# Joint Appendix — Cleavinger v. Saxner > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0362%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 474 U.S. 193 ## Text In the Supreme Court of the Anited States OCTOBER TERM, 1984 THEODORE CLEAVINGER, MARVIN MARCADIS, AND Tom P. LOCKETT, PETITIONERS v. 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 a 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 EE 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, v. CHARLES BENSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 37/75 3/21/75 4475 1215/75 1219/75 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 2 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 3 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 d 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. 5 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 7 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 4/23/81 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 9 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 10 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 11 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. ' 12 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, v. 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. 13 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 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 7 i 15 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; 16 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 17 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 18 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- 19 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. 20 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- 21 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; a tution rules or (c) Is pending investigation or trial for a criminal act: (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; (c) The types of disciplinary action which may be 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. 2 (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 30 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 31 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 33 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 34 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. (c) The inmate will be entitled to be present at the (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 36 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. (c) Procedural Requirements: An inmate may not be 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- 37 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. ) 38 (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. 39 (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- 40 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 41 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? (c) Under the circumstances, was the sanction 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- 42 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 43 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- 44 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- 45 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. (c) A description of basic living levels follows: 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 46 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 47 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. 48 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 49 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 50 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 BY /s/ (Illegible) 15. DATE INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED 2-15-75 16. TIME INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED 10:00 a.m. 51 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 52 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 BY 15. DATE INCIDENT REPORT DELIVERED 2-15-75 16. TIME INCIDENT REPORTED 10:00 a.m. 53 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 56 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. 57 (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 58 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 59 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. 60 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.” 61 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, 62 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 63 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. 65 (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 66 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 67 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. 68 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- 69 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 70 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 71 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 72 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0362%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.