Joint Appendix — Cleavinger v. Saxner

Supreme Court brief1985

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

In the Supreme Court of the Anited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1984

THEODORE CLEAVINGER, MARVIN MARCADIS, AND

Tom P. LOCKETT, PETITIONERS

DAVID SAXNER AND ALFRED CAIN, JR.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

G. FLINT TAYLOR Rex E. LEE

CHARLES W. HOFFMAN Solicitor General

343 South Dearborn Street Department of Justice

Suite 1607 Washington, D.C. 20530

Chicago, Illinois 60604 (202) 633-2217

(312) 663-5046 Counsel for Petitioners

Counsel for Respondents

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED

NOVEMBER 5, 1984

CERTIORARI GRANTED FEBRUARY 19, 1985

Third Amended Complaint (filed Sept. 27, 1978) ._..

District Court Order (filed Apr. 24, 1981)..........

Policy Statement 7400.5C on Inmate Discipline (Oct.

es Te ce useceseces

Incident Report for David Saxner (PX 5)..........

Incident Report for Alfred Cain, Jr. (PX 12).......

Inmate Rights at Institution Discipline Committee

Committee Hearing 7400.5C-TH (Oct. 4, 1974)

AE Rt PE ea

Institution Discipline Committee Report for Alfred

en ccesnetneceens.

Request for Administrative Remedy for David

Request for Administrative Remedy for Alfred Cain,

EG ES EE Ee

Regional Appeal for David Saxner (PX 11).........

Regional Appeal for Alfred Cain, Jr. (PX 16)... _...

Prisoners at Terre Haute Seek an Investigation

(Press Release Prepared by David Saxner)

i die eee els chedebendnesecesecs

Interview Notes of David Saxner (PX 3)...........

Letter, David Saxner to Arpiar Saunders, Attorney

Memorandum, Prisoner's Peoples Union/Inmates of

Terre Haute Prison to U.S. Federal Bureau of

Prisons (May 13, 1973) (PX 14) .................

*The opinion of the court of appeals as well as an excerpt from the

Code of Federal Regulations of the regulations now applicabie to Inmate

Discipline are printed in the appendix to the petition for writ of certiorari

and have not been reproduced.

(1)

Policy Statement 7300.2C on Prisoner's Mail Box

(Aug. 20, 1974) (PX 2).

Order Granting Certiorari

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

DAVID SAXNER AND ALFRED CAIN, JR., PLAINTIFFS,

CHARLES BENSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

37/75

3/21/75

4475

1215/75

1219/75

15/76

2/10/76

317/76

5/13/76

81/77

10/25/77

Petitioners files [sic] petition for writ of habeas

corpus.

Summons issued.

U.S. Marshal makes return on Summons, $6.00.

Respondent files motion to dismiss, with memo-

randum in support of said motion, c/s.

Plaintiffs file amended complaint. Plaintiffs re-

quest trial by jury.

Case called. Government requests extension of

time to respond to amended complaint filed

this date. Court Grants 60 days. Case contin-

ued from this calendar.

Summons issued.

U.S. Marshal makes return on summons and

complaint, $32.92.

Defendants file motion to dismiss and memoran-

dum in support of said motion, c/s.

Charles Hoffman and Michael E. Deutsch file

appearance for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, by coun-

sel, file motion for leave to amend complaint

and plaintiff's [sic] response to defendants mo-

tion to dismiss, ¢/s.

Set for pre-trail Tuesday, Aug. 23, 1977 at 2:30

P.M. (SHD)

Defendants, by counsel, file motion for continu-

ance of pre-trial conference, c/s. Same

GRANTED and continued to Sept. 13, 1977,

U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 232, at 11:30 A.M.,

Indpls., Ind.

Set for pre-trail Nov. 17, 1977 at 9:30 A.M.

(CJH)

(1)

10/27/77

12/2/77

12/12/77

12/13/77

12/19/77

3/20/78

8/3/78

This cause came before the Court on plaintiffs’

civil complaint, defendants’ motion to dismiss,

plaintiffs’ amended complaint, defendants’ sec-

ond motion to dismiss, plaintiffs’ response to

defendants’ motion and motion for leave to file

a second amended complaint. Court having

considered said motions, now GRANTS de-

fendants’ motion in part and DENIES motion

in part. The Amended Complaint is deemed

filed as leave to file is not required since re-

sponsive pleading has yet been filed. The de-

fendants’ motion to dismiss for want of subject

matter is GRANTED as to all grounds save

those arising under 28 USC 1331 as to which

it is DENIED. The motion to dismiss the

claim for the expunction of the records of the

incident at suite [sic] is GRANTED. The mo-

tion to dismiss claims against defendants

Levi, Carlson and Henderson is GRANTED

and the motion to dismiss claims against de-

fendant Benson is DENIED.

Set for pre-trial Dec. 20, 1977 at 11:00 A.M.

(CJH)

Plaintiffs file motion for production of documen-

tary records, c/s. Respondent, by counsel,

files motion to strike plaintiffs’ request for

production, c/s.

Respondent files motion for enlargement of

time, c/s.

Plaintiffs file motion for continuance of pre-trial

conference, c/s. Motion GRANTED and action

is removed from pre-trial calendar and trial

calendar for Jan. Term, 1978.

Henry E. Davis Special litigation Section, Crim-

inal Div.sion, U.S. Dept. of Justice enters ap-

pearance for all defendants and the appear-

ance of Glenda G. Gordon as counsel for

defendants shall be withdrawn. c/s.

Set for pre-trial August 25, 1978 at 10:30 A.M.

(SHD)

8/18/78

8/21/78

8/23/78

9/13/78

9/19/78

9/5/78

9/18/78

9/20/78

9/27/78

9/28/78

10/4/78

11/3/78

12/1/78

Defendant, by counsel, files motion for continu-

ance of pre-trial conference, c/s.

Defendant’s motion for continuance of pre-trial

Granted.

Pre-trial conference reset for Sept. 5, 1978 at

2:30 P.M. in Indianapolis, In.

Cause set for Jury Trial on Oct. 9, 1978, at 9:00

A.M. (SHD)

Defendant files proposed witness and exhibit

lists.

Defendant’s [sic] motion to strike Granted in

part and Denied in part.

This matter came before the Court on plaintiffs’

motion for production and defendants’ motion

to strike. Court having considered same, De-

fendants are directed to produce for plaintiffs

each of the non-exempt portions of their cen-

tral Inmate Files and the report of the Sur-

geon General’s inspection of the T. H. Peni-

tentiary Hospital. Further, if the Bureau of

Prisons conducted an investigation into the

death of T.H. Inmate Wm. Lowe and if the

matter of said death is not in litigation, a copy

of the findings of the investigation are to be

produced for the use of the plaintiffs. All

other requests made in plaintiff's motion are

Denied. Defendant’s motion to strike is sus-

tained as indicated.

Approved pre-trial entry entered.

Plaintiffs file third amended complaint.

Defendants file answer to third amended com-

plaint, Ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th de-

fense, with memorandum in support of attach-

ments thereto, c/s, with motion for judgment

on the pleadings.

Trial date for this cause heretofore assigned for

Oct. 9, 1978, is hereby VACATED.

Cause set for pre-trial on Nov. 27, 1978 at 9:30

A.M. (CJH)

Cause set for pre-trial un Dec. 18, 1978 at 4:00

P.M. (CJH)

12/15/78

12/18/78

12/19/78

12/18/78

12/19/78

1/4/79

1/10/79

1/26/79

Plaintiffs file motion for continuance of the pre-

trial and to be removed from the current cal-

endar. Patricia Handlin files appearance for

plaintiffs, c/s. Court GRANTS motion for con-

tinuance from pre-trial and trial calendar

Plaintiffs file notice of taking of depositions of

defendants Lockett, Marcades, [sic]

Cleavinger, G.D. Wilson and Benson, and mo-

tion to take depositions by tape recorders,

with affidavit thereto, c/s.

Jeffrey H. Haas files motion to withdraw as

counsel of record for plaintiffs herein, ¢/s. Said

motion APPROVED and said appearance is

hereby withdrawn accordingly.

Plaintiffs, by counsel, file motion for continuance

of the date set for filing of a response to the

defendants’ motion for a judgment on the

pieading from Dec. 22, 1978 until the first

week in January, 1979 with affidavit attached

thereto, c/s.

Plaintiffs’ motion for a continuance of date set

for filing of a response to the defendants mo-

tion for a judgment on the pleadings from

Dec. 22, 1978 until Ist week of January, 1979

(1/5/79) is GRANTED. This action in no-way

affects any trial date that may have been set

in this matter by the trial court.

Plaintiffs motion to take depositions by tape re-

corder GRANTED.

Plaintiffs file response to defendants motion for

judgment on the pleadings, with memoran-

dum in support of said motion and exhibit A

attached thereto and response to defendants’

motion to dismiss for failure to comply with an

order of the Court, c/s.

Defendants file motion for protective order and

response to motion for sanctions for failure to

produce documents, c/s. Plaintiffs file first

witness list and motion to compel production

of defendants for deposition and for sanctions

for failure to produce documents, c/s.

1/29/79 __ Plaintiffs file motion to substitute, c/s. Plaintiffs

file response to defendants’ motion for judg-

ment on the pleadings, with memorandum in

support of said response and exhibit A at-

tached thereto, c/s. Plaintiffs file response to

defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to

comply with an order of this Court, c/s.

2/7/79 This cause came before the Court on plaintiffs’

motion to substitute, Court having considered

same, IT IS ORDERED that said motion is

Granted and the corrected “Response to De-

fendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to

Comply with an Order of this Court”, plain-

tiffs’ “Response to the Defendants’ Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings”, and plaintiffs’

memorandum in support thereof, is hereby

filed NUNC PRO TUNC, as of the date of the

original pleadings were filed with the Court.

2/8/79 This cause came before the Court on plaintiffs’

motion to compel production of defendants for

deposition and for sanctions for failure to pro-

duce documents and defendants’ motion for a

protective order and response to motion for

sanctions. Court having considered same; De-

fendants’ motion for protective order is

DENIED. Plaintiffs may notice any defendant

for deposition at his city of usual residence on

reasonable notice. Counsel are urged to coop-

erate in the scheduling of said depositions.

Counsel may apply to the Court for relief in

case of oppressive conduct. Plaintiffs’ motion

for sanctions is STAYED. Counsel for plain-

tiffs shall submit a request for the documents

at issue with as much particularity as possi-

ble. Defendants shall reply stating whether

such document exist and if they exist, why

they are outside this Court’s Entry of

Sept. 18, 1978. Counsel for defendants shall

submit such documents claimed to be outside

this Court’s Order to the Magistrate for in

4/16/79

camera inspection. The motion for attorney’s

fees and costs is DENIED.

Plaintiffs file notice to take depositions of de-

fendants Marcadis, Wilson and Cleavinger,

c/s.

Cause set for pre-trial on March 19, 1979 at 9:30

A.M. JEN)

Deposition of defendant Marcades [sic] on March

3, 1979 consisting of 4 tapes, 7 sides, filed.

Defendants file summarized theories of the de-

fense, counts 1 thru 12, c/s.

Plaintiffs file settlement demand and motion for

leave to file amendments to complaint, c/s.

Copy forwarded to U.S. Attorney.

Plaintiffs file motion for leave to file substituted

amendment. Same forwarded to Magistrate

Godich and copy forwarded to U.S. Attorney.

Defendants file supplemental authority on behalf

of the defendants for consideration by the

Court in connection with the defendants pend-

ing motion for judgment on the pleadings,

with copy of opinion attached thereto, c/s.

Defendants file answer and supporting memo-

randum, c¢.s,

Defendants, by counsel, file witness and exhibit

lists, e/s.

Plaintiffs file final witness list, ¢/s., and discov-

ery request.

Defendants, by counsel, file first set of interrog-

atories to plaintiffs.

Approved pre-trial entry entered.

Cause set for pre-trial on August 29, 1979 at

2:15 P.M. (SHD)

This cause came before the Court on defendants’

motion for judgment on the pleadings and

plaintiffs’ response thereto. Court having con-

sidered same, now Grants the motion in part

and denies the motion in part. Accordingly,

Court DISMISSES Count two and enters

Judgment for defendants on counts One,

Three, Five, Seven, Nine and Twelve. The ac-

8/27/79

8/31/79

10/4/79

tion will go forward as to Benson Only on

Count Four, as to Wilson only on Count Six,

as to Benson Only on count eight, as to Wilson

and Benson on Count Ten, and as to Benson

Only on Count Eleven. The motion for leave

to amend to sue defendants in their official

capacities is denied, and the motion for leave

to amend to claim punitive damages is

Granted, as such leave should be freely

granted.

Plaintiffs file motion for continuance of pre-trial

conference and for removal of cause from the

Oct. term trial calendar. Motion Granted as to

pre-trial conference only and said pre-trial

conference is continued. Plaintiffs file motion

for leave to file motion for reconsideration and

Court’s Order dated Aug. 3, 1979.

Plaintiffs motion for continuance of trial date

GRANTED.

Defendants file response to plaintiffs’ motion for

reconsideration of Court Order dated Aug. 3,

1979, c/s.

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of Court

Order dated August 3, 1979, or alternatively

for certification for immediate appeal is

DENIED in its entirety. Case is reassigned to

the October 1979, trial calendar.

Plaintiffs file motion for continuance, with affi-

davit thereto, c/s. Motion GRANTED and

said cause is continued from the Oct. 1979

trial calendar. Plaintiffs’ counsel's attention is

directed to Local Rule 6(c).

Cause set for pre-trial conference on February

28, 1980, at 9:00 A.M., T.H. (GEB)

Cause set for final pre-trial conference on June

2, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. Terre Haute.

Robert Kendall, JR., Gen. Lit. & Legal Advice

Sect. Criminal Div., Dept. of Justice, Wash-

ington, D.C., 20530, files substitution of coun-

sel for defendants, c/s.

12/1/80

4/23/81

4/24/81

Cause set for trial on Dec. 3, 1980, at 9:30 a.m.,

T.H.

Plaintiffs, by counsel, file motion for continuance

of trial date, c/s.

Cause set for trial March 12, 1981 at 9:00 A.M.

(GEB)

Cause set for pre-trial conference on Jan. 29,

1981 at 2:00 P.M. (GEB)

Pre-trial conference set for Jan. 29, 1981, at 2:00

P.M. continued.

The trial of said cause previously scheduled for

March 12, 1981, is VACATED and same

RESCHEDULED for trial on April 23, 1981,

T.H.

Pitfs file motion for reconsideration of dismissal

of defts Marcadis, Cleavenger [sic] and

Lockett, with attachments thereto, c/s.

Defts file instructions Nos. 1 thru 40 and trial

brief, c/s. same forwarded to E.V.

Comes now the parties herein and by their re-

spective counsel and trial commenced. Voir

dire examination commenced and completed.

Opening statement of counsel heard. Evidence

on behalf of pitfs commenced. At 5:10 P.M.

pitfs orally move for separation of witness.

Defts do not cbject. Motion Granted. Evi-

dence on behalf of pitf resumed and continued.

Court adjourned until April 24, 1981, at 9:00

A.M.

This matter came before the Court on pitfs’ mo-

tion for reconsideration of dismissal of defts

Marcadis, Cleavenger [sic] and Lockett. Par-

ties have supplied the Court with Authority

for their respective positions and Court hav-

ing considered same, IT IS ORDERED that

defts Marcadis, Cleavenger [sic] and Lockett

be brought back into this litigation and pitfs’

motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The

said defts will still be able to assert qualified

good faith immunity as a defense.

4/24/81

4/27/81

4/28/81

5/6/81

Trial resumed. Evidence on behalf of pitfs is re-

sumed and concluded. Pitfs rest. Outside the

presence of the jury, defts move for directed

verdict. Jury recalled. Evidence on behaif of

defts commenced and concluded. Defts rest.

Court adjourned until Monday, April 27, 1981,

at 1:00 P.M. **Court Grants as to Deft Wilson

in Count 6 and Grants as to Benson in Count

10. Court denies as to rest of defts and counts.

Trial resumed. Final arguments of counsel are

heard. Instructions read to jury and jury re-

tires to deliberate their verdict. Jury returns

with verdicts as follows:

For deft Benson and against both pltfs.

For deft Wilson and against plitf Cain.

For both pltfs and against deft Cleavenger [sic]

and assess compensatory damages in the sum

of $1,500.00 and punitive and exemplary dam-

ages, none.

For both pltfs and against deft Marcadis and as-

sess compensatory damages in the sum of

$1,500.00 and punitive and exemplary dam-

ages, none.

For both pitfs and against deft Lockett and as-

sess compensatory damages in the sum of

$1,500.00 and punitive and exemplary dam-

ages, none.

Court Adjourned. S.E. O.B.Vol. 16, P. 2

Judgment entered in accordance with nine Jury

Verdicts, S.E. O.B. Vol. 16, P. 3 (Entered

4/30/82) (case closed)

Entry heretofore entered on Apri! 24, 1981,

hereby corrected to-wit:

cluded. Pitfs rest.

Outside the presence of the Jury, defts move for

a directed verdict.

