Under Lock & Key

Restriction of MIM Notes declared 'unfounded'

Enclosed, please find a copy of reply letter from 
Kim Maxwell, Offender Relations Office, Department 
of Corrections of Indiana. This letter states "it 
was unfounded to confiscate issues of MIM" from me 
and that they were to be returned to me. Since 
this letter was given to me, I have been getting 
my issues until recently. After presenting this to 
the officer in charge have been told that there 
will be no problem from now on with the exception 
of a possible one or two day relay in delivery for 
screening. I sent this letter so that other 
inmates can see that there is some headway being 
made in the censorship of our MIM Newsletter. Any 
inmate that is still having problems with any 
Indiana institution should send their 
complaints/grievances to the following person: Kim 
Maxwell, Offender Relations Indiana Department of 
Corrections, E334 Indiana Governmental Center 
South, 302 W. Washington St., Indianapolis, 
Indiana 46204. They should cite policy 02-01-103, 
page 15, paragraph 1, and Restriction on 
regulation or censorship of mail, under the First 
Amendment.

-- an Indiana prisoner.

Connecticut prisoner pursues censorship lawsuit

I have just been transferred from [another state 
to CT] and I am back at the notorious Northern 
Correctional Institution. . . .To show that I am 
serious [about the censorship problem at this 
prison] I filed a lawsuit which I got past the 
dismissal stage and the court ruled the 
defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to the 
plaintiff's First Amendment claim regarding the 
MIM newsletters. I will continue to litigate this 
matter to the fullest extent; any information or 
assistance will be welcomed and appreciated.

--A Connecticut prisoner, September 2001.

MIM responds: We applaud this comrade for his/her 
initiative in filing a lawsuit about the 
censorship of persynal correspondence and MIM 
Notes, and we wish him/her luck on succeeding on 
the merits. We excerpt part of the court's ruling 
here: "The attachments to the plaintiff's amended 
complaint demonstrate that Warden at Northern 
Correctional Institution informed the plaintiff in 
September 1999 that the MIM newsletter was 
rejected because it posed a threat to the safety 
and security of the facility. Commissioner 
Armstrong also informed the plaintiff that a June 
1, 1999 issue of the MIM newsletter had been 
rejected by prison officials at Garner 
Correctional Institution because the document 
posed a threat to safety and security due to its 
call for inmate agitation and organization to 
change prison conditions and favorable references 
to gang membership and gang activities. Although 
these documents may constitute a legitimate 
penological reason for rejecting the September 
1999 issue of the MIM newsletter, the defendants 
provided no justification for the rejection of 
subsequent issues of the newsletter. Accordingly, 
the motion to dismiss is denied as to the 
plaintiff's First Amendment claim regarding the 
MIM newsletters."

North Carolina formalizes increased inmate 
repression

In the past I have read various articles from 
around the country about different DOC policies 
within the MIM Notes Under Lock and Key. I stress 
this because North Carolina is going through a 
transformation. 1) Concerning receiving sexually 
explicit material by way of mail [which is now 
forbidden] 2) Co-payment for medical purposes 
[$3.00 for health-care visits by appointment; 
$5.00 for emergencies] 3) Administrative fees 
being charged to inmates for any major infractions 
[$10.00 for offenses that result in a guilty 
disposition] 4) A revision of the nature of all 
charges and its punishments Note all write-ups 
received in the NC DOC are a major infraction 
depending on various selected designated hearing 
officers. Mainly consisting of staff members 
within the Department of Corrections. Note the 
punishment revisions and modification of offenses 
as well as new offenses such as A-11 (Commit an 
assault on a staff member with intent to commit a 
sexual act.) [Another new offense is "Participate 
in, or organize, whether individually or in 
concert with others, any gang or Security threat 
Group (STG), or participate in any activity or 
behavior associated with a Security Threat 
Group."] 5) Point system: used against prisoners 
and acts as demerits instead of merit, which 
regulate placement within the system. [read excuse 
to lock down prisoners and deny privileges at 
will] 6) STG groups being singled out by tattoo, 
etc no publication issue of Vibe or Source 
magazine because of so-called gang symbolism. 
7)Inmate credit card system replacing cash. 
Leaving postage stamps as only means of capital, 
yet writing you up for barter and trade. So note 
to all visitors when passing through NC. It's 
about keeping NC green and clean of criminal 
activities. Goal, establish the first Police 
State.

--a North Carolina prisoner, July 2001.

