California protest demands ‘End solitary confinement!’

Published in The Militant:


Supporters of the fight to end solitary confinement of inmates in California state prisons rallied outside the federal courthouse here Aug. 21. Their action was in solidarity with four prisoners — Todd Ashker, Arturo Castellanos, George Franco and Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa — who have helped lead the ongoing struggle against the barbaric policy. They were in a court-ordered meeting with representatives of the California Department of Corrections inside the building.

The four were central leaders of hunger strikes and protests that grew to include 30,000 prisoners at the high point in 2013. These actions put a national spotlight on the abuse of thousands of prisoners held, some for decades, with little human contact in 8- by 10-foot windowless Security Housing Unit cells known as the SHU.

The four were also plaintiffs in a suit — Ashker vs. Governor of California — that won an end to indeterminate-length sentences to solitary confinement in California and the release of over 1,400 prisoners from the SHU.

Despite the success of moving some to general population units, the fight is far from over. Many of those released from the SHU have been transferred to extremely restrictive conditions in Level IV prisons or in Restricted Custody General Population Units, which have conditions markedly similar to that in the SHU.

“Our fight is against solitary confinement, no matter what they call it or what forms it takes,” Marie Levin, sister of Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa, told rally participants. She pointed to a giant banner held by protesters saying, “END ALL FORMS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.”

Letters from prisoners held in Level IV and Restricted Custody Units were read aloud, describing the denial of social interaction with fellow prisoners and lack of educational and job-training programs.

Read the rest here: https://themilitant.com/2018/09/08/california-protest-demands-end-solitary-confinement/

Advertisements

Don’t let CDCR reverse our hunger strike-won legal victory: Statement of prisoner representatives on second anniversary of Ashker v. Brown settlement

From: SF Bayview:
STATEMENT OF PRISONER REPRESENTATIVES ON SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF ASHKER V. BROWN SETTLEMENT

Oct 14, 2017 marks the 2 year anniversary of the approval of the Ashker settlement. We celebrate our victory in the Ashker case, in which virtually all of the over 1600 prisoners then languishing in indeterminate SHU were released to General Population. This victory was achieved through 3 hunger strikes and the non-violent legal and political action of thousands of California prisoners, their families, supporters, and their attorneys.

However, unfortunately our general monitoring is due to run out after two years unless the Court grants an extension. We believe that CDCR is still engaged in constitutional violations that deny prisoners due process and seeks to put us back in the hole, for many, indeterminately under the guise of Administrative SHU. Our attorneys will seek an extension of the agreement due to CDCR’s systemic violations of the constitution. We don’t know what the court will do, but we do know that prisoners and their families have to re-energize our human rights movement to fight against the continuing violations of our rights. Examples are:

· CDCR’s continued misuse of Confidential Information to place prisoners back in the SHU, particularly with bogus conspiracy charges;

· The lack of out of cell time, programming and vocational programs in Level 4 prisons. The last letter of CDCR stands for rehabilitation, and there is almost no rehab programs and opportunities in the level 4 prisons. They function like modified SHUs;

· The denial of parole to lifers and Prop 57 prisoners who have clean records simply because of old, unconstitutional gang validations and CDCR’s illegally housing us in SHU for years;

· The turning of the Restrictive Custody General Population Unit which was supposed to be a GP unit where prisoners who had real safety concerns could transition to regular GP, into a purgatory where the only way out is to either debrief or die;

· CDCR promulgation of new regulations which gives the ICC discretion to put people back in the SHU, allows for many prisoners to be placed in the future in indeterminate Administrative SHU, or to be placed in the RCGP on phony safety concerns.

We must stand together, not only for ourselves, but for future generations of prisoners, so that they don’t have to go through the years of torture that we had to. We need all prisoners – young and old -to make our collective outcry public to ensure that the victory that we have won is not reversed by CDCR behind closed doors. Ultimately, we are the ones who are responsible for leading the struggle for justice and fair treatment of prisoners. That is why we entered into the historic Agreement to End Hostilities, and why it is so important that the prisoner class continue to stand by and support that agreement. We cannot allow our victories to be nullified by CDCR’s abuse of power, and may have to commit ourselves to non-violent peaceful struggle if CDCR continues on its present path.