Court having reviewed the evidence, GRANTS

motion of deft Wilson for directed verdict on

Count 6 and GRANTS motion of deft Benson

for directed verdict on Count 10. Jury re-

5/7/81

5/27/81

6/3/81

6/16/81

7/14/81

10/20/81

4/14/82

called. Defts evidence commenced and con-

cluded. Defts rest. Court adjourned until

Monday, April 27, 1981, at 1:00 P.M.

the verdict or in the alternative motion for a

new trial, with memorandum of law in support

of said motion, c/s. Same forwarded to E.V.

Pitfs file motion for atty fees and costs, affidavit

of Atty Taylor, affidavit of Atty Handlin and

bill of costs, c/s. Same forwarded to E.V.

Pitfs file response to defts’ motion for judgment

notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively,

for a new trial, c/s. Same forwarded to E.V.

Defts, by counsel, file opposition to pltfs’ motion

for atty fees and costs, c/s. Same forwarded to

E.V.

Hearing on motion for pitf’s atty fees and deft’s

motion for amendment of judgment or, in the

alternative, new trial. Arguments of counsel

are heard. Court will rule on matter.

Pitfs file supplemental and amended motion for

fees and costs, with exhibit A attached

thereto, c/s. Same forwarded to E.V.

This matter came before the Court upon the mo-

tion of defts Marcadis Lockett and Cleavenger

(sic) for a judgment notwithstanding the ver-

dict or in the alternative, a motion for a new

trial pursuant to Rules 50 and 59, F.R.C.P.

Ct. having considered same, IT IS OR-

DERED that defts’ motion for judgment not-

withstanding the verdict is DENIED and

defts’ alternative motion for a new trial is

DENIED. This matter also came before the

Court upon plitfs’ motion for attys fees and

costs filed May 27, 1981, and its supplemental

and amended motion for fees and costs filed

Oct. 20, 1981; defts filed their opposition to

any fees awards on June 16, 1981, and a hear-

ing on said matters was held July 14, 1981.

Ct. having considered same, IT IS OR-

5/13/82

5/18/82

DERED that pltfs’ requests for atty fees are

DENIED. S.E. O.B. Vol. 18, p. 78

Defendants file Notice of Appeal. Copy of NO-

TICE OF APPEAL, Information Sheet and

Docket Entries forwarded to U.S. Court of

Plaintiffs file Notice of Cross Appeal, e/s. Filing

fee paid. Copy of Notice of Cross-Appeal, In-

formation Sheet and Docket Entries for-

warded to U.S. Court of Appeals, Chicago, II-

linois. Copy of same forwarded to U.S.

Attorney and Robert Kendall, Jr.

Transcript on appeal consisting of 2 Volumes of

pleadings forwarded to U.S. Court of Ap-

peals, Chicago, Illinois.

Rec'd from Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Court

Order: The Court, sua sponte Orders as

follows:

1. Appeals consolidated for purposes of briefing

and oral argument.

2. Defts-appellants cross-appellees’ opening

brief and appendix shall be filed on or before

July 5, 1982.

3. Pitfs-Appellees cross-appellants shall file

combed responsive brief on the main appeal

and opening brief and appendix on the cross-

the cross-appeal, shall be filed on or before

Sept. 3, 1982.

5. Pitfs-Appellees cross-appellants’ reply brief, |

if any, on the cross-appeal shall be filed on or .

before Sept. 17, 1982. '

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

No. TH 75-47-C

DAVID SAXNER AND ALFRED CAIN, JR. PLAINTIFFS,

CHARLES BENSON, T. CLEAVENGER(sic], M. MARCADIS, L.

P. LOCKETT, AND G. D. WILSON, DEFENDANTS

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT*

1. INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary re-

lief, challenging the illegal confinement in segregation units

and other illegal punishments imposed upon them at the

United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, by the

defendants.

Il. JURISDICTION

2. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331. This is an action to redress the deprivation of

rights, privileges, and im nunities secured by the First,

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United

States Constitution. The amount in controversy for each

plaintiff, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $10,000.

ill. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff David Saxner is a citizen of Chicago, Illinois.

He was incarcerated in the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre

Haute, Indiana, from August 18, 1973, to April 25, 1975. He

is a citizen of the United States.

4. Plaintiff Alfred Cain, Jr. is currently a citizen of New

York, New York. He was incarcerated in the U.S. Peniten-

tiary at Terre Haute. Indiana, from January 2, 1973, to De-

cember 12, 1975. He is a citizen of the United States.

*As amended at pre-trial conference held on November 18, 1977, in

Terre Haute, Indiana.

5. Defendant Charles Benson was at all times pertinent

the Warden of the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute,

Indiana, and was charged with the responsibility of adminis-

tering that penitentiary.

6. Defendant T. Cleavenger was at times relevant to this

complaint Associate Warden at the U.S. Penitentiary at

Terre haute, Indiana, and served as chairman of the Inst:_a-

7. Defendant M. Marcadis was at times relevant to this

complaint Lieutenant at the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre

Haute, Indiana, and a member of the I.D.C. at that

institution.

8. Defendant L. P. Lockett was at times relevant to this

9. Defendant G. D. Wilson was at times relevant to this

complaint an Administrative Supervisor at the U.S. Peniten-

tiary at Terre Haute, Indiana.

10. All defendants are sued in their individual capacities.

IV. COUNT ONE

11. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth

12. On February 21, 1975, Plaintiff Saxner was found

guilty by the I.D.C. of charges of encouraging others to re-

fuse to work, possession of contraband, and misuse of mails.

As a result of these charges, Plaintiff Saxner was placed in

administrative detention from February 14, 1975, until Feb-

14. The charge of misuse of mails against Plaintiff Saxner

and his subsequent conviction of this charge by the I.D.C.

was in violation of Plaintiff Saxner’s rights to freedom of

speech and press, as guaranteed to him by the First Amend-

ment to the U.S. Constitution.

¥. COUNT TWO

15. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-14 as is fully set forth

herein.

16. On February 14, 1975, without any probable cause,

Defendant G.D. Wilson searched Plaintiff Saxner’s cell and

seized numerous documents therein, to wit: a copy of a press

release written by Plaintiff Saxner entitled “Prisoners at

Terre Haute Seek an Investigation”; a letter written by

Plaintiff Saxner to John Antonides, editor of a local

Bloomington, Indiana, newspaper, notes taken by Plaintiff

Saxner concerning conditions at the prison industries at the

U_S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute; and copies of a press re-

lease written by Plaintiff Saxner regarding the death of

William Lowe, previously a prisoner at the U.S. Peniten-

tiary at Terre Haute.

17. This illegal search of Plaintiff Saxner’s cell and seizure

of Plaintiff Saxner’s documents by Defendant Wilson vio-

lated rights guaranteed to Plaintiff Saxner by the Fourth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sane anne Block segregation unit at the U.S.

Penitentiary at Terre Haute from February 21, 1975, to

February 28, 1975, and lost eighty-four days

ants and their agents in G Block

strictive than those in the general population at the U.

Penitentiary at Terre Haute, in that:

a. Plaintiff was confined in his cell for twenty four hours

ce. Plaintiff was not allowed any recreation;

d. Plaintiff was not allowed any commissary privileges:

e. Plaintiff had neither a blanket, a pillow, nor a spring

bed;

f. There was no window in Plaintiff's cell;

g. There was no light in Plaintiff's cell for the first four

and one hald [sic] days he spent there;

h. There was no air vent in Plaintiff’s cell to regulate

heat;

i. Writing material was rationed to Plaintiff:

j. Plaintiff was not allowed books or newspapers in his

cell;

k. Plaintiff had no access to a law library or to other legal

material;

|. Plaintiff was not allowed any personal hygiene items in

his cell;

m. Plaintiff was not allowed to use a broom, a toilet brush,

or cleanser to clean his cell;

n. The quantity of food available to Plaintiff at each meal

was less than in general population;

o. Plaintiff was refused dental care;

p. Plaintiff was denied work opportunities which should

have resulted in meritorous [sic] good time and pay;

q. Toilet paper was distributed to Plaintiff by the handful

as needed;

r. Plaintiff was denied a visit from Rev. Robert Horton,

who is an approved visitor for any federal prisoner.

21. As a result of being charged with and convicted of the

above disciplinary offenses by the I.D.C., Plaintiff Saxner

was placed in L Block segregation unit at the U.S. Peniten-

tiary at Terre Haute from February 28, 1975, to March 21,

1975.

22. The conditions of confinement imposed by the defend-

ants and their agents in L Block were markedly more re-

strictive than those in the general population at the U.S.

Penitentiary at Terre Haute, in that:

a. Plaintiff was confined in his cell for twenty-four hours

per day, except for showers;

b. Plaintiff was allowed only two showers per week;

c. Plaintiff was allowed to recreate only once or twice each

week for forty-five minutes each time;

d. Plaintiff had access to only an inadequate law library;

e. The quantity of food available to Plaintiff at each meal

was less than in general population;

f. Plaintiff was denied work opportunities which should

have resulted in meritorious good time and pay.

23. These conditions of confinement imposed by Defend-

ants and their agents and the loss of good time were se-

verely punitive and resulted in the infliction of substantial

grievous loss on Plaintiff Saxner.

24. Plaintiff Saxner was placed and held in G Block and L

Block segregation units in violation of due process of law, in

e Plaintiff Saxner received no written notice Me =

charges of possession of contraband and misuse of mai

prior to his hearing before the I1.D.C. on February 21, 1975.

b. Plaintiff Saxner was not confronted with any substan-

tive evidence on any of the three charges of which he was

found guilty by the 1.D.C. on February 21, 1975.

c. Plaintiff Saxner’s conviction for misuse of mails was in

violation of Bureau of Prisons Policy Statement 1220.1A,

dated February 11, 1972, entitled, “Inmate Correspondence

with Representatives of the Press and News Media.”

d. Plaintiff Saxner was not allowed to call witnesses in his

own behalf, even though to have done so would have pre-

sented no threat to prison security.

25. Plaintiff Saxner’s confinement in segregation and loss

of good time as punishment for the above disciplinary convic-

tions were in violation of his right to due process of law

guaranteed him by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

26. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ viola-

tion of plaintiff Saxner’s Fifth Amendment rights, plaintiff

suffered lost wages, anxiety, mental anguish, and psycholog-

ical harm.

VII. COUNT FOUR

27. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-26 as if fully set forth

herein.

28. While confined in G Block segregation unit at the U.S.

Penitentiary at Terre Haute as punishment for the above

disciplinary convictions, Plaintiff Saxner had no access to a

law library or to legal material.

29. While confined in L Block segregation unit at the U.S.

Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Plaintiff Saxner had access to

only an inadequate law library.

30. Plaintiff Saxner’s confinement in segregation as pun-

ishment for the above disciplinary convictions infringed on

his right to access to the courts, guaranteed him by the

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

31. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s viola-

tion of Plaintiff Saxner’s Sixth Amendment rights as set

forth above, Plaintiff Saxner suffered lost wages, anxiety,

mental anguish, and psychological harm.

VII. COUNT FIVE

32. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-31 as if fully set forth

herein.

33. The severely punitive conditions of confinement

imposed by the Defendants and their agents, the length of

Plaintiff Saxner’s confinement, and the loss of good time con-

stituted cruel and unusual and disproportionate punishment

in violation of Plaintiff Saxner’s rights guaranteed him by

the Eight [sic] Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

34. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ viola-

tion of Plaintiff Saxner’s Eight [sic] Amendment rights as

set forth above, Plaintiff Saxner suffered lost wages, anxi-

ety, mental anguish, and psychological harm.

IX. COUNT SIX

35. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-34 as if fully set forth

herein.

36. On February 14, 1975, without any probable cause,

Defendant G.D. Wilson searched Plaintiff Cain’s cell and

seized numerous documents and publications therein.

37. This illegal search of Plaintiff Cain’s cell and seizure of

Plaintiff Cain’s documents and publications by Defendant

Wilson violated rights guaranteed to Plaintiff Cain by the

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

38. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s viola-

tions of Plaintiff Cain’s Fourth Amendment rights as set

forth above, Plaintiff Cain suffered lost wages, detriment to

his educational progress, delay in the effective date of his

parole, anxiety, mental anguish, and physical and psycholog-

ical harm.

X. COUNT SEVEN

39. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth

herein.

40. On February 21, 1975, Plaintiff Cain was found guilty

by the I.D.C. of charges of encouraging others to refuse to

work and possession of contraband. As a result of being

charged with and convicted of the above disciplinary offenses

by the I.D.C., Plaintiff Cain was placed in L Block segrega-

tion unit at the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute from Feb-

ruary 21, 1975, to March 21, 1975, and lost ninety six days of

good time.

41. The conditions of confinement imposed by the Defend-

ants and their agents in L Block on Plaintiff Cain were

markedly more restrictive than those in the general popula-

tion at the U.S. Penitentiary at Terre Haute, in that:

a. Plaintiff was confined in his cell for twenty-four hours

per day, except for showers;

b. Plaintiff was allowed only two showers per week;

c. Plaintiff was allowed to recreate only once or twice each

week for forty-five minutes each time.

d. Plaintiff had access to only an inadequate law library;

e. The quantity of food available to Plaintiff at each meal

was less than in general population;

f. Plaintiff was denied work opportunities which would

have resulted in meritorious good time and pay;

g. Plaintiff was unable to pursue his course of studies in a

college program from Vincennes University and to maintain

his creditable grade point average.

h. Plaintiff lost certain personal property, which has yet to

be returned to him, to wit:

1. a SONY transistor radio;

2. approximately twenty books;

3. items of clothing;

4. certain legal material.

42. These conditions of confinement imposed by the De-

fendants and their agents were severely punitive and re-

sulted in the infliction of substantial grievous loss on Plaintiff

Cain.

43. Plaintiff Cain was placed and held in L Block segrega-

tion unit in violation of due process of law, in that:

a. Plaintiff Cain received no written notice of the charge of

posssession of contraband prior to his hearing before the

I.D.C. on February 21, 1975;

b. Plaintiff Cain was not confronted with any substantive

evidence on either of the two charges on which he was found

guilty by the I.D.C. on February 21, 1975.

44. Plaintiff Cain’s confinement in segregation and loss of

good time as punishment for the above disciplinary convic-

tions were in violation of his right to due process of law

guaranteed him by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

45. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ viola-

tions of Plaintiff Cain’s Fifth Amendment rights as set forth

above, Plaintiff Cain suffered lost wages, detriment to his

educational progress, delay in the effective date of his

parole, anxiety, mental anguish, and physical and psycholog-

ical harm.

XI. COUNT EIGHT

46. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-45 as if fully set forth

herein.

47. While confined in L Block segregation unit at the U.S.

Penintentiary at Terre Haute, Plaintiff Cain had access to

only an inadequate law library.

48. Plaintiff Cain’s confinement in segregation as punish-

ment for the above disciplinary convictions infringed on his

right to access to the courts, guaranteed him by the Sixth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

49. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ viola-

tions of Plaintiff Cain’s Sixth Amendment rights as set forth

above, Plaintiff Cain suffered lost wages, detriment to his

educational progress, delay in the effective date of his

— anxiety, mental anguish, and physical and psycholog-

XII. COUNT NINE

50. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-49 as if fully set forth

herein.

51. The severely punitive conditions of confinement

imposed by the Defendants and their agents, the length of

Plaintiff Cain’s confinement, and the loss of good time consti-

tuted both cruel and unusual and disproportionate punish-

ment, in violation of Plaintiff Cain’s rights guaranteed him

by the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. |

52. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ viola-

tions of Plaintiff Cain’s Eighth Amendment rights as set

forth above, Plaintiff Cain suffered lost wages, detriment to

his educational progress, delay in the effective date of his

= a mental anguish, and physical and psycholog-

XILl. COUNT TEN

53. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-10 as if fully sei forth

_ — November 11, 1975, and November 24, 1975,

Plaintiff Cain suffered the following deprivations as a result

of conduct of the Defendants:

a. On November 11, 1975, without any provocation by

Plaintiff Cain, defendant Wilson physically abused Plaintiff

Cain, to wit: Defendant Wilson threw Plaintiff Cain against a

wall, knocked Plaintiff Cain’s eyeglasses to the ground, and

punched Plaintiff Cain numerous times. At no time did Plain-

tiff Cain strike Defendant Wilson.

b. From November 13, 1975, to Novemer 24, 1975, Plain-

tiff Cain was placed on unit restriction by the Defedants.

55. While on unit restriction, Plaintiff Cain was subject to

conditions of confinement which were markedly more re-

strictive than those in general population without unit re-

striction, in that:

a. Plaintiff was denied recreation:

b. Plaintiff was noi allowed to attend meetings;

c. Plaintiff was denied access to the law library;

d. Plaintiff was denied access to the educational facilities;

e. Plaintiff was denied access to commissary.

56. These deprivations as a result of the conduct of the

Defendants and their agents were severely punitive and re-

sulted in the infliction of substantial grievous loss on Plaintiff

Cain.

57. Plaintiff Cain suffered these deprivations in violation

of due process of law, in that he was never charged with any

disciplinary offense with regard to these events nor received

a hearing of any kind with attendant procedural safeguards.

