude production, paid for with a meager monthly allowance from The Prison Dude’s mom and dad.
Our mission is to strengthen the information networks used by criminal justice researchers and writers–emphasis on those who work from incarceration–to better inform decisions surrounding public safety policies.
You, too, can help. Getting started is as easy as sharing any of the below articles or summaries on your preferred platform and following our broadcasts on TikTok @ThePrisonDude.
3
.
.
.
2
.
.
1
.
What’ s up? I’m Patrick Irving. This is Aww Snap! News.
“Idaho’s first anti-human trafficking task force may have been fueled by fraud.”
Community Outreach Behavioral Services of Idaho bills itself as a saving grace for victims of human trafficking. But according to InvestigateWest, the organization whose clients come at the direction of police, county jails, judges, prosecutors and probation officers appears to be using trafficking victims to arrange for the billing of much, much more. For extreme conflicts of interest at best and government-supported fraud at worst, view:
“Colorado prisons ignore state mandate to abolish slavery.”
In 2018, Colorado voters amended the state’s constitution to free incarcerated people from slavery and indentured servitude. But, as Daniel Ducassi with Law 360 reports, two men in Colorado prisons are now claiming in a lawsuit that the state’s DOC is refusing to abide by the mandate. The men are now seeking to expand their lawsuit to include up to 14,000 plaintiffs.
“San Diego County jails killing at an alarming rate.”
More than $75,000,000 in lawsuits have been paid out by San Diego County for preventable jail deaths and injuries since 2019. Two egregious examples recently detailed by the San Diego Union-Tribune include a 24-year-old pregnant woman who sheriffs deputies left to die after watching collapse, and a developmentally disabled woman found to have withered away for weeks.
“Los Angeles County juvenile services to pay for long history of child sex abuse.”
In Los Angeles County, after California’s 2019 Child Victims Act loosened the criminal and civil statute of limitations for child sex abuse, more than 5,000 plaintiffs filed claims over allegations that took place in foster homes, shelters and juvenile probation and detention facilities. According to reporting by The Imprint, the county’s juvenile probation and detention services has been targeted by more than 2,300 lawsuits in the last three years alone.
“Washington sets aside $99,000,000 to make amends with stoners.”
Prison Legal News contributor David M. Reutter reports that nearly 400,000 people with marijuana convictions in Washington state are now eligible to have their convictions vacated and be refunded for money spent during the legal process. A total of $99,000,000 has been set aside by the state to ensure refunds for those convicted prior to Feb 21, 2021. Those impacted can apply for refunds at https://refund.courts.wa.gov.
“Christopher Dunn freed after wrongfully imprisoned for 34 years.”
Missouri’s Christopher Dunn has been released from prison after spending 34 years incarcerated for a murder he didn’t commit. Dunn’s exoneration was secured with the help of the Midwest Innocence Project, one of several such projects in the U.S. made possible by grants and support from donors.
“Former Inmate Services Corporation employees sentenced for raping shackled transportees.”
The private prisoner transport company Inmate Services Corporation, once based out of Arkansas, has finally been put to sleep. This after two of its employees were sent to prison for raping multiple female transportees and others who worked for the company were accused and convicted of sexual assaults.
Good news for tourists and citizens of Baton Rouge, Louisiana! According to Jurist News, The Advocate and the city’s WAFB.com, U.S. District Court Judge Shelly Dick has ruled that the Baton Rouge Police Department’s decades-long practice of conducting severe beatings, strip-searches and flashlight body cavity searches on people seen as behaving suspicious is no longer cool.
“Elected Pennsylvania constable who bragged about being a pimp faces criminal charges.”
Pennsylvania State Constable Timothy “Timbo” Raye Heefner is a self-described pimp who is accused of recruiting sex workers from the Franklin County lockup. Heefner is now facing charges for up to 704 criminal offenses, many of which are supported by evidence procured through his prolific Facebook messaging and recorded phone calls to detainees at the local jail.
“Shots Fired! FCC takes aim at prison telecom providers.”
The Federal Communications Commission in recent months took aim at several abusive practices by prison telecom providers and their downright dirty methods of scoring jail and prison contracts. Visit Prison Policy Initiative at prisonpolicy.org for Wanda Bertam’s report on the how the new FCC regulations will cap the costs of jail and prison phone and video services, and otherwise impact the families and the loved ones of people incarcerated.
“TV’s Green Power Ranger sought by police after scuffle over handicap parking space with 62-year-old man using walker.”
When earlier this summer confronted for taking a handicapped parking space, actor Hector David Rivera Jr., AKA the Green Power Ranger, allegedly pushed down a man using a walker, and then went on the run. David at the time was scheduled to appear at the Magic Valley Comic-Con, an Idaho event whose website had him featured on its home page.
Patrick Irving is currently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution. He is a Prison Journalism Project contributor, a member of PEN America’s forthcoming Incarcerated Writers Bureau and the author of the First Amend This! newsletter. His work has been published by The New York Times, The Harbinger, Idaho Law Review, Solitary Watch, Prison Journalism Project and JSTOR.