We need everyone- prisoners, their families and the public – to send comments on CDCR’s proposed regulations to staff@aol.ca.gov, send emails and letters urging Gov Brown to sign Assembly Bill 1308, make sure that prisoner complaints about unfair treatment are publicized, and to work together to rebuild our prisoners human rights movement.

We cannot let CDCR increase its use of prolonged solitary confinement either by misusing confidential information to place prisoners in SHU on phony conspiracy charges, or through increasing the use of Administrative SHU. As the Supreme Court stated over one hundred years ago in the 1879 case of Wilkerson v. Utah , it is “safe to affirm that punishment of torture…and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty are forbidden by that [the Eighth] Amendment.” The admired historian Howard Zinn noted the application of that decision to the modern SHU: “All we need then, is general recognition that to imprison a person inside a cage, to deprive that person of human companionship, of mother and father and wife and children and friends, to treat that person as a subordinate creature, to subject that person to daily humiliation and reminder of his or her own powerlessness in the face of authority… is indeed torture and thus falls within the decision of the Supreme Court a hundred years ago.”

Sitawa (S/N Ronnie Dewberry), Arturo Castellano, Todd Ashker, George Franco

Via CFASC – https://familyunitynetwork.org/cfasc/

Prisoner Human Rights Movement BLUE PRINT

(FULL BLUE PRINT pdf- all docs-284pgs)
Overview
Table of Contents
Blue Print core document
Appendix

BLUE PRINT 

The declaration on protection of all persons from being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 3452 (XXX) of December 9, 1975. The Declaration contains 12 Articles, the first of which defines the term “torture” as:

“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining his or a third person’s information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons.”

FREEDOM OUTREACH PRODUCTION
December 1, 2015

 

PRISONER HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT
#1
Blue Print Overview

California Department of Corrections and rehabilitation (“CDCr”) has systemic and dysfunctional problems that run rampant state-wide (within both Cal.’s Women and Men prisons), which demand this California government to take immediate action and institute measures to effect genuine tangible changes throughout CDCr on all levels.

The entire state government was notified and made aware of this “Dysfunctional” CDCr prison system in 2004 when its own governmental CIRP blue ribbon commission (authorized by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) reported this finding and fact. (See http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/CAGOV_US/C040600D.pdf; also see Prison Legal News article, “CA Corrections System Officially Declared Dysfuntional.”)

However, this CDCr state of “dysfunction” was not new to the massive number of women, men and youth being kept warehoused in CDCr, because they face it daily. (See Cal. Prison Focus News, 1990s-Present, Prisoner Reports/Investigation and Findings; San Francisco Bay View News Articles; ROCK & PHSS Newsletters, etc.)

During the historic California Prisoners’ Hunger Strikes (2011-2013), tens of thousands of men and women prisoners in CDCr’s solitary confinement torture prisons, as well as a third of the general population prisoners, united in solidarity in a peaceful protest to expose this dysfunctional system officially reported in 2004 by the CIRP.

The Prisoner Human Right’s Movement (PHRM) Blue Print is essentially designed to deal with identifying and resolving primary contradictions by focusing on the various problems of CDCr’s dysfunction, including (but not limited to) the following areas… [read full OVERVIEW Here]

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS for Blue Print

OVERVIEW by Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa

Prisoner Human Rights Movement BLUE PRINT

Prisoner Human Rights Movement (“PHRM”)