58. The deprivations suffered by Plaintiff Cain between

November 11, 1975, and November 24, 1975, as a result of

the conduct of the Defendants were in violation of his right

to due process of law guaranteed him by the Fifth Amend-

ment to the U.S. Constitution.

59. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ viola-

tions of Plaintiff Cain’s Fifth Amendment rights as set forth

above, Plaintiff Cain suffered lost wages, detriment to his

educational progress, delay in the effective date of his

SS a eee

XIV. COUNT ELEVEN

60. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 53-59 as if fully set forth

61. The deprivations suffered by Plaintiff Cain between

November 11, 1975, and November 24, 1975, as a result of

the conduct of the Defendants constituted both cruel and un-

usual and disproportionate punishment, in violation of Plain-

tiff Cain’s rights guaranteed him by the Eighth Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution.

62. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ viola-

tions of Plaintiff Cain’s Eighth Amendment rights as set

forth above, Plaintiff Cain suffered lost wages, detriment to

his educational progress, delay in the effective date of his

a a eee

XV. COUNT TWELVE

63. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-62 as if fully set forth

herein.

64. At all times Defendant Benson was aware of Plaintiffs’

illegal and unconstitutional confinement and yet refused to

allow plaintiffs to be released from such segregation.

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant

Benson's failure to release Plaintiffs from the illegal confine-

XVI. RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this court:

A. Order that Plaintiff Cain be compensated for any and

all personal property seized from Plaintiff Cain.

B. Order that Plaintiffs be compensated for the back

wages not earned because of the illegal conduct of the De-

fendants and their agents.

C. Order that Defendants compensate Plaintiff Cain for

one new pair of eyeglasses.

D. Order that Plaintiff Saxner be awarded thirty five

thousand dollars ($35,000) and Plaintiff Cain be awarded

forty thousand dollars ($40,000) to compensate them for anx-

iety, mental anguish, physical and psychological harm, and

detriment to educational progress.

E. Order such other and further relief as this court deems

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

Case No. TH 75-47-C

DAVID SAXNER AND ALFRED CAIN, JR., PLAINTIFFS

vs.

CHARLES BENSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Reconsideration of Dismissal of Defendants Marcadis,

Cleavenger [sic], and Lockett. The parties have supplied the

Court with authority for their respective positions.

The Defendants Cleavenger [sic], Marcadis, and Lockett

were initially dismissed from this action when the holding in

Butz v. Economou, 434 U.S. 478 (1978) was extended to

grant absolute immunity to the members of the Institution

Discipline Committee (1.D.C.) which was made up of the

abeve three Defendants in this case. Since the Court's rul-

ing, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sev-

enth Cireuit in Mary and Crystal v. Gerald Ramsden et al,

Nos. 78-1954 and 78-1955 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 1980), held that

the I.D.C. at a Wisconsin juvenile correctional institution

was not entitled to absolute immunity under the doctrines

espoused in Butz v. Economou, supra. The Court stated:

We think this function of imposing discipline more simi-

lar to that of the school board members in Wood v.

Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975) than to that of a judge.

While the 1.D.C. members at a federal prison may perform

more functions similar to that of a judge than I.D.C. mem-

bers at a Wisconsin juvenile federal correctional institution,

the Seventh Circuit’s holding as stated above shows a gen-

eral inclination on the part of the appellate courts of the

country not to extend absolute immunity doctrine to mem-

bers of 1.D.C.’s. Consequently, the Court finds that Defend-

nity as a defense.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED at Terre haute, Indiana this 24th day of April,

1981.

COPIES TO:

ROBERT KENDALL

Special Litigation Service

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

BUREAU OF PRISONS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20587

POLICY STATEMENT

7400.5C

SUBJECT: INMATE DISCIPLINE

10-4-74

1. PURPOSE. This statement of policy is to assure that

inmate discipline and control are fully consonant with the

correctional objectives of the institution, the focus being on

(a) individual inmate adjustment to the programs, behavior

standards, and limitations necessarily imposed by the admin-

istration; (b) the general welfafe and safety of the institu-

tional community; and, (c) the incorporation of due process

standards for inmate disciplinary hearings as prescribed by

the Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, U.S. —, 94

Ct. 2963, _ L.Ed 2d —_ (1974).

2. DIRECTIVES AFFECTED. Policy Statements

7400.5B and 7400.6A are superceded.

3. POLICY. It is the policy of the Federal Bureau of Pris-

ons to maintain an institutional climate in all of its facilities

so that every inmate may complete his term of confinement

with a minimum of corrosive effect and a maximum gain in

his ability .o more adequately maintain a successful commu-

nity adjustment following release. In order that the majority

of inmates might live in a safe and orderly environment, it is

necessary that those individuals whose behavior is in non-

compliance with institution rules be brought to the attention

of the eppropriate authorities.

Disciplinary action is but one factor in correctional treat-

ment and control. There are other individualized correctional

programs and goals that shall be given consideration by the

administration. The objective of this approach is the future

voluntary acceptance of institution regulations which are re-

quired for the general welfare of the institution community

and serve as an aid to law-abiding behavior following

release.

4. ACTION. A single Institution Discipline Committee

will be established in each Bureau of Prisons Institution. The

Committee will be composed of at least three (3) members,

these lesser sanctions will be delegated to staff mem-

the inmate's unit.

Each institution having the need for facilities to house in-

life, property, himself, staff, other inmates or to the security

of the institution, and where the inmate:

(a) Is pending a hearing for a violation of institution

rules or regulations;

tution rules or

(d) Requests admission to the administrative deten-

tion area for his own protection; or

(e) Is in holdover status during transfer;

(f) Pending classification.

An inmate may be placed in disciplinary segregation

where his continued presence in the general population

5. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. The following general prin-

ciples shall be applicable in every disciplinary action taken:

(a) Disciplinary action shall be taken at such times

and in such measures and degree as is necessary to reg-

ulate an inmate's behavior within acceptable limits;

(b) Inmate behavior shall be controlled in a com-

(d) Corporal punishment of any kind is strictly

(e) Accurate, detailed reports of disciplinary actions

shall be maintained in accordance with the require-

ments of this policy statement.

6. INFORMATION TO INMATES. Each inmate is to be

advised in writing at the time of arrival at an institution of:

(a) His rights and responsibilities;

(b) Acts prohibited in the institutions;

taken, and

(d) The disciplinary system within the institution.

This information wil! be provided in booklet or pamphiet

form as part of the adnussion orientation program. A signed

receipt will be obtained from each inmate acknowledging

that he has received a copy of the booklet or pamphiet.

(e) Rights and Responsibilities

RIGHTS

1. You have the right te expect

that as a human being you will be

treated respectfully. umpartially.

and faurly by all persennel.

2. You have the right te be in

formed of the rules, procedures.

and schedules concerning the oper-

athon of the imstitutien.

3. You have the right te freedom of

relynous affihatien. and voluntary

religous worshap.

4. You have the right te health

eare which includes nutritious

meals. proper bedding and cloth-

mg. and a laundry schedule for

cleanliness of the same. an oppertu-

nity te shower regularly, proper

ventilatien for warmth and fresh

ar. a regular exercise permed. toslet

articles and medical and dental

treat ment

5. You have the right te visit and

correspond with family members.

and frends. and correspond with

members of the news media in

keepeng with the factity rules and

schedules. You also have a right to

uncensored and uninspected out go

ing correspondence with members

of the news media through the

Prisoners Mail Box System. Let-

ters forwarded to the aews media

through PMB are subject to the

regulations of that System.

6. You have the right te unre

streted and confidential access to

the courts by correspendence (on

matters such as the legality of your

conviction, civil matters, pending

crvminal cases. and to conditions of

Jour IR pMsanment |

(f) Prohibited Acts in Federal Penal and Correc-

tional Institutions

receiving money or any thing of value in return for

Destroying, altering, or damaging government prop-

erty, or the property of another person

Stealing (theft)

Tampering with or blocking any locking device

Adulteration of any food or drink

Possession or introduction of an explosive or any am-

munition

Possession or introduction of a gun, firearm, weapon,

sharpened instrument, knife, or unauthorized tool

Possession, introduction, or use of any narcotics, nar-

cotie paraphernalia, drugs, or intoxicants not pre-

scribed for the individual by the medical staff

Misuse of authorized medication

Possession of money or currency, unless specifically

authorized

Possession of property belonging to another person

Loaning of property or anything of value for profit or

increased return

Possession of any thing not authorized for retention

or receipt by the inmate, and not issued to him

through regular institutional channels

Possessing any officer’s or staff clothing

Possessing unauthorized clothing

Mutilating or altering clothing issued by the govern-

ment

Rioting

Encouraging others to riot

Engaging in, or encouraging, a group demonstration

Refusing to work, or to accept a program assignment

Encouraging others to refuse to work or participate

in work stoppage

Refusing to obey an order of any staff member

Violating a condition of furlough

Unexcused absence from work, or any assignment

Malingering, feigning an illness

Failing to perform work as instructed by a supervisor

Insolence towards a staff member

Lying or providing a false statement to a staff mem-

ber

Conduct which disrupts or interferes with the secu-

rity or orderly running of the institution

351

SEEERRRESE & BSE S

S828

751

752

801

Counterfeiting, forging, or unauthorized reproduc-

tion of any document, article of identification, money,

security, or official paper

Participating in an unauthorized meeting or gather-

ing

Being in an unauthorized area

Failure to follow safety or sanitation regulations

Using any equipment or machinery which is not spe-

cifically authorized

Using any equipment or machinery contrary to in-

structions or posted safety standards

Failing to stand count

Interfering with the taking of count

Making intoxicants

Being intoxicated

~ rage hor na prohibited

sing ive or obscene language

Gambling

Preparing or conducting a gambling pool

Possession of gambling paraphernalia

Being unsanitary or untidy: failing to keep one’s

person and one’s quarters in accordance with posted

standards

Tattooing or self-mutilation

Unauthorized use of mail or telephone

Unauthorized contacts with the public

Correspondence or conduct with a visitor in violation

of posted regulations

Giving or offering any official or staff member a

bribe, or anything of value

Giving money or any thing of value to, or accepting

money or any thing of value from; another inmate, a

member of his family, or his friend

Attempting to commit any of the above offenses, aid-

ing another person to commit any of the above of-

fenses, and making plans to commit any of the above

offenses shall be considered the same as a commission

of the offense itself.

7. INCIDENT REPORT AND INVESTIGATION.

(a) Incident Report: Informal resolution of incidents

involving violations of institution rules or regulations is

encouraged. However, where an employee witnesses or

has a reasonable belief that a violation of institution

rules or regulations has been committed by an inmate,

and where the employee deems that informal resolution

of the incident is unwarranted, the empayes Gas pre

The reporting employee should complete Part 1 of tiie

incident report immediately. The incident is to be one of

the Prohibited Acts listed in paragraph 6(f) of this pol-

icy statement. The entire language of the Prohibited

Act(s) does not have to be copied. Only the relevant

portion need be used. example, “Destroying Govern-

ment Property, Code No. 152,” “Possessing narcotics,

Code No. 801” would be acceptable listings for appro-

charges.

The description of the incident should contain the de-

tails of the activity which is being reported. All facts

about the incident which are known by the employee

ing employee should also list any staff or inmate

witnesses to the incident, and the disposition of any

the emplo have personally handled. The report-

ing employes will clgn the report and indicate his title

in the appropriate blocks. The incident report should

then be forwarded to the appropriate correctional su-

pervisor for disposition.

(b) Investigation: The investigation should be con-

ordinarily be an employee of supervisory level and may

not be the employee reporting the particular incident i in

question. Where it appears likely that the incident may

be the subject of a criminal prosecution, investigation

should be suspended and the inmate should not be ques-

tioned until the FBI interviews have been completed.

(See Policy Statement 2200.1.)

Ordinarily, an inmate will be given a copy of the inci-

dent report by the investigating officer at the beginning

of the investigation. If the investigation is delayed for

any reason, any employee may deliver the charges to

the inmate. The date and time the inmate receives a

copy of the Incident Report will be noted. This should

be done within eight (8) hours from the time the investi-

gator received his assignment, unless there are excep-

tional circumstances which prevent it. The investigator

should also read the charges to the inmate and obtain

his statement concerning the incident, except as pro-

vided above. Comment about the inmate's attitude may

be included here.

The investigator should then thoroughly investigate

the incident. He should talk to witnesses, and summe.

rize their statements. The disposition of evidence

should be recorded. Often, he will want to talk to the

reporting employee to obtain his report first hand and

to clarify any questions the investigator may have. All

steps and actions taken should be recorded on the inci-

dent report.

Under Comments and Conclusions, the investigator

may include his comments on the inmate's prior record

and behavior, his analysis of any conflicts between

witnesses, and his conclusions of what in fact happened.

The inmate does not receive a copy of the investigation.

However, should the case ultimately be forwarded to

the Institution Discipline Committee, the investigation

should be given to the inmate's staff representative for

use in presentation on the inmate’s behalf.

8. MINOR DISPOSITIONS. The Chief Executive Officer

of each institution shall delegate to such persons he selects

the authority to impose minor dispositions and sanctions for

violations of institution rules or regulations. Where the insti-

tution has a unit management system, the authority to

impose minor dispositions and sanctions shall be delegated to

staff member of an inmate’s unit. Minor dispositions and

tion rules or regulations other than segregation, withholding

or forfeiture of good time, and transfer for disciplinary rea-

sons. While the process by which minor dispositions are

imposed is left to the discretion of the Chief Executive Offi-

apply throughout the Bureau of Prisons:

(a) Each inmate charged with violating an institution

rule or regulation shall be given a written copy of the

charge or charges against him within 24 hours of the

(b) Each inmate so charged will be entitied to a hear-

ing held within 48 hours (excluding weekends and holi-

days) of the incident to consider the charge brought

against him.

(d) The inmate will be afforded the opportunity to

make a statement and to present documentary evidence

in his own behalf.

_(e) The inmate will be given a written copy of the de-

(g) When charges are to be referred to the Institution

Discipline Committee, the inmate shall be advised of

- INSTITUTION DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE.

(a) Composition: The Chief Executive Officer may

that virtual!y every staff member has witnessed it in

a member of the Institution Discipline Committee if he

members to this Committee who are broadly represent-

ative of the primary areas of institutional administra-

tion and who are fully knowledgeable of the require-

ments of this policy statement and of the functions of

Inmate Discipline.

(b) Functions: The Institution Discipline Committee

shall conduct hearings, make findings, and may impose

appropriate sanctions on incidents of inmate misconduct

referred to it for disposition in accordance with the due

process standards as listed below. While this Commit-

tee may impose any lesser sanctions available, only this

Committee will have the authority to order: (1) an in-

mate placed in disciplinary segregation, (2) an inmate’s

good time withheld or forfeited, or (3) an inmate

transferred to another institution for disciplinary rea-

sons. This Committee will also conduct reviews of in-

mates placed in disciplinary segregation in accordance

with requirements listed below.

placed in disciplinary segregation, or have his good time

withheld or forfeited, or be transferred to another insti-

tution for disciplinary reasons unless there has been a

fact-finding hearing before the Institution Discipline

Committee in which the following procedures have been

satisfied:

(1) An inmate will be given advance written notice

of the charge(s) against him no less than 24 hours be-

fore his appearance before the Institution Discipline

Committee. An inmate may waive in writing this 24

hour notice requirement.

(2) An inmate will be provided the service of a full-

time staff member to represent him at the hearing

before the Institution Discipline Committee should he

so desire. The Chairman shall arrange for the pres-

ence of a selected staff representative. If the staff

member selected declines cr is unavailable because of

absence from the institution, the inmate should be

given the options of selecting another representative,

or in the case of an absent staff member, of waiting a

reasonable period for his return, or continuing the

hearing without a staff representative. A staff repre-

sentative should be given adequate time to speak

with the inmate and interview requested witnesses

where appropriate. While it is expected that a staff

member will have had ample time to prepare prior to

the hearing, delays in the hearing to allow for ade-

quate preparation may be ordered by the Chairman

of the Institution Discipline Committee.

(3) An inmate will be permitted to have witnesses

called and to present documents in his behalf, pro-

vided the calling of witnesses or the disclosure of doc-

umentary evidence would not jeopardize or threaten

institutional security. The Chairman will call those

witnesses he deems reasonably available and neces-

sary for an appreciation of the circumstances sur-

rounding the charge. Repetitive witnesses need not

be called. Unavailable witnesses may be asked to

submit written statements. Reasons for declining to

call requested witnesses will be documented in the

Committee’s report. Witnesses requested by the in-

mate who are called should be questioned by his staff

representative or where staff representation has

been waived, by members of the Committee. In-

mates who have waived the services of a staff repre-

sentative may submit questions for requested

witnesses in writing to the Committee.