RAIL adds: These types of repressive policies are 
already in place at prisons all over the country. 
In particular, MIM has received many letters 
regarding STG policies. Prisoners are often 
categorized as being members of STGs simply 
because they speak Spanish or they have certain 
tattoos. As a result, these prisoners can be 
locked down for 23 hours a day in maximum security 
prisons or prison wings. STG policies allow for 
indiscriminate punishment of prisoners based on 
their nationality and/or political beliefs. RAIL 
and MIM firmly oppose such repressive practices 
and seek to expose and fight them as we build to 
destroy the imperialist state and its prison 
system as a whole.

Prisoner sends lawsuit info regarding over charged 
collect calls

The following is the basic content of a letter 
received in reply to an inquiry about an ongoing 
lawsuit involving the overcharging of collect 
telephone calls. Anybody who would like to have 
their people made a part of this class-action 
lawsuit can send a telephone charge litigation 
information sheet to their people. There is no 
charge for this and it will make them eligible for 
partial reimbursement for any settlement. The 
telephone charge litigation information sheet can 
be received by sending a request to: Lawrence M. 
Reuben, Attorney at Law, One Virginia Avenue, 
Suite 600, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

The lawsuit about which you inquired. Aleander, et 
al. v. Cotty, et al., Cause No. 49Co1-0006-CT-1217 
(Marion Circuit Court) is pending and will 
probably be on going for some time. The defendants 
in this lawsuit are Jack Cotty, Sherrif of Marion 
County, on behalf of himself and all other 
sheriffs who have similar contracts for telephone 
service and the Indiana Department of 
Administration. The DOA has been named as 
defendant rather than the DOC because the 
contracts for all state institutions must go 
through and be approved by the DOA. The defendants 
have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit to which 
we have, on behalf of the plaintiffs, filed our 
papers in opposition. The defendants have the 
final shot at this subject. After that, the court 
will have the matter before it for determination. 
If we survive these motions, we will be able to 
get to the merits of our case. If, however, the 
court grants the motions to dismiss, the 
litigation will be over but for whatever appeal we 
may decide to take. -- an Indiana prisoner.

Oregon USW protest prison conditions

ITAL Oregon United Struggle from Within (USW) 
comrades have requested that readers send in 
protest letters to the Superintendent of SRCI. 
Below is a draft letter. END

Robert Lampert Superintendent Snake River 
Correctional Institution 777 Stanton Blvd. 
Ontario, OR 97914