PHRM Principle Negotiators, Reps, Plaintiffs, Local Councils

I. Monitoring Reports on 33 State Prisons

II. Monitoring Implementation of the Ashker v. Brown Settlement Agreement

III. Instituting the Agreement to End Hostilities

IV. Legal PHRM Political Education

V. Freedom Outreach

Conclusion

APPENDIX

All Appendices can be found at www.prisonerhumanrightsmovement.org

#1 (A) Five Core Demands; &
(B)
Agreement to End Hostilities

#2 Second Amended Complaint, Ashker v. Brown

#3 Supplemental Complaint, Ashker v. Brown

#4 Settlement Agreement, Ashker v. Brown

#5 PHRM’s Principle Negotiators’ Statements on 2nd Anniversary of the Agreement to End Hostilities

#6 (A) Example Monitoring Report w/ Exhibit; &
(B)
Example Monitoring Record

#7 (A) CA Assembly Public Safety Committee Legislative Hearing on CDCr SHU policy, 8/23/2011
(B)
CA Joint Legislative Hearing on CA Solitary Confinement, 10/9/2013

#8 – Mediation team publications

(A) Mediation Team Memorandum on Meetings with CDCr Officials, (3/26/12)
(B) Mediation Team Memorandum on Meetings with CDCr Officials, (3/15/13)
(C) Mediation Team Memorandum on meetings with CDCr Officials, (2/20/15)

#9 – PHRM LEGAL PRISON ACTIVISM EDUCATION Packets*:

(A) LEARN TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS
(B)
MEMORANDUM ON UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF CDCR’s STG/SDP (Feb. 2015)

* To receive Educational Materials (Appendix #9), please write and send, for the cost of the mailing, either eleven dollars and fifty cents ($11.50) or the equivalent in postage stamps to:

Freedom Outreach/PHRM
Fruitvale Station
PO Box 7359
Oakland, CA 94601-3023

 

PRISONER HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT

We are beacons of collective building, while clearly understanding that We, the beacons, must take a protracted internal and external retrospective analysis of our present-day prisons’ concrete conditions to forge our Prisoner Human Rights Movement (PHRM) onward into the next stage of development, thereby exposing California Department of Corruption and Repression (CDCr)/United States Prison System of Cultural Discrimination against our Prisoner Class. This is why our lives must be embedded in our determined human rights laws, based on our constructive development of the continuous liberation struggle via our scientific methods and laws. Therefore, through our Prisoner Class, the concrete conditions in each prison/U.S. prisons shall be constructed through our Prisoner Human Rights Movement.

Continue reading

Jabari was finally moved to general population too!

Photo of Jabari Scott

Jabari 2 days before his release to general population – 28 dec 2015

An update now that I’ve transferred to the general population! Please note my new address, although I will likely to moving soon, so I recommend holding any mail until further notice in case it gets lost in the process.

After my CCI counselor read off my whole history to the committee (from my felony arrest to every incident I was involved in through my incarceration), Warden Davey began to explain that after 9 years and 7 months he was releasing me from the SHU and lowering my custody level because I haven’t received any rule violation write-ups for quite some time. Thus I will be transferred to the 270-designated prison that’s closest to my area. He followed that up with the expectations he has of me and the Captain told me to go pack up because I was to be immediately moved to the General Population (GP) yard here at Corcoran, no longer a SHU prisoner.

With that I went back to my cage and packed up all my property and relayed it to the building staff who inventoried it (and surprisingly didn’t take a thing). Soon after they came back to get me, and I said all my goodbye’s to those I built solid friendships with. My property was packed up on a golf cart and we took a ride through a maze of buildings, stopping several times to pass through multiple gates. When we finally made it to my destination (3A GP yard), I was helped off the cart and put up against the wall, my handcuffs were removed and the officer said “you’re free, and I won’t put handcuffs on you unless there’s something wrong. Go ahead and remove your property from the golf cart and put it in a push cart so that you can push it to the building you’re assigned to”.

This was the very first time in 9 years, 7 months that I have ever been next to an officer without handcuffs on, and it really felt weird because both of our psyches had been so scarred with the idea that I would attack him. But my brief apprehension passed, I loaded the hand cart and made my way to 3 building, where I was directed to cell 230 on the upper tier. I unloaded my property and put it in the cell I was assigned and which I will be occupying until I find a permanent home.