(4) The Institution Discipline Committee will pre-

pare a record of its proceedings which need not be

verbatim. This record must be sufficient to document

the advisement of inmate rights, the Committee’s

findings, the Committee’s decision, the specific evi-

dence relied on by the Committee, and a brief state-

ment of the reasons for the sanctions imposed. The

evidence relied upon for the decision and the reasons

for the actions taken should be set out in specific

terms unless doing so would jeopardize institutional

security. (A sample form that may be used to advise

an inmate of his rights at an Institution Discipline

Committee hearing is attached to this policy

statement. )

(5) An inmate will be permitted to be present

throughout the Institution Discipline Committee

hearing except during deliberations of the Committee

and except where institutional security would be

jeopardized. The reasons for excluding an inmate

from the hearing must be well documented in the rec-

ord. A hearing may be conducted in the absence of an

inmate where the inmate refuses to appear and he

cannot be brought to the hearing without the use of

force. When an inmate escapes from custody, the In-

stitution Discipline Committee will conduct a hearing

in the inmate’s absence at the institution from which

the escape occurred. When an inmate who has had

sanctions imposed (such as loss of good time) while

absent from custody, returns to custody, he will be

advised of his right to have the escape charge

brought beiore the Institution Discipline committee

at the institution where he returned to custody. All

the procedural requirements of Institution Discipline

Committee hearings will apply to this rehearing ex-

cept written statements of witnesses not readily

available may be liberally used instead of live

witnesses. The Institution Discipline Committee,

upon rehearing, may dismiss the charge, or may

modify but may not increase the sanctions previously

imposed in the inmate’s absence.

(d) Dispositions of the Institution Discipline Com-

mittee: The Institution Discipline Committee shall have

available a broad range of sanctions and dispositions.

These dispositions and sanctions will include the

following:

The Institution Discipline Committee may

(1) Dismiss any charge(s) before it where appropri-

ate and shall order the record of charges expunged

where the inmate has been determined innocent of

the charge(s).

(2) Impose sanctions and dispositions available to

the person or persons designated to impose minor

dispositions.

(3) Direct that an inmate be placed or retained in

disciplinary segregation pursuant to guidelines con-

tained in this policy statement.

(4) Direct that an inmate’s good time be withheld.

Withholding of good time should be limited to miscon-

duct or offenses; it should not be applied as a univer-

sal punishment to all persons in disciplinary segrega-

tion status. Withholding shall be limited to the good

time creditable for the single month during which the

violation occurs. (Some offenses, such as refusal to

work at an assignment, may be recurring, and thus

may permit consecutive withholding actions.) With-

held good time may be considered for restoration at

any time.

(5) Direct that an inmate’s good time be forfeited.

The good time available for forfeiture is limited to an

amount computed by multiplying the number of

months served at the time of the offense for which

forfeiture action is taken, by the applicable monthly

rate specified in 18 United States Code, Section 4161

(less any previous forfeiture or withholding outstand-

ing), plus extra good time which may have been

earned to the date of the offense. All or part of an in-

mate’s accumulated good time may be forfeited. Au-

thority to restore all types of forfeited and withheld

good time is delegated to the Institution Discipline

Committee of each institution. Forfeited good time

may be considered for restoration at any time.

(6) Direct that an inmate be transferred to another

institution for disciplinary reasons. Where a present

or impending emergency requires immediate action,

an inmate may be transferred prior to an Institution

Discipline Committee hearing. However, a hearing

before the Institution Discipline Committee at the

receiving institution must be conducted as soon as

practicable under the circumstances to consider the

factual basis of the charge of misconduct and the rea-

sons for the emergency transfer. Transfers for disci-

plinary reasons prior to a hearing before the Institu-

tion Discipline Committee are to be used only in

emergency situations and only with the approval of

the receiving Regional Director. However, when an

inmate is transferred under these circumstances, the

sending institution will forward copies of incident re-

ports with completed investigation to the receiving

institution for purposes of the hearing before the

receiving institution’s Institution Discipline Commit-

tee. All procedural requirements applicable to Insti-

tution Discipline Committee hearings contained in

paragraph 9 (c) of this policy statement will be util-

ized, except written statements of unavailable

witnesses may be liberally accepted instead of live

testimony.

(7) Suspend the execution of any sanction it

imposes.

(e) Criminal Prosecutions: Where an inmate’s mis-

conduct may also be the subject of a criminal prosecu-

tion, it is not necessary to await the outcome of the

criminal trial before taking disciplinary action, espe-

cially if there is reason to believe there will be a long

delay before the trial is held. An inmate under investi-

gation of the FBI or other law enforcement officers for

an offense committee in the institution may not be ques-

tioned about the charge until the FBI interviews are

completed. An inmate who is the subject of criminal

prosecution for institutional violations will not be

transferred from the jurisdiction of the trial court with-

out the consent of the appropriate United States Attor-

ney or the Court in which the trial is pending.

10. APPEALS FROM INSTITUTION DISCIPLINE

COMMITTEE ACTIONS. At the time the Institution Disci-

pline Committee gives an inmate notice of its decision, the

Committee will also advise the inmate that he may appeal

the Committee’s decision to the Chief Executive Officer. Ap-

peals must be filed no later than thirty (30) days after notice

of the decision. This time limit may be extended for good

cause shown. An inmate wishing to appeal any disciplinary

action imposed as a result of a hearing before the Institution

Discipline Committee must use the procedures and forms

provided for by Policy Statement 2001.6A (Administrative

Remedy of Complaints Initiated by Offenders in Bureau of

Prisons Facilities). The Chief Executive Officer may ap-

prove, modify, or reverse any disciplinary action of the Insti-

tution Discipline Committee as he deems appropriate. This

authority may not be delegated. The Chief Executive Officer

may not increase the amount of forfeiture imposed.

An inmate may appeal an adverse decision of the Chief

Executive Officer through the appeal procedures contained

in Policy Statement 2001.6A to the appropriate Regional Di-

rector. Appeals to the Regional Director from adverse deci-

sions from the Chief Executive Officer must be filed no later

than thirty (30) days from the date of the Chief Executive

Officer’s decision.

Additionally, appeals of adverse decision from the Re-

gional Director may be made to the Assistant Director, Gen-

eral Counsel and Review within thirty (30) days of the deci-

sion from the Regional Director.

On appeal the following factors will be considered:

(a) Was there substantial compliance with the Policy

Statement on Inmate Discipline?

(b) Was the decision of the Institution Discipline

Committee based on substantial evidence?

imposed disproportionate to the offense?

11. SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS. Each institution hav-

ing the need for facilities to house inmates separate from the

general population will establish special housing units

consisting of two types: Administrative Detention and Disci-

plinary Segregation. (Some institutions may also have a fa-

cility for long-term control unit programs—see Policy State-

ment 7300.80.) Special Housing Units will be maintained in

accordance with the policies and procedures contained in this

policy statement.

(a) Administrative Detention: Administrative Deten-

tion is the status of confinement which results in a loss

of some privileges which the inrhate would have if as-

signed to the general population. Administrative Deten-

tion is to be used only where the continued presence of

the inmate in general population poses a serious threat

to life, property, himself, other inmates, staff members

or the security of the institution.

(1) Placement in Administrative Detention: An in-

mate may be placed in Administrative Detention by

persons designated by the Chief Executive Officer.

These persons may be correctional supervisors, shift

supervisors or members of an inmate’s unit or team.

An inmate may be placed in Administrative Deten-

tion for any of the following reasons:

a. Pending a hearing for a violation of institution

rules or regulations;

b. Pending an investigation of a possible viola-

tion of an institution rule, but where charges have

yet to be lodged;

c. Pending investigation or trial for crimes

committed in the institution;

d. An inmate requests admission to the Adminis-

trative Detention area for his own protection;

e. An inmate in holdover status awaiting trans-

fer; or

f. Pending classification.

A memorandum detailing the reason for placing an

inmate in Administrative Detention will be prepared

and given to members of the inmate’s unit or team,

with a copy to the Operations Supervisor of the

Administrative Detention Unit. A copy of this memo-

randum will also be given to the inmate provided in-

stitutional security is not thereby compromised.

(2) Review of Inmates Housed in Administrative

Detention: The Chief Executive Officer shall desig-

nate such person or persons he deems appropriate to

review the status of inmates housed in Administra-

tive Detention. Normally the Operations Supervisor

of the Administrative Detention unit or members of

the inmate’s unit or team should be delegated this au-

thority. Initial placement shall be accomplished by

means of a memorandum detailing the reasons for

this action. Thereafter, the reviewing authority will

review the status of each inmate at least once a

week. The reviewing authority will formally review

each inmate who spends ten (10) continuous days in

Administrative Detention, and thereafter such cases

will be formally reviewed at least -. sry 30 days. The

inmate shll appear before the reviewing authority at

such formal reviews unless the inmate refuses to ap-

pear without the use of force. Administrative Deten-

tion is to be used only for short periods of time ex-

cept where an inmate needs long-term protection. An

inmate may be kept in Administrative Detention for

long-term protection where the need for such protec-

tion is well documented. Inmates shall be released

when the reason for their initial placement ceases to

exist or where their return to general population

would no longer pose a serious threat to themselves,

to staff or other inmates or the security of the

institution.

(3) Conditions of Administrative Detention: The

basic level of conditions as described below for Disci-

plinary Segregation will also apply to Administrative

Detention. To the extent possible, inmates housed in

Administrative Detention will be afforded the same

general privileges given to inmates in general popula-

tion as is consistent with existing resources available

and the security needs of the unit. Unless there are

compelling reasons to the contrary, institutions

should provide commissary privileges, reasonable

amounts of personal property, and exercise periods

exceeding those provided for inmates housed in Disci-

plinary Segregation. Visiting and correspondence

privileges of the general population should be given

inmates in Administrative Detention.

(b) Disciplinary Segregation: Disciplinary Segrega-

tion is the status of confinement of an inmate housed in

an individual cell either by himself or with other in-

mates, separated from the general population, as a re-

sult of a hearing before the Institution Discipline Com-

mittee in which the inmate has been found to have

committed a prohibited act. Inmates housed in Discipli-

nary Segregation will have significantly fewef privi-

leges than those housed in Administrative Detention.

Disciplinary Segregation is to be used only where other

available dispositions are inadequate to regulate an in-

mate’s behavior within acceptable limits and where the

inmate’s presence in the general population poses a se-

rious threat to life, property, to himself, staff or other

inmates or the security of the institution.

(1) Placement in Disciplinary Segreation: An in-

mate may be placed in Disciplinary Segregation only

by direction of the Institution Discipline Committee

following a hearing in which the inmate has been

found to have committed a serious act of misconduct

which warrants this serious sanction. Inmates found

to have committed serious acts of misconduct should

not be placed in Disciplinary Segregation unless their

presence in general population would pose a serious

threat to staff or other inmates or to the security of

the institution.

(2) Keview of Inmates in Disciplinary Segregation:

Inmates placed in Disciplinary Segregation will be re-

viewed by the Institution Discipline Committee at

least once a week on the record. The Committee will

formally review the cases of all inmates who spend

ten (10) continuous days in Disciplinary Segregation,

and thereafter such cases will be formally reviewed

at least every thirty (30) days. The inmate shall ap-

pear before the Institution Discipline Committee at

such formal reviews unless the inmate refuses to ap-

pear without the use of force.

There will be a psychiatric or psychological inter-

view when Disciplinary Segregation continues be-

yond thirty (30) days. The interview and report

should address the inmate’s adjustment to his sur-

roundings and the threat the inmate poses to himself,

staff and other inmates. A similar psychiatric or psy-

chological interview and report will be made at sub-

sequent two month intervals should segregation con-

tinue for this extended period.

An inmate shall be released from Disciplinary Seg-

regation when he no longer poses a threat to himself,

or others or to institutional security and when the In-

stitution Discipline Committee determines that con-

tinuation in Disciplinary Segregation is no longer nec-

essary to regulate an inmate’s behavior within

acceptable limits. The time an inmate spends in Disci-

plinary Segregation must be proportionate to the of-

fense committed, taking into consideration the in-

mate’s prior conduct, his specific program needs, and

other relevant factors.

(3) Conditions of Disciplinary Segreation:

(a) Basie living levels of decency and humane

treatment must be maintained, regardless of the

purpose for which a man has been segregated.

Privileges may be added, for the purpose of

reinforcing acceptable behavior, to the living con-

ditions of those whose status is purely involuntary,

or whose confinement is long-term. These should

not result in excessively time-consuming proce-

dures, or neutralize security or shakedown

procedures.

(b) When different levels of living arrangements

are effected, because of the difference in purpose

of segregation, the differential facilities should be

separated physically in ways that materials al-

lowed to one person are not passed to others to

whom they are not allowed.

1. Segregation Conditions: The quarters used

for segregation shall be well ventilated, ade-

quately lighted, appropriately heated and main-

tained in a sanitary condition at all times. All

cells will be equipped with beds. The beds may

be securely fastened to the floor or wall of the

cell according to the desires and needs of each

individual institution. Strip cells will not be a

part of the Segregation Unit. Any strip cells

which will be utilized will be a part of the medi-

cal facility and under the supervision and control

of the medical staff.

2. Cell Occupancy: Except in emergencies the

number of inmates confined to each cell or room

shall not exceed the number for which the space

was designed. Whenever an emergency arises

which indicates that excess occupancy may be

temporarily needed, an immediate report shall

be made to the head of the institution and his

approval obtained.

3. Clothing and Bedding: All inmates shall be

admitted to segregation dressed in normal insti-

tution clothing after a thorough search for con-

traband but without belt and shall be furnished

a mattress and bedding. Cloth or paper slippers

may be substituted for shoes at the discretion of

the Warden. An inmate shall not be segregated

without clothing, mattress, blankets and pillow,

except when prescribed by Medical Officer for

medical or psychiatric reasons. If an inmate is so

seriously disturbed that he is likely to destroy

his clothing or bedding or create a disturbance

which would be seriously detrimental to others,

the Medical Department shall be notified imme-

diately and a regimen of treatment and control

instituted with the concurrence of the Medical

Officer.

4. Food: As prescribed in existing regula-

tions, segregated inmates shall be fed the nor-

mal institution meals on the standard ration and

menu of the day for the institution. Disposable

utensils may be used when necessary.

5. Personal Hygiene: Segregated inmates

shall have the opportunity to maintain an ac-

ceptable level of personal hygiene, e.g. toilet tis-

sue, wash basin, tooth brushing, eye glasses,

sia ae a

etc. When necessary, for reasons of safety or se-

curity, a retrievable kit of toilet articles may be

issued. Each segregated inmate should shave

and shower at least two (2) times a week, unless

these procedures would present an undue secu-

rity hazard.

6. Exercise: Each segregated inmate shall be

permitted no less than two (2) hours exercise

each week. Exercise should be provided in two

(2), one (1) hour periods, but if circumstances re-

quire, one-half hour periods are acceptable if the

two (2) hour minimum is maintained. This provi-

sion must be carried out unless compelling secu-

rity or safety reasons dictate otherwise and

these shall be documented.

7. Personal Property: Personal property will

ordinarily be impounded.

8. Reading Material: Ordinarily, it may be

provided on a circulating basis.

9. Supervision. In addition to the direct su-

pervision afforded by the unit officer each segre-

gated inmate shall be seen daily by a member of

the Medical Department, and one or more other

responsible officer(s) designated in the loca! pol-

icy issuance.

10. Correspondence and Visits: Social corre-

spondence privileges shall be continued in segre-

gation unless there exist compelling reasons to

the contrary. Every effort will be made to notify

approved social visitors of any necessary restric-

tion on ordinary visiting procedures so that they

may be spared disappointment and unnecessary

inconvenience. If ample time for correspondence

exists, the burden of this notification may be

placed on the inmate. In respect to legal, reli-

gious, and PMB matters, the relevant policy

statements should be followed.

11. Records:

a. A permanent log will be maintained in

the segregation unit. All admissions will be

recorded indicating date, reason for admis-

sion, and the authorizing official. All releases

from the unit will be similarly recorded. Offi-

cials required to visit the unit will sign this

log, giving time and date of visit. Unusual ac-

tivity or behavior of indivdual inmates will be

recorded in the log with a follow-up memoran-

dum through the head of the institution for

the inmate’s file. This will include any misbe-

havior which should be recorded and reported

to the Institution Discipline Committee.

b. A Special Housing Unit Record Sheet

(BP-IS-111) wili also be maintained in accord-

ance with the following instructions, and sent

to the institution’s central file.

1. The Key at the bottom of the form is

self-explanatory.

2. The basic information at the top of the

form, with the exception of the date and

time of release, will be completed by the

Officer in Charge/Unit Officer at time of

admittance.

3. The form provides space for a period

of up to ten (10) days. The date column will

be recorded daily, the shift line will be com-

pleted commencing so as to coincide with

the date and time the inmate is admitted as

reflected at the top of the form.

4. The Officer in Charge/Unit Officer will

sign the form in the space provided on line

with the shift as indicated. Initials of the of-

ficer are not acceptable.

5. The Physician’s Assistant will indicate

by his signature in the proper space when

an inmate received medication, is examined

by a Medical Officer or Physician’s Assist-

ant, or request [sic] to see a member of the

medical staff. If no medication is received

or request made during a shift, the officer

may so indicate by recording “NO (N)” in

the column.

6. The form is designed for a ten (10) day

period, if confinement to segregation con-

tinues beyond a ten (10) day period, a new

form will be prepared and the completed

form forwarded to central file. Date and

time of release will be recorded on the final

form.

7. Additional comments may be noted on

the reverse of the form and in each case,

must be dated and inciude the signature

and title of the person making the

comment.