Dear Mr. Lampert, I am greatly concerned about the 
conditions of confinement prisoners in the 
Intensive Management Unit face. I am sure that you 
are aware of them but choose to do nothing about 
them. The totality of conditions in the SRCI 
Intensive Management Unit, including pervasive 
idleness and inactivity due to refusal of 
recreation (level one inmates), lack of adequate 
outdoor recreation; lack of education and 
treatment programs; unsanitary facilities; lack of 
basic fundamental hygiene; unwarranted use of 
"dry-cell" status; inadequate noise control; lack 
of an adequate law library and "paging system"; 
lack of adequate reading material; loud 
ventilation system; stale air; inadequate 
regulation of lighting; denial of personal 
magazines, newspapers and books; enforcement of 
"unwritten" rules; lack of leisure time activities 
such as movies, TV, telephones, cards, board 
games, etc.; and the overall disrespect and 
harassment from officers, make degeneration 
probable and reform of prisoners in the SRCI 
unlikely. 1) The failure of SRCI officials to 
provide adequate outdoor exercise, for areasonable 
period of time constitutes a threat to the well-
being of the prisoners housed in the SRCI IMU. It 
also exhibits a callused indifference to the heath 
needs of a captive populace, who depend on you to 
provide their life necessities. It therefore, 
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is a 
violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U$ 
constitution. For the Eighth Amendment gives an 
implicit guarantee that an incarcerated person's 
physical and psychological needs will be met; see 
Spain, 600 F2d at 199 (finding that prisons cannot 
deprive inmates of regular physical exercise, 
because it is important not only to physical, but 
mental health as well). See also, Kennan v. Hall, 
83 F3d 1083 (OSP's IMU) and Laaman v. Helgemoe, 
437 Fsupp 269. 2) The prisoners housed in the SRCI 
IMU never have quietude or peace of mind. There is 
always constant loud noise from the loud 
ventilation system, and the other prisoners and 
officers talking and yelling. Thus, does the SRCI 
IMU violate the "shelter" and "personal safety" 
guarantees of the Eighth Amendment. See Toussaint 
v. McCarthy, 597 F.Supp 1388, 1397, 1410, Laaman 
v. Helgemoe, 437 F Supp 269 ("while prison 
administration may punish, it may not do so in a 
manner which threatens the physical and mental 
health of the prisoners.") and Keenan, 83 F3d 
1083. 3) Prisoners' placement in water control 
cells is unconstitutional. Prisoners are forced to 
smell their own feces and urine until the 15 
minute timer permits them to flush. The placement 
in a water control cell (which is supposed to be 
reserved for prisoners who misuse their water) is 
an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, in 
violation of the Eighth Amendment and a violation 
of the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment. Seen Mendoza 960 F2d 1425. 4) 
Prisoners' medical and dental needs are not being 
met, due to their placement in the IMU in 
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments 
to the U$ constitution. See Laaman, 437 Fsupp 269 
("Failure to discover and/or diagnose serious 
medical problems of prisoner scan lead to denial 
of civil rights of the prisoners. Just as failure 
to provide therapeutic attention once an illness 
or injury is known.") 5) Prisoners in the SRCI IMU 
are being denied "the equal protection of the 
laws" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
OSP IMU prisoners are allowed to possess their 
personal property, but prisoners at SRCI are 
limited to 1 personal newspaper, 10 photos, and 10 
personal books. The SRCI prisoners are not allowed 
to get anything but 10 photos, unopened hygiene 
products and unused envelopes from their property, 
whereas OSP inmates get all their property. 6) 
Prisoners in the SRCI IMU are being kept past 
their 6 month program, because of the "unofficial" 
policy on IMU placement. The more times a 
prisoners has been in IMU, the longer he stays 
each time. Several prisoners are 
unconstitutionally being held in IMU, in violation 
of the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment. 7) The very conditions of segregation 
that set the maximum 180 standard can be found in 
the SRCI IMU. The intensive management unit at 
SRCI is but an extension of the Disciplinary 
Segregation Unit. There is no "legitimate 
penological goal" being furthered by the severe 
conditions of Sensory Deprivation in the SRCI IMU. 
In fact, they are counterproductive. For "Social 
science and clinical literature have consistently 
reported that when human beings are subjected to 
social isolation and reduced environmental 
stimulation, they may deteriorate mentally and in 
some cases develop psychiatric disturbances. These 
include perceptual distortions, hallucinations, 
hyperresponsivity to external stimuli, aggressive 
fantasies, overt paranoia, inability to 
concentrate, and problems with impulse control. 
This response has been observed not only in the 
extreme case where a subject in a clinical setting 
is completely isolated in a dark soundproofed room 
or immersed in water, but in a variety of other 
contexts. For example, similar effects have been 
observed in hostages, prisoners of war, patients 
undergoing long-term immobilization in a hospital 
and pilots flying long solo flights." Cited from 
Madrid v Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 
1995). "The record shows, what anyway seems pretty 
obvious, that isolating a human being from other 
human beings year after year or even month after 
month can cause substantial psychological damage, 
even if the isolation is not total." Davenport, 
844 F2d 1310, 1313. Here, the record demonstrates 
that the conditions of extreme social isolation 
and reduced environmental stimulation founding the 
Snake River IMU will likely inflict (or already 
has) some degree of psychological trauma upon most 
inmates confined there for more than brief 
periods. Clearly this impact is not to be 
trivialized, for other institutions with lesser 
risks of harm (especially Calis SHU discussed in 
Madrid, 889 F.Supp 1146, where prisoners had TVs 
and all their property), than the SRCI IMU have 
been deemed "inhumane." Subjecting individuals to 
conditions that are likely to render them 
psychotic or otherwise inflict a serious mental 
illness or seriously exacerbate an existing mental 
illness, cannot be squared with evolving standards 
of humanity or decency; especially when certain 
aspects of those conditions appear to beat little 
relations to security concerns. A risk this grave-
-this shocking and indecent--simply has no place 
in a civilized society. SRCI officials have known 
and ignored these conditions long enough, this 
must stop. Action needs to be taken by you, as the 
superintendent of SRCI you are responsible for the 
health of the people under your care. Several 
inmates have already suffered and now take 
psychotropic drugs to control aberrant behavior 
spawned by your institution's neglect. Sincerely, 
________________


ITAL Another Oregon United Struggle from Within 
comrade wrote the following response to this 
letter. END

Analysis of seven point letter to Robert Lampert, 
Superintendent, Snake River Correctional 
Institution SRCI Comrades/USW: A clenched fist 
salute! Congratulations and solidarity in your 
efforts to improve conditions at the SRCI IMU. 