Immediately I began to notice all the small things that are now available to me in the SHU, like electric and cable TV plugs, a light switch, a clear, full size mirror where I could see my whole face, a proper shaving razor, boxes of plastic bags, lockers. In the SHU we put our electrical and cable cords through a hole in the wall so an officer could plug them in on the other side, and we had no light switches – all the lights went on at 6 AM and were shut off at 9 PM. When we are locked in a single man shower a razor is handed to us, which we have to rush to use and turn in before we exit the shower. Boxes and plastic bags are not allowed.

On my first morning my door was opened and my name was called over a loud speaker to go out to medication pickup. I walked with a group of guys and we all walked a good distance to the clinic and back to pick up our medication. In the SHU a nurse came to the door and gave everything to you. The walk was beautiful but everything felt surreal, as though I was in a fog. The reality of it all still has not set in. My neighbor was also in the SHU with me, he’s a Mexican from southern California, and he and his celly had an extra hot pot which they let me use. As soon as I got in my cell I filled it with water and made my first cup of hot coffee in 9 years and 7 months. In the SHU we’re not allowed to have anything hot in fear that we would throw it at an officer. Man it was beautiful enjoying my first cup of Joe. At lunch I hooked up my first hot top ramen soup and had a hot lunch. On Saturday we had chicken – first piece I’ve had with a bone in 10 years. In the SHU they serve small nugget-style pieces because they’re afraid we’ll make a knife. On Sunday I had my first real egg. After breakfast they called for Church – I’m not cleared yet to go to services but as soon as I am I’ll be attending. In the SHU they have no form of religious services whatsoever – looking forward to getting my God on!

In the mornings we have four hours of yard time and and hour and a half in the dayroom in the evening. I’m not eligible yet for this either but should be in 10 days. However, I don’t know if that will happen before they send a bus for me to go to whatever prison I’ve been promoted to.

I’m still getting used to having my door opened and me freely exiting through it. I quickly learned to be ready and on point at my door for medication pickups twice a day because I don’t want to get caught off guard with my door open and me not ready. All of it is a lot to get used to but I’m working my way through as reality continues to sink in. I will continue to keep you all updated – keep me in your prayers as you will always be in mine.

Jabari Scott

Aaron Ray Scott, H30536
CSP Corcoran 3A-03-230
POB 3461,
Corcoran, CA 93212

Summary of Ashker v. Governor of California

Summary of Ashker v. Governor of California

Settlement Terms

[from: CCR website]

When Ashker v. Governor was first filed as a class action in 2012, thousands of prisoners across the state of California languished in prolonged solitary confinement in Security Housing Units (SHU). At Pelican Bay State Prison alone, more than 500 prisoners had been held in the SHU for over 10 years, and 78 prisoners had been there for more than 20 years. They were warehoused in cramped, windowless concrete cells for almost 24 hours a day with no phone calls, infrequent visits through plexiglass preventing physical contact, meager rehabilitative opportunities, and no opportunity for normal social interaction with other prisoners. Their indefinite and prolonged confinement in this torturous isolation was based not on any actual misconduct but on vague and tenuous allegations of affiliation with a gang. Prisoners were routinely placed in prolonged solitary confinement for simply appearing on a list of gang members found in another prisoner’s cell, or possessing allegedly gangrelated artwork and tattoos.

In 2015, the plaintiffs agreed to a far-reaching settlement that fundamentally alters all aspects of this cruel and unconstitutional regime. The agreement will dramatically reduce the current solitary confinement population and should have a lasting impact on the population going forward; end the practice of isolating prisoners who have not violated prison rules; cap the length of time a prisoner can spend in solitary confinement at Pelican Bay; and provide a restrictive but not isolating alternative for the minority of prisoners who continue to violate prison rules on behalf of a gang.

1. The settlement transforms California’s use of solitary confinement from a status-based system to a behavior-based system.