12. Forms:

a. Notice of Institute Discipline Committee

Hearing (BP-IS-114), Locally Reproduced,

b. Inmate Rights at Institution Discipline

Committee Hearing (BP-IS-113), Locally

Reproduced,

ec. Special Housing Record Sheet

(BP-IS-111), Locally Reproduced. See Policy

Statement 20,001.1B, Note: Title change must

be entered manually on existing stock of

forms. New forms will include these changes,

d. Incident Report (BP-IS-83A), Secured

through regular FPI procurement sources,

Note: See Policy Statement 7400.5C, Page 6

for change to Item 254, and addition of Item

257 which must be entered manually on ex-

isting stocks of forms. New forms will include

these changes, and

e. Institution Discipline Committee Report

(BP-IS-115), Locally Reproduced.

/s/

NORMAN A. CARLSON

Director, Bureau of Prisons

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

BUREAU OF PRISONS

INCIDENT REPORT

1. NAME OF INSTITUTION

USP—tTerre Haute, Indiana

PART I—INCIDENT REPORT

2. NAME OF INMATE

SAXNER, David

3. REGISTER NUMBER

28759-138

4. DATE OF INCIDENT

02-14-75

5. TIME

11:00 A.M.

6. PLACE OF INCIDENT

D-Unit

7. ASSIGNMENT

Unit Janitor

8. QUARTERS

D-Unit

9. INCIDENT

ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO REFUSE TO WORK.

10. CODE

255

11. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

For the last few days this inmate has been encouraging a

work stoppage by having others go out into the industries area to

encourage this stoppage. This individual has also been observed

moving about the entire institution and from information received,

has been encoura~ing a work stoppage.

12. SIGNATURE OF REPORTING EMPLOYEE

/s/ G.D. Wilson

13. NAME AND TITLE (PxiNTED)

G.D. WILSON, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR

14. INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED TO ABOVE INMATE

/s/ (Illegible)

15. DATE INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED

2-15-75

16. TIME INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED

10:00 a.m.

1 commen bay Seti ae Senet ACTION

NMATE TO COMMITTEE

ABOVE INCIDENT —

18. IT IS THE FINDING OF THE COMMITTEE - (“X”

are BOX) ae es

YOU COMMITTED THE PROHIBI

cuahcen. TED ACT AS

' YOU COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING PROHIBITED

L) YOU DID NOT COMMIT A PROHIBITED ACT

19. COMMITTEE FINDINGS ARE BASED ON

LOWING INFORMATION 5: a

20. COMMITTEE ACTION

Refer to Inmate Discipline Committee.

/s/ D. P. Orr, CS.

21. DATE OF ACTION

PART III—INVESTIGATION

22. DATE

2/15/75

23. INMATE STATEMENT AND ATTITUDE

Inmate stated that this charge was totally absurd and that he

was categorically innocent. He stated that he was charged with

this because he refused to go to the Farm Camp. He said he had

nothing else to say. His attitude was fair during the interview.

24. OTHER FACTS ABOUT THE INCIDENT

Considering the various items picked up from this man’s cell, I

would say there is little doubt about his activities.

25. INVESTIGATOR’S COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

P — as charged. A definite ringleader in the activity

26. ACTION TAKEN

Refer to Seniro [sic] Administrative Lieutenant D. P. Orr.

/s/ (illegible)

Correctional Supervisor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

BUREAU OF PRISONS

INCIDENT REPORT

1. NAME OF INSTITUTION

USP—tTerre Haute, Indiana

PART I—INCIDENT REPORT

2. NAME OF INMATE

CAIN, Alfred Michael

3. REGISTER NUMBER

illegible

4. DATE OF INCIDENT

2-14-75

5. TIME

11:00 A.M.

6. PLACE OF INCIDENT

E-Unit

7. ASSIGNMENT

Paint Shop

8. QUARTERS

E-Unit

9, INCIDENT

ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO REFUSE TO WORK.

10. CODE

255

11. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

For the last few days this inmate has been encouraging a

work stoppage by having others go out into the industries area to

encourage this stoppage. This individual has also been observed

moving about the entire institution and from information received,

has been encouraging a work stoppage.

12. SIGNATURE OF REPORTING EMPLOYEE

/s/ G.D. Wilson

13. NAME AND TITLE (PRINTED)

G.D. WILSON, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR

14. INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED TO ABOVE INMATE

15. DATE INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED

2-15-75

16. TIME INCIDENT REPORTED

10:00 a.m.

PART II—COMMITTEE ACTION

17. COMMENTS OF INMATE TO COMMITTEE REGARDING

nsJOVE INCIDENT

18. IT IS THE FINDING OF THE COMMITTEE THAT: (“X”

APPLICABLE BOX)

1 YOU COMMITTED THE PROHIBITED ACT AS

CHARGED

1 YOU COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING PROHIBITED

ACT:

1) YOU DID NOT COMMIT A PROHIBITED ACT

19. COMMITTEE FINDINGS ARE BASED ON THE FOL-

LOWING INFORMATION

20. COMMITTEE ACTION

Refer to Inmate Discipline Committee.

/s/ D. P. Orr, CS.

21. DATE OF ACTION

54 55

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY (Where an inmate has been advised of his rights afforded at

TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA an institution Discipline Committee hearing, but refuses to

Form B, 7400.5C-TH, 10-04-74 sign the acknowledgement, the following should be

INMATE RIGHTS AT INSTITUTION DISCIPLINE COMMIT- completed.) |

TEE HEARING I have personally advised

As an inmate charged with a violation of institution rules (inmate’s name and register

or regulations referred to the Institution Discipline Commit- no. )

tee for disposition, you have the following rights: of the above rights afforded him at an Institution Discipline

1. The right to have a written copy of the charge(s) Committee hearing; however, he has refused to sign the

against you at least 24 hours prior to appearing before acknowledgement.

the Institution Discipline Committee;

2. The right to have a full-time member of the staff Signed:

who is resonably available to represent you before the (Employee’s Typed name)

Institution Discipline Committee;

3. The right to call witnesses and present documen- (Date)

tary evidence in your behalf, provided institutional

safety would not be jeopardized;

4. The right to be present throughout the Institution

Discipline Committee hearing except during Committee

deliberations and except where institutional safety

would be jeopardized;

5. The right to be advised of the Institution Disci-

pline Committee’s decision, the facts supporting the

Committee’s decision, except where institutional safety

would be jeopardized, and the Committee's disposition

in writing; and,

6. The right to appeal the decision of the Institution

Discipline Committee by means of the Administrative

Remedy Procedure to the Chief Executive Officer

(Warden) within 30 days of notice of the Committee’s

decision and disposition.

I hereby acknowledge that I have been advised of the

above rights afforded me at an Institution Discipline Com-

mittee hearing.

/s/

DAVID SAXNER

28759-117

February 15, 1975

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY

TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA

INSTITUTION DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE REPORT

FORM D, 7400.5C-TH, 10-04-74

DATE: February 21, 1975

TIME: 9:35 am to 10:40 am

NAME OF INMATE: David SAXNER

REG. NO.: 28759 ¢ 117

The inmate has been advised of his rights before this

committee. [X] A copy of the advisement of rights form is

attached.

This hearing is held to consider the Incident Report(s) dated:

2-14-75

The following persons appeared before the Committee:

Mr. Fred Smith

Summary of statements made and information presented to

the Committee:

Inmate admits the charge(s): [ ] Yes [X] No.

The Incident Report was read to Saxner and he was again

advised of his Rights, which he states he understands.

Saxner requested Mr. Class as a Staff representative at first

but later requested to have Mr. Fred Smith as a Staff repre-

sentative. Saxner also requested inmate witnesses in his

behalf.

Mr. Cleavinger asked Saxner what he can tell the committee

about the incident. Saxner stated that first, he is Not Guilty,

and was categorically innocent; and besides the depositions

submitted and evidence, Saxner stated he is willing to take a

lie detector test, at his own cost, to prove the charges

brought against him are totally untrue. Mr. Cleavinger in-

formed Saxner there will be no lie detector test.

The Committ [sic] finds that

{ ] The act was committed as charged

[ ] The following act was committed:

255 701 208

[ ] No prohibited act was committed.

(If this is the finding, this report and all related re-

ports will be destroyed.)

Action Taken:

Administrative Detention. Discontinue Meritorious Pay

and Good Time. Recommend Transfer to another Institution.

The I.D.C. has Forfeited 84 Days of Saxner’s Good Time

Review for Record February 25, 1975

Formal Review March 3, 1975

Reason for Action Taken:

Saxner was found Guilty of Encouraging Others to Re-

fuse to work from the information received from Staff and

the written and investigative reports. He was also found

Guilty of Unauthorized Use of Mail (701) (sending manu-

scripts out) and Possession of Contraband (208) (article from

Prisoners Union, Leavenworth Penitentiary). It is felt the

Education Supervisor, or his representative should talk with

Saxner regardng manuscripts and the regulations.

{ ] The inmate has been advised of the findings and orders of

this committee.

{ ] The inmate has been advised of his right to appeal this

action within 30 days, to the Chief Executive Officer.

[ ] A copy of this report has been given to the inmate.

T. Cleavinger, Chairman

/s/ M. Mareadis Member

/s/ T.P. Lockett Member

Saxner stated that he would like for the record to state, at

least, that he requested it to prove he is Not Guilty. He also

wanted to state that in April of this year he will go before

the U.S. Board of Parole for parole consideration and feels

he is an excellent candidate for parole. Saxner states he has

received two minor Incident Reports and one of them usu-

ally isn’t given to inmates while in the Prison System.

Saxnar states he has Minimum Custody and MGT and had

MSA until he went out on writ. Saxner stated he also has a

cross section of letters going to the Parole Board offering

him jobs, letters from university professors, etc., to show

his chances of parole are extremely good. Saxner stated he

thinks if he had all those things going, plus being a first of-

fender, it would be sort of insane for him to jeopardize all of

his chances before he goes to the Board. Mr. Lockett in-

formed Saxner that many people who are to go soon do

things to delay their leaving. Saxner stated he would like to

have the record reflect he hag all these things and would like

them for evidence. Saxner stated he also understands he is

not allowed to have repetitive witnesses; but the way the

charges are written up the only way he can prove he is Not

Guilty is to have any member of the panel ask people if he

encouraged people not to work, etc.—and that would be an-

other way to establish his innocence.

Mr. Lockett informed Saxner it would be very foolish to

ask inmates if he encouraged a work stoppage, and he

(Saxner) understands that—they wouldn’t say “Yes” and

Saxner knows that. Saxner stated that no prisoner would be

jeopardized and it would also clear him. Saxner stated he

would like to have the record reflect he asked to have this

happen. Mr. Lockett informed Saxner again it would be im-

possible to put a person in that position.

Saxner stated he has four Depositions to submit from in-

mates he has some kind of a relationship with in population

(attached) and they are from:

James McShane Ear! Williams

Paul Bryant John Campbell

Saxner stated that these Depositions prove various things

that during the week when he was allegedly sending

respresentatives around the institution to encourage others

to not work and he was charged with trying to organize the

stoppage—these witnesses admit he has never attempted to

organize anything and can say what his involvement was.

Mr. Lockett asked Saxner if he says he never attempted

to try to organize any type of Union or work stoppage, or

anything like that, and he said “That is right.”

Mr. Marcadis informed Saxner that all the Depositions do

is give the committee one person’s opinion but cannot make a

blanket statement—but only from what they know. The four

Depositions in question were read to the Committee.

Saxner stated that his feelings are that he has established,

through the Depositions, that during the week when he al-

legedly sent representatives throughout the institution to

encourage other people not to work—they didn’t hear about

the strike or see nim encour aging or attempting to organize

a strike. Saxner feels he also proved he is a serious-minded

artist and his activities throughout the institution are related

to studies, etc.; and persons close to him knew nothing of the

work strike and didn’t hear of the alleged work strike.

Saxner stated that from the evidence he knows the commit-

tee has from this particular incident, that the evidence con-

fiscated from his property is unrelated to the charge but

within his constitutional rights and Bureau of Prisons and

Terre Haute statement guidelines. He feels they are his

rights of freedom of expression to submit sealed letters

through the P.M.B. mail box and he claims a letter of his

was confiscated to a news representative, that can be

mailed, regarding mistreatment within the prison hospital.

Mr. Lockett asked Saxner if he works in the hospital.

Saxner stated he does not. Saxner claims both of the things

are P.M.B, literature that should go out of the institution

unread, and is privileged reading material. Saxner stated he

also believed there is a letter to an attorney being used as

evidence that does not relate to the matter. Saxner claims

Supreme Court rulings state that under no circumstances

will the Administration read attorney-client mail in or out of

the institution; and from his knowledge the evidence has

nothing to do relating to the charges but he feels he is being

persecuted and will be persecuted for something entirely

unrelated to the charges.

Mr. Lockett asked Saxner if he is saying that at no time

did he support, or attempt to organize a Union, or pass out

pamphlets to other inmates advocating this. Saxner stated

the only paper he passed to other prisoners in this institu-

tion was he gave to John Mayberry a copy of an article and

he is a friend of his in the institution.Mr. Lockett informed

Saxner he told the committee it is privileged mail but he

passed it to other people and Saxner said he did if he wanted

to show a friend an article. Mr. Lockett asked Saxner if he

feels there are exceptions to this for him and Saxner stated

“Privileged mails is in reference to prison officials and my-

self.” Mr. Lockett informed Saxner that not only did

Mayberry have a copy of the item but Cain stated he had a

copy of something of Saxner’s. Saxner claimed it was a copy

of a letter to an attorney.

Mr. Marcadis showed Saxner an article and asked him if

he wrote it. Saxner stated it seems to be a rough draft of

something he did write. When Marcadis asked him about an-

other item, Saxner said “That is my writing.” Mr. Marcadis

said “How about this, which is a cleaned up version of the

first thing?” Saxner stated it is a shorter version of some-

thing else, which is also his. Mr. Marcadis showed Saxner

another item and Saxner said it isn’t his and it isn’t his hand-

writing. Mr. Marcadis informed Saxner all the articles were

found in his personal property. Saxner said one item is a car-

bon copy of something that went to various newspapers for

publication, through the P.M.B. When Mr. Marcacis asked

Saxner if he had authorization for it, as the statements says,

Saxner admitted he didn’t. Mr. Marcadis asked Saxner about

still another item and Saxner stated it was a rough draft of a

smaller item, and is his. When asked about another one,

Saxner stated they are notes for an article. Mr. Marcadis in-

formed Saxner that he mentions Staff members and inmates

in the manuscripts going out and Saxner asked if he meant

inside the articles. Mr. Marcadis said “Yes—did you have

the inmate’s permission to mention his name?” Saxner said

“No.” Mr. Marcadis asked Saxner if he had any of the Staff

member’s permission to mention their name and Saxner said

“No.”

Mr. Marcadis informed Saxner he had no specific permit

and each manuscript has to be individually cleared and in-

formed Saxner he has no right, under P.M.B., to have pub-

lissed manuscripts to go out unless specifically cleared.

Saxner was told he didn’t get authorization and did mention

Staff members and didn’t get their authorization, or inmates’

families—living or dead—to mention their names. When

asked where he works, Saxner said as a unit janitor. Mr.

Marcadis asked Saxner if he ever wanders around the shops

or Industries areas, and he said the only time he has been in

Industries was when he was arranging for a band to come in.

Mr. Smith stated that one thing he didn’t mention before

was Saxner said to him the reason he wanted Johnny

Campbell to make a statement is that Campbell is known as

a kind of shady person and if anything was going on,

Campbell would be involved in it. Mr. Smith said Saxner

also stated that everything he has done was for outside the

institution and not for within the institution—in other

words, he wasn’t doing this and mass producing and handing

it to inmates. Saxner stated that if the committee would

note, the way the articles are set up, obviously they were

not intended for prisoners and wants to have the record to

reflect that the articles are something that is set up for peo-

ple on the streets and not to be passed around the institution

to incite others to create disturbances.

Mr. Marcadis asked Saxner if he permitted other inmates

to read the articles and he said he gave Mayberry one, but

he never read it; and the carbons were to be mailed out but

he never mailed them. When asked where it was published,

Saxner said in a few places in New York.

Mr. Lockett asked if the letters were type [sic] and where

he uses the typewriter. Saxner said on that particular one,

he had a typewriter in his cell. Mr. Lockett asked Saxner

who gave him permission. He said it was for a manuscript,

from Mr. Veltri—the legal library man. Mr. Marcadis noted

the comments about inmate Lowe and asked Saxner where

he got the information at 5:30 in the morning. Saxner said he

wasn’t out of his cell but deesn’t think he is at liberty to shed

light on his source of information. Mr. Marcadis said Saxner

made statements about his medical evaluation, or lack of it,

and asked Saxner if that was done through his medical wis-

dom. Saxner said information flowed about the population

that was checked out with sources on the streets.

Mr. Lockett asked Saxner if he goes from various inmates

to others and makes a survey. Saxner stated when some-

thing happens inside an institution setting there will always

be rumors and feed back, and the information he picks up

from word of mouth he checks with people on the streets.