Because I have some legal background I am going to 
analyze and comment on your seven point letter to 
Robert Lampert. Please keep in mind that I am not 
living the SRCI IMU nightmare, therefore I cannot 
grasp your situation fully in the same manner 
which you can. I would also remind you that law, 
as practiced by the state of Oregon and the United 
States, is a dynamic (in constant flux) entity, 
always subject to change, change that cannot occur 
unless it is tested, as you are testing it. You do 
not need to be reminded that this "law" we speak 
of, is capitalist, imperialist, and elite law. You 
are to be commended, and we stand with you, in 
your efforts against Goliath. As to your first 
point, you should be aware that the Spain (600 F2d 
199) case you cite provides a constitutional right 
to outside exercise only for inmates committed to 
special custody for a period of years. See 
footnote 2 of Kennan v Hall, 82 F3d 1083, 1090. 

The Keenan court seemed to wish to allow Keenan to 
put the length of time incarcerated in special 
custody at issue, as warranting outdoor exercise, 
before a jury, this could be a strong point of 
your case. Keep in mind that the state will try to 
defeat you with Sandin v Conner's (115 S. Ct. 2293 
(1995)) requirement of an atypical and significant 
hardship. Your second point concerning yelling and 
a loud ventilation system have excellent grounding 
in Keenan. Note that Keenan's ventilation issue 
revolved around poor ventilation of feces, urine 
and vomit and theirs was found to be a direct 
threat to one's health. Be sure to back this 
point, as well as all your points, with affidavits 
and whatever evidence you might have (medical 
records?). Your third point, to me, inflicts pain, 
as you suggest, but only as a result of first 
inflicting the heath hazard described in the above 
paragraph. The "pain" inflicted is emotional and 
psychological distress. I was told the SRCI 
inmates had the ability to control the timing of 
their first flush but that then a 15 minute timer 
took over. If this is in fact true, be careful 
that this point does not undermine your claim. 

Be careful of Mendoza (960 F2d 1425), it does not 
directly support your statement (claim). Mendoza 
held that a state must operate within its own 
created liberty interest which provided that 
before Mendoza could be placed in a "dry cell" he 
first had to be found to be under suspicion of 
"secreting contraband." This finding was not made 
in Mendoza's case. Mendoza does not work for you 
the way you state your third point. Your fourth 
point is entirely on point but needs factual 
assertions backed, again, with affidavits and 
medical records, etc. Your fifth point is entirely 
where it attempts to say, "OSP gets it but we do 
not." This is not denial of equal protection of 
the laws. Your equal protection denial revolves 
around whether or not SRCI is adhering to the 
Oregon Dept. of Corrections property rule for IMU.
 
I happen to know that EOCI in Pendleton ignored 
this administrative rule. Failure to comply with 
their own created liberty interest is a "Due 
Process issue" as described above in Mendoza. See 
if your facts fit this scenario. Your sixth point 
is tricky. There is no constitutional right to 
"custody levels" but there is a Sandin right to be 
free from atypical and significant hardship. Get 
your affidavits and proof together and you can 
probably survive summary judgment on this one. 
Your seventh point is going to fail under a 
federal constitutional analysis. Davenport (844 
F2d 1310, 1313) states, beyond what you quote: "Of 
course, it is highly probably that the experience 
of being imprisoned inflicts psychological damage 
from segregation that is relevant. And the 
infliction of disutility is one of the objectives 
of criminal punishment." All your points are 
valid. All can be prosecuted potentially 
successfully. Not all are constitutional 
violations however. Assess your claims. Assess 
your proof, i.e. affidavits and hard facts and 
documentation. Try not to burn out all of your 
claimants. If you can, hold some of your claimants 
in reserve for another battle. Be aware of 
collateral and issue estoppel (res judicata), once 
an issue is decided, it is decided, new claimants 
have new claims even though they may be identical 
in theory. It appears from the 9/1/01 MIM 
Notes/ULK that you have an appointed lawyer of 
sorts. Can you elaborate on who this is and how 
s/he came to represent you? Keep us informed. We 
are with you. Is there any specific legal 
questions that you need answered? Remember, win or 
lose in the imperialist court, you are winners in 
the struggle for liberation, truth and communism. 

You are front line comrades, bringing the struggle 
to the oppressor. Please accept my commendations 
which I am sure are mirrored by all of our 
comrades. 

Revolutionary Regards,
Prisoner X, USW 
Oregon