Under California’s old regime, prisoners identified as gang affiliates were sent to SHU for an indefinite term based merely on their gang affiliation, regardless of whether they had ever violated a prison rule. The settlement transforms California’s use of solitary confinement from a status-based system to a behavior-based system: from now on, California will only send gang-validated prisoners to SHU if they are found guilty, at a hearing, of a serious “SHU-eligible” rule violation. These violations are now limited to the same violations that send non-gang-validated prisoners to the SHU: murder, violence against persons, threats to kill or assault, weapons possession, distribution of controlled substances, escape, disturbance, riot or strike, harassment, gang activity that leads to a serious rule violation, serious theft or destruction of property, extortion or bribery, certain sexual misconduct, and related attempts or conspiracy.

2. Validated gang affiliates who are found guilty of a SHU-eligible offense will enter a quicker two-year SHU step-down program for return to general population after serving their determinate SHU term.

Prisoners validated as gang affiliates in California used to face indefinite SHU confinement, with a review for possible release to general population only once every six years. Even when such reviews occurred, a single piece of evidence of alleged continued gang affiliation led to another six years of solitary confinement. That evidence was often as problematic as the original evidence used to send them to SHU – for example, a book, a poem, or a tattoo that was deemed to be gang-related. As a result, California held more people in solitary confinement, for longer periods of time, than any other state in the country.

Under the settlement, California will no longer impose indeterminate SHU sentences. Instead, after serving a determinate sentence for a SHU-eligible offense, validated gang affiliates whose offense was proven to be related to gang activities will be transferred to a two-year, four-step program. Prisoners will definitely be released to a general population prison setting after two years unless they commit another SHU-eligible offense while in the step-down program. While conditions at the steps remain harsh, prisoners will be allowed some telephone calls and rehabilitative programming at each step.

This new step-down program improves upon interim reforms unilaterally promulgated by the state after the Ashker complaint was filed. It cuts in half the time in the program from four to two years; provides increased phone calls, other privileges, and out-of-cell programming in the steps; and eliminates prisoners being kept in the SHU for either minor infractions or failure to engage in required behavioral programming.

Under this settlement, those prisoners who have refused to participate in step-down programming, or who have been found guilty of numerous acts of misconduct that don’t rise to the level of a SHU-eligible offense, will be transferred to a new unit established as an alternative to solitary: a Restricted Custody General Population Unit (RCGP). In this unit, described below, they will have the opportunity to complete the step-down program in a high-security but non-solitary unit, and earn release into general population.

3. California will review all current gang-validated SHU prisoners within one year to determine whether they should be released from solitary under the settlement terms. It is estimated by CDCR that the vast majority of such prisoners will be released to general population. In addition, virtually all of those prisoners who have spent more than 10 years in solitary will be immediately released to a general-population setting, even if they have committed recent serious misconduct.

The settlement requires speedy review of all prisoners currently held in a California SHU based on gang affiliation. With very limited exceptions, described below, those who have not been found guilty of a SHUeligible offense within the last two years will be immediately released to a general-population unit. Those with a recent SHU-eligible offense will be placed at the appropriate step of the step-down program, based on the date of the rule violation. It is currently estimated that only a small minority of those currently held in a SHU based on gang affiliation have a recent SHU-eligible offense, so that the overwhelming majority of prisoners should be released into general population under this settlement.

In addition, California has implicitly recognized the harm to prisoners from very prolonged solitary confinement by agreeing that those prisoners who have already spent 10 or more continuous years in the SHU will generally be immediately released from the SHU and placed in the RCGP to complete the step-down program – even if they have been found guilty of, or are still serving a sentence for, a recent gang-related SHU offense. Nor will anyone be involuntarily held in the Pelican Bay SHU for longer than five years for any reason. Even those prisoners who have been incarcerated in the SHU for more than 10 years and are currently serving a determinate SHU sentence for serious misconduct will be released to the RCGP to complete their SHU sentence and the step-down program unless California can show by a preponderance of the evidence that to do so would pose an unreasonable security risk.