Mr. Lockett told Saxner he approaches people and at-

tempted to get information and asked Saxner why they ap-

proach. He stated they approach him many times as people

think he is the jailhouse lawyer type. He states the image

has always stuck with him and when people have complaints

they sometimes come to him.

Mr. Lockett asked were the grievances for medical prob-

lems, etc., presented. Saxner said they weren’t but he plans

to write a book one day. Mr. Marcadis asked if he planned to

take them before the administration sooner or later and

Saxner said “No.”

Mr. Marcadis said “You mentioned, Fred, about him want-

ing a Deposition from Campbell because if anything was go-

ing to happen, he would be in on it.” Mr. Smith replied that

he is the type of person that if anything was going to hap-

pen, he would know about it and the only reason Campbell

was picked was he associates with him and he is known in

the institution to have been involved in a lot of things; and if

anything is going to happen, he is usually involved in it.

Mr. Marcadis asked Saxner about the literature he

glanced at and agreed it was his handwriting, that if he

thinks that if it was found in the hands of inmates less stable

than Saxner, it could be considered inflammatory. Saxner

stated “No,” and that usually something really has to happen

to motivate them to make any type of move. He stated that

he has seen incidents within the penitentiary that nothing

moved the inmates here to do anything; and the average

prisoner here is not going to pick something up and be

moved by it. Saxner claimed when he gave Mayberry a copy

of the article, he stated he never read it—and that is gener-

ally what happens. Mr. Marcadis said “Not read it, but look

at it and take things out of context.” Saxner felt he did not

consider it inflammatory as prisoners aren’t moved by type-

written things—written things don’t move people but some-

thing like a death and the fact that 800 or 900 people didn’t

work—that could move people.

Mr. Lockett informed Saxner that he doesn’t believe he

(Saxner) or himself have the capabilities to say whether a

letter will have an inflammatory effect—the letter has been

written and has this type of connotation and will have to be

taken that it can have an inflammatory effect.

Saxner stated that if he wanted to write somthing that

would be considered inflammatory, he would put something

basic to the prisoners to incite them to make a move and be

as brief and concise as he can be. He stated that something

that is 3 or 4 lines they will read, but if it is several pages

long they won’t look at it. Saxner stated that he would like

to mention that, as charged, the evidence he has seen, in his

eyes, does not support the allegations from Mr. Wilson’s

shot.

Saxner used the P.M.B., not for what it was intended, and

violated policy statements on the use of typewriters and

manuscripts. Saxner verified the confiscated materials were

his.

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY

TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA

INSTITUTION DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE REPORT

FORM D, 7400.5C-TH, 10-04-74

DATE: February 21, 1975

TIME: 8:50 am to 9:35 am

NAME OF INMATE: Alfred M. CAIN

REG. NO.: 29847 ¢ 138

The inmate has been advised of his rights before this

committee. [ ] A copy of the advisement of rights form

is attached.

This hearing is held to consider the Incident Report(s) dated:

2-14-75

The following persons appeared before the Committee:

Mr. J. R. Alvarado

Summary of statements made and information presented to

the Committee:

Inmate admits the charge(s): [ ] Yes [ ] No.

The Incident Report was read to Cain and he was again ad-

vised of his Rights, which he states he understands. Cain re-

quested to have Mr. C. Nave as a Staff representative, but

he was not available. Cain then requested to have Mr. J.R.

Alvarado as a Staff representative. Cain did not wish to

have inmate witnesses in his behalf and he admitted refusing

to sign any of the decuments.

Mr. Cleavinger asked Cain what he can tell the committee

about the report. He stated he told Mr. Jean, the

Investigating Officer, he didn’t engage in any of these activi-

ties and he didn’t do any of this. Mr. Cleavinger asked Cain

what he did.

The Committ [sic] finds that:

{ ] The act was committed as charged

{ ] The following act was committed:

255 208

[ ] No prohibited act was committed.

(If this is the finding, this report and all related re-

ports will be destroyed.)

Action Taken:

Administrative Detention.

Recommend Transfer to another Institution.

The I.D.C. has Forfeited 96 Days of Cain’s Good Time

Review for Record February 26, 1975

Formal Review March 3, 1975

Reason for Action Taken:

Cain was found Guilty of Encouraging Others to Refuse

to Work (255) and also Charge 208, based on the fact he was

observed moving about the institution and encouraging other

inmates to participate in a work stoppage and also having in-

flammatory material, which was supporting disruptive con-

duct in the institution. He is being placed in Administrative

Detention as it is felt he is a threat to the security of the in-

statution and his presence on the compound would be a con-

tinued threat to the population.

| ] The inmate has been advised of the findings and orders of

this committee.

[ ] The inmate has been advised of his right to appeal this

action within 30 days, to the Chief Executive Officer.

{ ] A copy of this report has been given to the inmate.

T. Cleavinger, Chairman

/s/ M. Mareadis, Member

/s/ T.R. Lockett, Member

Cain claims he is supposed to be going for Parole in June

and expects to make it and hasn’t received an Incident Re-

port for more than a year. He claims he didn’t engage in any

of this activity mentioned and wants to take a lie detector

test, which he will pay, to show he didn’t commit any of the

activities. Cain stated he would like to know who said he was

encouraging them not work, etc., and hopes this will be one

of the ways this issue could be resolved as none of it is true.

Cain stated it would have been foolish for him to encourage a

work stoppage as he is getting ready for Parole. Cain was

advised the committee is not going to give him a lie detector

test.

Mr. Lockett asked Cain if he was trying to talk up any-

thing or form a Union or organization. Cain said “No.” Mr.

Lockett asked Cain if he is not in favor of a Union and Cain

said he wasn’t trying to form one but feels prisoners would

be in a better position if there was one in here. Mr. Lockett

asked if he meant they would run the place then. Cain stated

he didn’t say that—he didn’t try to organize a Union or or-

ganization for a work stoppage, and never encouraged any-

body to not go to work; and for him to get involved in what

he is alleged, would be foolish.

Vr. Marcadis asked Cain if he ever passed out any of the

literature that was found in his possessions, or give to any-

one else, and Cain said “No.” When asked why he had it,

Cain stated it was given to him by someone he had a good

relationship with.

Mr. Lockett asked Cain who gave it to him and he said “a

man who is not in the institution any more.” He said his

name is “Imami” (”).

Mr. Marcadis asked Gain why Mr. Wilson said he has been

observed in other parts of the institution other than where

he is assigned. Cain said that is not true and doesn’t know

why it was said. Mr. Marcadis asked Cain if he has never

been in areas other than where he is assigned and he said

“No, and never told anyone else in Industries not to go to

work.” Mr. Marcadis informed Cain that he said the things

in his locker were dated one or two years ago, and showed

him an item dated 1974. Cain asked what it said as it wasn’t

his and he didn’t write it. Mr. Marcadis informed Cain that

no one said he wrote it but it was found in his property. Cain

— ee

Se es Ow

— a | el sehen na ee

was asked who did write it. Cain stated his name is “David

Saxner” on it. Cain was asked if he ever read it before and

he said he has never seen it before.

Mr. Cleavinger informed Cain it looks like he is pretty

well involved in trying to encourage a work stoppage. Cain

stated again he would like to take a lie detector test as it

would show he wasn’t involved, and doesn’t even know who

said they saw him do it.

Mr. Lockett informed Cain that some of the officers have

seen him out of bounds and in areas he is not supposed to be.

Also, he has materials in his area indicating support and rec-

ommendation for a Union, and supporting a work stopage.

Cain stated he doesn’t have any material indicating he was

trying to organize a Union or support a work stoppage, and

he tried to discourage the last one we had.

Mr. Marcadis asked Cain if he said he had nothing in his

possession that was encouraging dissension or unrest, or an

attitude to encourage people to get up in arms in violation of

rules. Cain stated he said he didn’t have anything in his pos-

session that indicated he was trying to start 2 work stoppage

or not go to work, or form a Union. Mr. Marcadis again in-

formed Cain he didn’t say he wrote the item but had it in his

property.

Mr. Alvarado stated Cain told him he is Not Guilty of

these charges and is willing to take a lie detector test and

pay out of his commissary funds. Mr. Alvarado states he

doesn’t know Cain too well but never had any trouble with

him, but does know him. Mr. Alvarado states Cain told him

he wasn’t Guilty and wants this in his record that he did re-

quest a lie detector. Cain stated he has been trying to do

whatever he has to do to get out of this institution, and ex-

pected to make Parole. He claims he is going to Vincennes

University yet. Cain stated if the committee is trying to find

out the truth, he doesn’t know why he can’t take a lie detec-

tor test, and would be willing to sign any waivers and pay

for it. Also, he would like to have the opportunity to ask

whoever said he did this, and would like to establish what he

is saying is true.

Cain identified David Saxner, 28759-117, as the writer of

the letter of January 9, 1974, to Arpiar Saunders, Attorney,

National Prison Project, Washington, D.C.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY

To x_ Warden of Institution

Director, Bureau of Prisons

From: Saxner, David L. 28759-117 USP TERRE HAUTE

Part A—INMATE REQUEST

On February 14, 1975, I was placed in Administrative De-

tention and charged with “encouraging others to refuse to

work.” One week later, on the 21st of February, I was con-

victed of the said charge and also charged and convicted with

two more offenses; possession of contraband (grievances

from Leavenworth) and misuse of the mail (sending out

manuscripts).

When I appeared before the IDC I told them I was inno-

cent of the charge that I was before them for. i offered to

take a lie detector test, at my own cost, to prove that I was

in fact innocent. This request was denied and both the re-

quest and the denial are recorded in the IDC transcript.

I tried to explain to the IDC that I was going up for parole

in April and that I wouldn’t do anything to hinder my

chances for making parole. | felt I was in excellent position

to make parole. I brought a number of letters from prospec-

tive employers and others who could offer assistance if |

were released.

I explained to the IDC I had minimum custody, was

receiving Meritorious Good Time, had only two minor inci-

dent reports in the four years I’ve been in prison, that I

have been in prison for four years on a marijuana-related

“crime,” and that I had scored nine out of a possible eleven

points on the Board’s Salient Factor Sheet (which means un-

der my “high” category I’m expected to serve 16-20 months

in prison, and at this time I have three times that much

served!). I asked the IDC to consider all this.

However, the IDC wasn’t at all concerned with any of

this. They were convinced that I was guilty as charged. The

charge states: “For the last few days this inmate has been

encouraging a work stoppage by having others go out into

the industries area to encourage this work stoppage. This in-

dividual has also been cbserved moving about the entire in-

stitution and from information received, has been encourag-

ing a work stoppage.”

Yet, the IDC failed to present any evidence to support

their allegations. The only “evidence” against me was an ar-

ticle | had written about the hospital conditions entitled

“Prisoners At Terre Haute Seek An Investigation”; a four

page letter to a media representative dealing with medical

“treatment”; some notes I had hoped to use for a future book

dealing with the prison industries; a list of grievances writ-

ten and signed by the Federal Prisoners’ Coalition at

Leavenworth; and carbon copies and rough drafts of the pre-

viously mentioned article. I admitted that all of the forego-

ing were indeed mine, save the article from Leavenworth.

But the fact of the matter remains that none of this is evi-

dence to support the charges I’m currently in segregation

for.

I submitted four depositions to the IDC. They’re a part of

the record so I will not bother detailing them. You should

read them yourself. They are written by four prisoners

whom I was in constant touch with during the week when I

was allegedly organizing this fantasy strike. Each deposition

is quite explicit, and together they show that during the

week in question, i.e., from February 10-14, that I was

concentrating my efforts on setting up a February 14th Cre-

ative Arts Workshop show; that people who were close to

me did not ever hear me mention anything about organizing

a work stoppage; that if I had been organizing a work stop-

page they would have been aware of it; and that it would

have been highly improbable for me to have been organizing

a work stoppage without their knowledge.

But the IDC seemed to disregard all of this. Mr. Smith,

my representative, was amazed to see me convicted from the

evidence presented by the IDC. Ask him if he thinks I was

guilty. He knows that I wasn’t guilty as charged. He knows

that I was only found guilty because I had written an article

exposing the hospital conditions. In other words, this is

some retribution for something I did that was within the Bu-

reau of Prisons’ guidelines, within Terre Haute policy state-

ment guidelines and surely within the guidelines of the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution. I could cite

numerous court decisions to support my claims, but I under-

stand that this remedy doesn’t deal with legalities.

When the IDC was deliberating Mr. Smith mentioned to

the members that he felt they should either reword the

charge, give me new charges or do something to make the

charges coincide with the evidence. The IDC then gave me

two new charges; the misuse of the mail and possession of

contraband charges mentioned on page one. .

The charges are wholly nonsensical and are also inconsist-

ent with the Bureau policy statement on Inmate Discipline

dated October 4, 1974 and coded 7400.5C. The fact that the

charges were lodged against me while the IDC was

deliberating is in violation to the aforementioned policy

statement. May I direct your attention to page 9, section

&(a) of that statement which quite clearly states “Each in-

mate charged with violating an institution rule or regulation

shall be given a written copy of the charge or charges

against him within 24 hours of the infraction.” The section

just cited was in reference to minor violations, which I as-

sume the charges were since they weren't presented to me

until after the IDC commenced its deliberations. If this is

considered a major offense then let me refer you to page 10,

section 9%c)(1) concerning Procedural Requirements: To wit,

“an inmate will be given advance written notice of the

charge(s) against him no less than 24 hours before the Insti-

tution Discipline Committee. An inmate may waive in writ-

ing this 24 hour notice requirement.” I did not waive this

notice.

Also, you'll note that Attachment B in the aforementioned

policy statement touches on the matter of advanced written

notice of charges. The FIRST RIGHT on that page reads

“The right to have a written copy of the charge(s) against

you at least 24 hours prior to appearing before the Institu-

tion Discipline Committee.” (Emphasis added.) ;

In reference to the misuse of mail charge, i.e. sending out

manuscripts, let me say this. I wrote the National Prison

Project to procure the copies of the latest policy statements

that I needed to prepare this appeal; I know that it’s impos-

sible to get these policy statements inside the general popu-

lation, yet [sic] alone in segregation (this too is a violation of

eh «Lane WO

Bureau policy statements that say prisoners both in segrega-

tion and in the general population should have access to full

copies of policy statements). Anyway, I’ve thoroughly cov-

ered policy statement 1229.1 dated February 11, 1972, enti-

tled “Inmate Correspondence With Representatives Of The

Press And News Media.” The purpose of this statement, and

I quote in pertinent part, is “... to protect First Amend-

ment rights of inmates, within the constraints of sound insti-

tutional management.” There is nothing in this policy state-

ment that says I have to get an outgoing manuscript

approved before I send it out. To the contrary, the intent of

this policy statement and the Prisoners’ Mail Box is to afford

the prisoner a chance to speak up against his conditions,

keepers or treatment without having to foreclose his/her

name or without putting him/herself in jeopardy. So the

charge against me for misuse of the mail is totally without

merit.

There is more. At the IDC I raised the issue of “privileged

correspondence.” I feel that anything that is for the Prison-

ers’ Mail Box’‘is privileged since the sole expressed intent of

the PMB is to protect the writer’s future within the federal

prison system. One of the pieces of evidence against me was

a carbon of a letter I had mailed to John Antonides, editor of

the local Bloomington paper. This is correspondence with a

bonafide news representative, and such letters are consist-

ent to the policy statement mentioned previously on this

subject. I am now being persecuted, in part, for writing this

man.

There is more. Alfred Cain Jr. was locked up partially be-

cause he had in his cell a copy of a letter that I had written

to an attorney. Surely I need not tell you that attorney-

client mail is privileged. I know you know there are many

court decisions, including from the Supreme Court, that pro-

hibit prison officials from reading attorney-client mail. At

this point both Cain and I are being persecuted for this let-

ter’s content. I raised the claim of attorney-client

confidentiality before the IDC. They ignored me, just as

they ignored me when I mentioned the privilege mail be-

tween prisoners and newspapers. Are these policy state-

ments written to deceive the public about the lawlessness

that pervades these prisons, or are they written to be

enforced?

There is more. John Mayberry got locked up because

there was a copy of an article that I wrote in his cell. After

getting locked up he was convicted of the same charges as

myself, forfeited his good days and was then sent off to

Leavenworth. All this because he had an article I wrote, an

article I told the IDC I wrote.

There is more. As a result of my IDC hearing on February

21, 1975, I lost 84 good days, was recommended for transfer,

lost my MGT and was sent to “Administrative Detention.”

The regular Administrative Detention unit, as you know, is

L Unit. I was told there were no cells in L Unit, that Cain

had gotten the last one and that I was going to G Block. But

I was assured that I was going to be on Administrative De-

tention status in G Block, that I wouldn’t be left in the nor-

mal squalor of this infamous housing unit. However, when I

got there I found out different. I was given some of my per-

sonal belongings. But, I was placed in a cell with no light.

The light on the tier was out and it took me four and a half

days of complaining to get it fixed. I was in total darkness

for four and a half days; ask Father Bill if you don’t believe

me. Moreover, three lieutenants refused to move me into a

cell where there was light—that was when there were only

three prisoners in the entire cell block and plenty of open

cells! Besides the lighting situation (or lack of it I should

say), there was no ventilation in my cell, I got no fresh air or

exercise, I had no spring bed, pillow or blanket, no commis-

sary privileges, no newspapers or books were allowed to me,

no law library, toilet paper was “distributed” by the handful,

no toothbrushes, no phone calls, pencils, paper and envel-

opes were rationed, no brooms, toilet brush or cleanser to

keep our cells sanitary (they did come around once in a

week), arid numerous other things inconsistant with pages

16-19 of policy statement 7400.5C.

There is more. While I was in G Block I was refused den-

tal care. I was taken to the dentist’s office to have my teeth

cleaned, but when I got there I was told I couldn’t have my

teeth cleaned unless I was in the general population. When I

told the dentist that I wasn’t getting back in the population,

73 or.

he told me that that’s “a tough break.” This, too, is in viola-

tion of 7400.5C. See page 16 of that policy porate tere

which states “... To the extent possible, inmates housed in

Administrative Detention will be afforded the same general

pote uae) aes to inmates in general population as is con-

sistent with existing r i i

an g resources available and the security

There is more. Also while I was in G Block I was denied a

visit with Rev. Robert Horton. Rev. Horton is an approved

visitor to any federal prisoner, at least that’s what Mr

Carlson has said. I have seen him in the past, but while I

was in G Block they refused to take me to the visiting room

to see him.

There is more. This, too, concerns G Block. On the ni

of February 22, 1975, I saw eight guards beat Arend Sen ng

Smith was half unconscious and laying on the floor face down

when Lieutenant Hicks started to violently kick him in the

face. The lieutenant was kicking him so violently that his

subordinates, namely John Wright, were physically pulling

him out of G Block. Smith was then stripped and placed in a

strip cell in the rear of G Block. He was beat again then, this

time in the nude. I saw all of this while holding a mirror out

through my bars. I might add that strip cells, according to

PS 7400.5C pg. 18(c)(1), are only allowed to be used in the

hospital. The conditions in G Block do not fall in line with the

Bureau’s thinking of “Administrative Detention.” It is cruel

and unhuman and evidently was created by some hungry

sadist. I mention all these different things about G Block be-

cause they’re all relevant. I had to live in there and see that

kind of misery. And all this because I exercised my First

Amendment “right”!

Now I have received a progress report fr

caseworker, Mr. Rollins, and he : senteneniied te the

parole board that I be continued to the expiration of my sen-

tence. I cannot make parole unless these good days are rein-

stated first. And unless you reinstate them before my parole

hearing in April, I will have to spend 15 months more in

these overbearing, oppressive conditions.

For all of the reasons above, for the lack of evidence pre-

sented against me before the IDC, for the violations of my

prison and constitutional rights and for the treatment I’ve

been subjected to, I beseach you to overturn the IDC’s deci-

sion, reinstate my good days, discontinue my recommenda-

tion for transfer, place me back in the prison population, re-

store my MGT and expunge from my record, and from the

records of the Parole Board, Bureau of Prisons, and any

other government agency working in concert with them, any

report, memo or written statement relating to this incident

report.

/S/ David Saxner 28759-117

ignature of Requestor

MarcH, 17, 1975

Part B—RESPONSE

As discussed with you recently by the Institutional Disci-

plinary Committee, your record will not be expunged since

the committee found you guilty of the charges. However, as

you recall, the committee on the recommendation of this of-

fice and for reasons explained to you, have restored cr in the

process of restoring your good time, and have also returned

you to the population with the notation that the incident not

reflect unfavorably upon your consideration for parole.

/S/ T.P. Lockett

Department Head or Representative

/S/ [illegible]

Watton Director or Associate

3-21-75

~ eee

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY

To: _x _ Warden of Institution

__—. Regional Director, Bureau of Prisons

From: Cain, Alfred Jr., 29347-138

Part A—INMATE REQUEST

On February 14, 1975, I was placed in Administrative De-

tention and charged with “encouraging others to refuse to

work.” One week later, on the 21st of February, I was con-

victed of the said charge and also charged and convicted of a

second offense, possession of contraband.

When I appeared before the IDC I told them I was inno-

cent of the charge against me. I offered to take a lie detector

test, at my own expense, to prove that I was in fact inno-

cent. This request was denied, and the request and the de-

nial are recorded in the IDC transcript.

I tried to explain to the IDC that I was going up for parole

in June of this year and would not do anything to hinder my

chances. I felt that I was in a good position for gaining my

release. My last incident report was more than a year ago,

and I have been working regularly and going to college.

Moreover, I have served three years on a five year sentence.

The IDC was not too concerned with my institution rec-

ord. They were convinced that I was guilty of the charge.

The charge states: “For the last few days this inmate has

been encouraging a work stoppage by having others go out

into the industries area to encourage this work stoppage.

This individual has also been observed moving about the en-

tire institution and from information received, has been en-

couraging a work stoppage.”

Yet, the IDC failed to present any evidence to support

their allegations. The only “evidence” against me was a

union outline dated May 1973 and a letter written to an at-

torney by David Saxner. The latter was found in my cell, but

as you can easily see by looking at the letter it does not be-

long to me. David Saxner has told the IDC that the letter

did in fact belong to him. The letter deals with the conditions

in the hospital, and I was afforded the opportunity to read it

at my IDC hearing. That is the extent of the “evidence”

which convicted me on the description of the incident men-

tioned above.

In addition, while I was at the IDC they charged me and

convicted me of possession of contraband. The fact that this

charge was lodged against me a week after I was locked up

and while I was before the IDC, is in violation with the Bu-

reau of Prisons’ Policy Statement 7400.5¢ on Inmate Disci-

pline dated October 4, 1974. Page 9, Section 8(a) states very

explicitly that “Each inmate charged with violating an insti-

tution rule or regulation shall be given a written copy of the

charge or charges against him within 24 hours of the infrac-

tion.” The section just cited is in reference to minor viola-

tions, which I assume the charge was since it wasn’t pre-

sented to me until after the IDC commenced its

deliberations. If it was/is considered a major violation, then

let me refer you to page 10, Section 9(c)(1) concerning Proce-

dural Requirements: To wit, “an inmate will be given ad-

vance written notice of the charge(s) against him no less

than 24 hours before his appearance before the Institution

Discipline Committee. An inmate may waive in writing this

24 hour notice requirement.” I did not waive this notice.

Also, you'll note that Attachment B in the aforementioned

policy statement touches on the matter of advanced written

notice of charges. The FIRST RIGHT on that page reads

“The right to have a written notice of the charge(s) against

you at least 24 hours prior to appearing before the Institu-

tion Discipline Committee.” (Emphasis added)

As a result of the IDC hearing of February 21, 1975, I had

96 good days taken from me; I was recommended for trans-

fer; and I was placed back in Administrative Detention. The

parole board prohibits a prisoner parole if that person has

forfeited good days; it takes six months good behavior to get

those days reinstated. Therefore, as a result of this incident

I will undoubtedly be denied parole.

For the two basic reasons outlined above, i.e., (1) the fact

that no evidence was presented to substantiate the IDC’s

claims that I was trying to encourage a work stoppage, and

(2) the fact that I was not given written notices in advance

for the possession of contraband charge, I hereby request

that you overturn the IDC’s decision, reinstate my good

days, place me back in the general population and forget

about the recommendation for transfer. I would also request

that all reference to these charges be expunged from the

records of this institution, the Parole Board, the Bureau of

. te

Prisons and all other government agencies. This, too, would

be consistant with the policy statement on Inmate

Discipline.

/S/ Alfred Cain, Jr.

Signature of Requestor

March 12, 1975

Part B—RESPONSE

As discussed with you recently by the Institutional Disci-

plinary Committee, your record will not be expunged since

the committee found you guilty of the charges. However, as

you recall, the committee on the recommendation of this of-

fice and for reasons explained to you, have restored or in the

process of restoring your good time, and have also returned

you to the population with the notation that the incident re-

port not reflect unfavorably upon your parole consideration.

/S/ T. P. Lockett

Department Heac or Representative

/S/ [illegible]

n, Associate, or Regional Director

3-21-75

FIRST COPY; For offender's central file after completion.

Part C—RECEIPT

Return to: Cain, Alfred Jr., 29847-138, T.H.

I acknowledge receipt this date of a complaint from the

above inmate in regard to the following subject:

To overturn IDC decision.

/S/ [illegible

Reopens — (Staff Member)

3/17/75

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

REGIONAL APPEAL

RESPONSE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY

REQUEST

To: Regional Director, Bureau of Prisons

From: Saxner, David L., 28759-117, Terre Haute Farm

Camp

*Part A—REASON FOR APPEAL:

Herewith is a copy of my BP-DIR-9 from requesting that

the IDC’s charges and conviction be overturned and ex-

punged from my reports. The reasons for this request are

detailed in the aforementioned form.

RECEIVED

Apr 16, 1975

Wardens Office

United States Penitentiary

Terre Haute, Indiana

/S/ David Saxner

Signature of Requestor

March 28, 1975

*The completed Form No. BP-DIR-9 must accompany this appeal.

Part B—RESPONSE

Your appeal has been reviewed. The staff at the U.S. Pen-

itentiary at Terre Haute have advised that after subsequent

review of your request the disciplinary report and the action

by the I.D.C. on the incident and relevant material thereto

has been expunged from your record.

Therefore, the relief you requested has been granted.

J. D. HENDERSON, i Director

—— Signature of Renal eee

1l-

THIRD COPY: Through warden to offender’s institutional

file after completion.

Part C—RECEIPT

Return to: Saxner, David L., 28759-117, Terre Haute Farm

I acknowledge receipt this date of the above inmate’s appeal

from the response received from the following complaint:

eit

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

REGIONAL APPEAL

RESPONSE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY

REQUEST

To: Kegional Director, Bureau of Prisons

From: Saxner, David L., 28759-117, Terre Haute Farm

Camp

*Part A—REASON FOR APPEAL:

Herewith is a copy of my BP-DIR-9 from requesting that

the IDC’s charges and conviction be overturned and ex-

punged from my records. The reasons for this request are

detailed in the aforementioned form.

RECEIVED

Apr 16, 1975

Wardens Office

United States Penitentiary

Terre Haute, Indiana

/S/

Signature of Requestor

March 28, 1975 |

*The completed form No. BP-DIR-9 must accompany this appeal.

Part B—RESPONSE

Your appeal has been reviewed. The staff at the U.S. Pen-

itentiary at Terre Haute have advised that after subsequent

review of your request the disciplinary report and the action

by the I.D.C. on the incident and relevant material thereto

has been expunged from your record.

Therefore, the relief you requested has been granted.

Signature of Regional Director

04-11-75

THIRD COPY: Through warden of offender’s institutional

file after completion.

Part C—RECEIPT

Return to: Saxner, David L., 28759-117, Terre Haute Farm

Camp

I acknowledge receipt this date of the above inmate’s appeal

from the response received from the following complaint:

/S/ [illegible]

bate Signature o pient o rional Appeal

PRISONERS AT TERRE HAUTE SEEK

AN INVESTIGATION

The United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana is

not too different from other prisons—most prisons are lo-

cated in areas of the country that enhance the probability of

strangling a prisoner’s intercourse with any strata of society,

including his/her family and friends. Other similarities in-

clude, but are not limited to, the pervasion of racism, terror,

horror and administrative corruption.

Recent events here at Terre Haute will best exemplify

what is going on in prisons across the nation. The situation

here is not unique.

On January 6, 1975, at 6:22 a.m., William Lowe, a Black

prisoner from Detroit, died in the prison hospital. The fol-

lowing day more than 900 prisoners—out of a total popula-

tion of 1076—staged a work stoppage to peacefully protest

the circumstances around the death. Moreover, prisoners

sought to establish a Prisoners’ Council, a liaison group that

could deal with prisoners’ grievances; and to establish better

medical facilities and procedures within the prison hospital.

We need a doctor here seven days a week, as well as a com-

petent medical staff at night. We need free and timely access

to the prison hospital. And we need a hospital here that is

equip [sic] to handle the medical needs of a community com-

prised of 1100 men—or, if this is a financial hardship, then

the prison should establish relations with a hospital in the

city of Terre Haute that could treat the men who cannot be

attended to here.

As a result of the work stoppage more than 70 prisoners

were locked in segregation. The vast majority of these men

have been released from segregation, but the “leaders” re-

main locked up awaiting their transfer to more repressive

federal prisons across the country.

In the meantime the administration has yet to act on the

grievances brought to their attention by the strike. In fact,

the administration has yet to act on its own “concession” of

better medical treatment from another work stoppage in Oc-

tober of 1972.

In weeks subsequent to the strike prisoners have been

calling for a full scale investigation into both the circum-

stances around Lowe’s death and into the hospitals opera-

tion. Facts thus far uncovered are:

@ As early as three days preceding his death, Lowe de-

manded to be admitted to the prison hospital. He was finally

admitted a day and a half before he died.

@ The day he was admitted to the hospital, Saturday, Jan-

uary 4, 1975, Lowe’s case was diagnosed as viral i

@ His medication at the time consisted of cold consules,

throat Lozenges, cough syrup, aspirin and Epsom salt.

@ Lowe was under the care of a medical training assistant

(MTA) and didn’t see Dr. Silverman, then the prison doctor,

until minutcs before his death.

@ On the morning of his death, at about 5 a.m., Lowe’s

condition had deteriorated and he went into a state of col-

lapse. His vital signs were erratic.

@ At approximately 5:55 a.m. on the morning of his death,

Lowe was preparing to be transferred to a local hospital in

the Terre Haute community. These arrangmeents were

made by L.K. Snowden, the MTA working on Lowe, after

getting the clearance from Ralph J. Michaud, Hospital

Administrator.

@ At this time Snowden contacted D.P. Orr, Senior Lieu-

tenant, about securing a prison guard to drive Lowe to the

hospital in Terre Haute.

@ At about 6:05 a.m. Snowden contacted Orr and told uim

he had just spoken to Dr. Silverman; that Silverman was en

route to the prison; and that Silverman told Snowden to

keep Lowe at the prison hospital.

@ At that time, approximately 6:05 a.m., Snowden admin-

istered Lowe 50 milligrams of Demerol, a powerful synthetic

narcotic drug.

@ Less than twenty minutes after the shot was adminis-

tered, Lowe expired.

@ MTA’s are allowed to prescribe medication and adminis-

ter it if they are registered. The MTA’s working here are

not registered.

The other day the Surgeon General of the United States

sent a representative here to look into the circumstances

around Lowe’s death. This information was suppressed from

the prisoner population, but there are a couple of things

which have surfaced since the investigation. For example,

Michaud refused to turn over a slide containing blood

samples of Lowe taken a couple days before he died.

Michaud claims they “destroyed” the sample. Also,

Silverman has been “released” from his job as a result of the

Surgeon General’s investigation.

A number of questions have come to the fore since William

Lowe died. Why was he refused admittance to the prison

hospital when he demanded to be admitted? When Lowe’s

case was diagnosed as viral pneumonia, why wasn’t he taken

to a bonafide doctor? Why wasn’t he taken to a hospital

equip [sic] to handle his illness as soon as it was diagnosed?

Why did Silverman stop Snowden from having Lowe moved

to a community hospital? Was Silverman trying to cover up

his own neglect and improper handling of the case? WHY

WAS A MAN STRUGGLING TO STAY ALIVE ADMIN-

ISTERED A STRONG DEPRESSANT DRUG AT SUCH

A CRUCIAL MOMENT?

Evidently the teachings of Watergate were learned well

by all levels of government officials. Silverman getting fired

and Michaud destroying evidence are unequivocally cover-up

tactics we’ve seen used before. By now cover-up tactics have

been used constantly by the hospital and warden here to

“clean up” the facts around Lowe's death. Once again we're

seeing lies becoming the “viable alternative” to the truth.

A viral flu epidemic continues to grow here, and prisoners

are still not receiving proper medical attention. Prisoners

who work at the prison factory must report to work no mat-

ter how sick they are; upon their arrival to work “arrange-

ments” are made for them to go to the hospital at two and

three in the afternoon—after they put in six or seven hours

of hard work first.

Most people disregard the facts surrounding a death like

Lowe's. They push it to the side saying he was a prisoner, a

criminal, a person who broke the “law” and got what he de-

served. They'll never examine the pressures created by the

economy that drive people to commit crime; nor do you hear

people refer to prisoners as human beings. They do not un-

derstand that prisons are warehouses for the poor—and that

the only difference between prisoners and wealthy people

who commit larger-scale crimes, is that the wealthy can af-

ford attorneys to find loopholes to gain them their freedoms.

Corruption runs rampant within this prison. In recent

years $16,000 worth of new welding equipment, 115 power

lawn-mowers, 300 baby pigs, 67 milk cows and 32 sides of

cooked beef turned up “missing.” In the case of the lawn-

mowers, prison guards searched prisoners’ cells and (3’ x 2’)

lockers for the machines. Prisoners and administrators alike

know that it’s absurd to think that prisoners could have

stolen such large quantities of the items mentioned. But in-

vestigations are never carried out, and everything is merely

written off as “inmate

A few weeks ago we called for a full-scale investigation

into Lowe’s death, the hospital facilities and the lock up and

transfer of the then more than 70 prisoners locked in segre-

gation from the strike. Again we are asking people to send

letters of protest to the officials listed below. We are seeking

all the facts around Lowe’s death; indictments against any

persons guilty of malpractice; the full upgrading of the hospi-

tal facilities; administrative approval of the Prisoners’ Coun-

cil; and the release of those men still locked in segregation.

Also in respect to the men in segregation, we are calling for

the reinstatement of the good time taken from them; stop

any punitive transfers, extra years added on to their sen-

tences or their having to stay in segregation for any pro-

tracted periods of time. All they did was participate in a

peaceful act of solidarity to protest and expose a grave injus-

tice; to protest and expose a sordid mess; to protest and ex-

pose a murder of a fellow human being who died by the

hands of a negligent hospital staff.

WILLIAM LOWE MOVEMENT

Surgeon General of the United States

Office of the Surgeon General

Washington, D.C.

Norman Carlson, Director

United States Bureau of Prisons

H.0.L.C. Building

101 Indiana Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C.

Warden C. L. Benson

Box 33

Terre Haute, Indiana 47808

To your congress spokesperson

{Interview Notes of David Saxner]

David Orr. Norman Silverman. Larry Snowden. I’m not

familiar with any blacklist of Michaud’s. At this time I’ve not

been able to obtain the Surgeon General’s representative's

name. However, if you don’t find that out while you are here

tomorrow, I will find it out by the end of the week. As I said

in my preceding letter, I am not sure what’s happening with

those in seg. I did get a message from General that they

were being kept from the legal room in “L” Unit. Write him.

I don’t know his register number, but Calvin Bass will suf-

fice. I’ll look into the blacklist thing further. Now the rest. . .

No Black person in any key hospital position.

Mr. X:

Mr. X walks around the population with a swell on his

stomach that measures between 8 to 12 inches. Preceding his

“treatment” in the prison hospital his stomach had no swells

or knots of any kind. His story:

“In the first week of June 1974, I went into the prison hos-

pital for a check-up. The check-up was given by a Dr. Freed,

a doctor contracted from the St. Anthony’s Hospital in Terre

Haute. At that time Dr. Freed advised me that I had a her-

nia (in the right groin) that should be removed; he also told

me I had an umbilical hernia. Dr. Freed assured me that the

umbilical hernia was a minor operation, and that I should

have that corrected when I was being operated on for the

hernia in my groin. I was apprehensive about having any-

thing done to the umbilical hernia, because I had lived with

it—and had done heavy labor work in prison factories—since

1967. Dr. Freed eventually convinced me to have the double

operation.

“On July 22, 1974, Dr. Freed performed the operations as

scheduled. This was done in the prison hospital.

“The operation seemed to be successful. I had no com-

plaints after the surgery, save some of the conditions in the

recovery room (surgery ward). For example, there was a lot

of people walking in and out of the recovery room, making

noise and causing confusion; I was forced to eat the same un-

balanced diet served to the main population; and too many

le handled the food. It wasn’t a clean environment, let

ao a place to recover from an operation. (I’ve also been

told that sheets are not cleaned frequently for the hospital

patients, and this results in patients lying on dirty, stained

sheets that could fester wounds. D.S.)

“Three days after the operation, on July 25, 1974, I

started vomiting and my stomach swelled up. I could no

longer keep any foodstuffs or liquids in my stomach. My di-

gestive track stopped functioning, and consequently I was

unable to use my bowels. They pumped my stomach for the

next four days, fed me intravenously and shortly thereafter

my digestive track was working again. I was given chicken

concentrate (one can for two weeks, and was told that’s all

I'd get) and koolaid for my diet.

“I was then released from the hospital.

“A week after I got out of the hospital my stomach got

hard; it began to abscess and then, at 4 a.m. one morning in

my dormitory, it burst open. I was left in the dorm until

10:30 a.m., at which time I was finally taken to the hospital

and treated. The MTA (I can’t recall his name) cleaned and

dressed the wound, then gave me some antibiotics. I left the

hospital and never returned. I tend to the wound myself,

and I refuse to let the hospital treat me any more. The hos-

pital and staff do not ask or offer to provide me with further

treatment. I haven’t seen any one from the medical staff

here since October, and since I’m due to be released in the

next couple weeks I don’t intend to go to the hospital for

anything.”

John Mayberry:

“For the last six weeks I’ve been going to the hospital for

treatment of a bronchial condition. On my first visit to the

hospital, John Hines, MTA, diagnosed my bronchitis as hep-

atitis, and then sent me on to Dr. Silverman, then the prison

hospital doctor. Dr. Silverman told me I had an asthmatic

problem that was at [sic] cause for my bronchitis, although I

am certain I don’t have any asthma whatsoever. Dr.

Silverman took an X-ray and prescribed me two pills,

Tylenol (for fever) and Tetral (to open up the congestion).

“A few days later I returned to the hospital. This time

Walter Martin, an MTA, gave me some antibiotics. When I

returned to hospital after taking the antibiotics for a while,

and told MTA Martin that the antibiotics were bothering my

stomach, I was taken off medication completely.

“For the following month I got no medication whatsoever.

“Then yesterday, February 3, I went back to see MTA

Martin. I told Martin that I had bronchitis and wanted to see

a doctor. Martin wanted to know why I thought I had bron-

chitis, and I told him because that’s what I had been told

ever since I had been coming down to the hospital. When

Martin refused to give me medication for my condition, I de-

manded to see a doctor. Martin told me I just couldn’t walk

in and ask to see a doctor. Martin further asserted that he

couldn’t send any one back to see the doctor unless he found

something wrong with the patient. I finally threatened to

tear the hospital apart if I didn’t see a doctor or receive

some medication. When MTA Martin saw I was serious, he

prescribed penicilin, nose drops, cough syrup, throat loz-

enges, salt and gave me a two day lay-in from work. If it

wasn't for the fact that I was running a temperature and

threatened to rip the hospital apart, I would have left the

hospital with no medication.”

Everett Wallace, Jr.

“When I first came to this prison last year (from the Fed-

eral Prison Hospital in Springfield, Missouri) I was getting

400 milligrams of throzine [sic] a day. I went to see D.

Silverman shortly after I arrived here. At that time I was

seeing things and had been extremely paranoid that I was

going to get stabbed (I was only 24 years old and had no

business being in a penitentiary-class institution to begin

with). Dr. Silverman increased my daily dosage of thorazine

from 400 to 800 milligrams.

“Not too long ago I was placed in the hospital here for in-

fectious hepatitis. After being there (in the hospital) for

three days, I called the MTA (name unknown). I told the

MTA I was feeling weak and I needed some kind of food

other than the regular mess hall food. The MTA agreed with

me the food was not too good, especially for a sick person to

get healthy, but he also told me there was nothing he could

do. He did mention, however, that the hospital would be

getting a dietician eventually (no such thing to this. date

—D.S.). After a short while I was released from the

hospital.

“A week after I got out of the hospital I got sick out at

work, and I told my factory boss, Mr. Wicks, to call the hos-

pital for me and make an appointment. The hospital told Mr.

Wicks not to bother sending me to the hospital; that 400 mil-

ligrams would be waiting for me at the next medication call

(we have to wait at a line for medication, if we get any or

want something like a cold capsule, three times a day—7

a.m., 12 noon and 6:30 p.m. If you don’t have a prescription

card specifying a certain type of medication you can only go

to the 7 a.m. call. This means if you get a headache or some

other minor pai‘: that requires some type of pill at, say, 10

a.m., you would have to wait until 7 a.m. the next morning

to get a pill—D.S.). I wasn’t taking any medication at this

time, and without looking at me the hospital diagnosed my

case and prescribed me with 400 milligrams of thorazine!

“Four weeks ago I went to see MTA Martin two days in a

row. He told me that I wasn’t feeling ill, that it was all in my

head. On the third day in a row that I went to see him and

tell him that I was ill, he again told me there was nothing

wrong with me. I requested that I be given a test for hepati-

tis. I was, and the test proved to be negative.

“That night I was feeling bad. I went back down to the

hospital and MTA Bill Walters took my temperature. It was

running a little bit above normal. Walters gave me two

tylenols, which I took. I went back to my cell and started to

break out in a sweat. I was getting to the point where I

could hardly move. I knew I couldn’t go back to the hospital

that night, so I just applied towels to my forehead.

“At 6:30 the next morning I made my way to the hospital.

On my way there I was stopped by a Lieutenant Marvin

Marcadis, who wanted to know where I was going. He told

me that he could see that I wasn’t feeling well. But, at the

same time, he told me I couldn’t go to the hospital until 8

a.m. I told him I couldn’t wait. As soon as I got into the hos-

pital I started to vomit. Soon my temperature was taken,

and it read 102 degrees. John Hines, MTA, refused to allo

me admittance to the hospital when I made such 1

had to go back to my cell.” a,

Mr. Y:

“I was coming out of the visiting room a couple w

and was taken to the hospital because I was om thew vln.g

tering contraband into the institution. Upon entering the

hospital I was told I was going to have an X-ray taken of my

groin area. I started to resist and asked Lieutenant James

Harbert, who brought me to the hospital, what my rights

were. The lieutenant replied that I had no rights, that I had

lost them when I came in the door. When I began to resist

from having the X-ray taken, Harbert and his goon-squad

comprised of seven prison guards, wrestled me onto a table

to be X-rayed. J.D. Copher, an MTA, gave me the X-ray

(there are only two people in the joint licenced to work the

X-ray machine, one is Michaud, and the other is a prisoner.

: — on ey ag licenced [sic] for using the machine.

out what they can and can’t do,

“— or med student. D.S.). <erckeis sein

“After Copher finished with the X-ray he told

couldn’t be sure that there was ate And etn oe

anus. Harbert then asked me if I'd submit to a finger-wave.

I said no. Harbert took off his glasses, called the goon-squad

forward, dove at me, and then he and the squad “put” me on

a table and strapped me down. Copher gave me the finger-

wave (I don’t think he can put his hands inside a body, only a

doctor can do this—I think. D.S.) there was also a forced en-

ema given after the finger-wave. And then to top it off a

Lieutenant Patrick Koehane came in and asked me to sign a

piece of paper stating that I was given all my rights before I

was given the finger-wave and the enema!”

Ss = ¢ 6. ¢

That’s all I’ve done so far, brother. I will continue to get

more info by the time you come on Friday. I am really curi-

ous to see what happens tomorrow on the tour. If General

gets transferred, here is his mother’s address: Calvin Bass,

% Beatrice Cooper, 479 Conner Street, Detroit, Mi. 48215.

If I gave you that before, forgive me—I'm a bit spaced out

now, which is why the second half of this is messy. =

David Saxner #28759-117

Box 33

Terre Haute, Indiana 47808

January 9, 1974

Arpiar Saunders, Attorney

National Prison Project

1346 Connecticut Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Arpy:

This will be brief and to the point. Enclosed is a quick

press release I did yesterday—it will give you some insight

to what’s happening here. Also enclosed is an important

memo I would like you to xerox and keep for us (if you don’t

mind). The memo, though not dated, may be invaluable in

the future.

There is a slight distortion in the article. There were

slightly over 990 prisoners involved in the work stoppage;

and there are only 1071 prisoners inside the joint—the refer-

ence I made to the 1400 prisoners included the farm’s popu-

lation (which also receives its medical “treatment” inside the

prison hospital).

Yesterday a brother passed out in the factory—he was

working with a 103 degree temperature. People who work in

the factory cannot go straight to the hospital when they’re

sick. Tey have to report to their respective jobs first, then

their bosses “arrange” for them to see the doctor—but it just

so happens that all factory appointments, no matter how sick

a prisoner may be, are scheduled for 2 and 3 p.m.; after the

person has put in a good six or seven hours as a slave!

Forty more prisoners have been locked-up since I wrote

the article. What would be the chances of filing a class action

suit to have them released? Are there any cases affording

prisoners the right to peaceful protest? Denying the right?

Judge Dillin has been very kind to prisoners around here

lately. What do you think? I'd also like to hear your opinion

about whether or not we should urge the dead brother’s fam-

ily to file charges against the prison.

Can you please see that Brigitte Cooke and Lanier get

copies of the press release. Also, tell Brigitte to send a copy

to Arthur. I’m thinking if he came down here to speak to the

media we could rally some needed local support.

Let me hear from you as soon as possible. And remember

to send the addresses of any attorneys in the area who you

th nk could be helpful. We want to open up this place—we’ve

got the issues and motivation and support to do it now. Take

care.

Moving slowly,

David

—

Date: May 13, 1973

To: U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons

From: Prisoner’s Peoples Union/Inmates of Terre Haute

Prison

Subject: Prison Labor Union

Dear Gentlemen:

“We want the right to bargain over wages, working condi-

tions and hours”.

IDEALS AND PROPOSALS OF THE

PRISONER LABOR UNION

The Prisoners’ Labor Union is a check and balance that

can be instituted to secure and insure that a penal system

does not dehumanize, but instead induces rehabilitation.

Prisoners Labor Union Grievances

I) We have been and presently are being ECONOMIC-

ALLY EXPLOITED. We are forced to supply (slave) labor

for the Federal Prison Industry: Food Service/ Laundry/

Maintenance Jobs—So called Vocational Training/ Electric

Shop/ Plumbing Shop; And receive virtually no salary; we

are coerced into this employment by threats of delayed re-

lease, confinement in segregation or denial of ordinary privi-

leges. The Inmate workers feel that they are entitled to a

minimum wage. If workers or prisoners work they should

have a right to work and be fairly paid for that work.

2) The Inmates are under some of the worse working con-

3) Inmates do not have a choice where they will work nor

as to what job they will be specifically assigned. The classifi-

cation board in assigning jobs, show little regard for the in-

mates wish as to what they feel would benefit them in prepa-

ration for their re-entry into society. We feel that it is

imperative that the inmate have a say in the matter as to the

job he performs.

a) Enact a method to replace the present classification sys-

tem to better serve the qualifications of the inmate

laborer.

4) The inmate is not entitled to any kind of workman’s

compensation normally given to employees. We feel that we

have the right to have these compensations.

a) ACCIDENT INSURANCE: to insure the inmate

b) LIFE INSURANCE: in case of an inmates death he

would be able to provide some degree of economic inde-

pendence for the family.

ec) MEDICAL INSURANCE: would not only compensate

the inmate but would leave his wife and family covered

as well.

d) Retirement BENEFITS: a long-term inmate having

worked for many years is entitled to these benefits as

well as the inmate incapable of holding a job through ei-

ther old age or injury.

5) The handicapped inmate is one of the most neglected

and forgotten prisoners in the penal system. There are no

significant programs available to them.

Structure for The Prisoners’ Labor Union

1) Establish a median income (monthly, yearly, etc.) for

each classification of all prison labor.

2) The eradication of racism in job placement of minority

3) Support legislation which would stimulate outside in-

terests for prison labor; that would create new job opportu-

4) Establish & broaden a more relevant vocational train-

ing program so it wili appeal to a larger segment of the in-

mate labor force.

5) Increase in salaries of correctional staff to create a

higher caliber of correctional employee.

6) Establish workman’s compensation for all Federal Em-

7) Develop rehabilitative programs for the handicapped

inmate.

8) Gain our human rights and privileges and show that

we, too are HUMAN BEINGS.

9) Improve dangerous working conditions.

10) Stimulate the interest of private industry in the penal

system.

11) Combat all forms of cruelty and injustices within the

system.

Basic Benefits to The Inmate

1) Financially, an inmate laborer, leaving an institution,

would be better equipped to adjust to society and less likely

to commit another crime. Today he has no immediate means

of physical survival.

2) Unionization can create an atmosphere which would in-

still essential requirements to an individual’s personal

growth, such as

a) A more positive attitude toward work.

b) The incentive to learn and succeed.

c) A comprehensive approach to self-rehabilitation.

d) Sense of responsibility.

e) Enable the inmate to overcome the guilt feeling of hav-

ing left his wife and family. ,

f) Would lead to the quality of inmate identifying with the

world and society around him.

3) Prisoners would think more in positive terms, having

less time to cause trouble (according to corrections

administration).

4) The opportunity to retain the attorney of their own

choosing.

5) Further productivity by giving them money enough to

buy a hobby, either for personal achievement, enjoyment or

the feeling of usefulness.

6) Money can be used for investments to aid family secu-

rity for the present or after release.

7) ‘Learn’ skills directly beneficial to them upon release.

8) Insure their health with better working conditions.

9) Allow the prisoner to fulfill past financial obligation

while in prison: home, automobile, etc.

FUTURE OBJECTIVES

1) Inmate-public seminars to act as a major force in

removing the “convict” stereotype from the public mind and

create access to media through TV, press and radio.

2) Develop a Prisoner Credit Union.

3) Seek investment opportunities for inmates.

4) Create job referral programs for parolees and

ex-convicts. .

5) Set up inmate cooperatives, operated by ex-convicts.

6) Establish a “Guest House” for visiting families who

must travel long distances.

7) Establish visiting programs for those inmates who do

not have families. ,

8) Transportation service for prisoners visitors to and

from various central points.

9) Educational scholarship fund program. 7,

10) Upgrade the medical treatment within the

11) Upgrade the food and commissa

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.