4. California will create a new Restricted Custody General Population Unit (RCGP) as a secure alternative to solitary confinement.

The RCGP is a general-population unit designed to facilitate positive and meaningful social interactions for prisoners about whom California has serious security concerns, such that they would otherwise be placed in solitary confinement. As such, it may serve as a model for jurisdictions seeking to do away with solitary confinement altogether, while still ensuring prison security.

As part of a general-population unit, RCGP prisoners will be allowed to move around the unit without restraints, will be afforded as much out-of-cell time as other general-population prisoners, and will be able to receive contact visits. As a very high-security, restrictive-custody unit, its group activities will generally be in small groups, instead of large yards. For example, RCGP prisoners will have access to educational courses, a small-group recreation yard, small-group leisure activities and programming, some job opportunities and phone calls. Programming will be designed to provide increased opportunities for positive social interaction with both other prisoners and staff.

Three categories of prisoners will be sent to the RCGP: first, those who repeatedly violate prison rules while in the step-down program or refuse to take part in step-down programming; second, those who have spent over 10 continuous years in some form of solitary confinement and have recently committed a SHU-eligible offense; and third, prisoners against whom there is a substantial threat to their personal safety that limits their ability to be released into other general-population units.

5. Very prolonged solitary confinement will be severely limited and those confined provided significantly more out-of-cell time.

Because this settlement ends the prior practice of indeterminate SHU sentences for validated prisoners, generally prisoners will not be kept in the SHU for more than 10 continuous years, with a limited exception, called Administrative SHU. The settlement limits and ameliorates such prolonged solitary confinement by (a) setting up strict criteria for its use, (b) requiring increased out-of-cell time, and (c) providing for strong judicial review of its use. For example, where the Departmental Review Board has overwhelming evidence that a prisoner who has already served a SHU term presents an immediate threat such that he cannot be placed in general population, he can be kept in the SHU. Even in such instances, CDCR shall provide enhanced out-of-cell recreation and programming of a combined total of 20 hours per week, double the out-of-cell time of other SHU prisoners. During the agreement, CDCR’s decision is subject to review by Magistrate Judge Vadas, who is monitoring implementation of the settlement with plaintiffs’ counsel. The agreement states that CDCR’s expectation is that only a small number of prisoners will be retained in Administrative SHU. The Administrative SHU prisoners will have 180-day reviews in which staff will be required to identify efforts to move the prisoner to a less restrictive environment with the assumption being that these prisoners would be candidates to be moved to the RCGP. In addition, no prisoner may be held involuntarily at Pelican Bay SHU for more than 5 years.

6. Prisoner representatives will work with plaintiffs’ counsel and the magistrate judge to monitor implementation of the settlement.

The struggle to reform California’s use of solitary confinement has always been a prisoner-led movement. Indeed, the settlement was negotiated with the active participation of the prisoner representatives, who met as a group several times with counsel via conference phone calls, and who ultimately decided as a group to ratify the agreement. Under this settlement, prisoner representatives will retain their hard-won seat at the table to regularly meet with California prison officials to review the progress of the settlement, discuss programming and step-down program improvements, and monitor prison conditions. Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive regular documentation of all administrative-SHU and step-down placements, progress, and SHU-eligible rule violations. Along with Magistrate Judge Vadas, plaintiffs’ counsel will monitor all aspects of the settlement implementation. Magistrate Judge Vadas will be empowered to review and remedy any individual or systemic violations of the agreement. In addition, the settlement continues the ability of the prisoner representatives from around the state to confer as a group in a conference call with counsel to discuss the implementation and monitoring of the agreement.

The settlement also requires re-training of California correctional staff, and prohibits any retaliation for prisoners’ past and future involvement in the litigation or settlement monitoring.

The monitoring process under the settlement will be in effect for 24 months, with the opportunity to seek additional 12-month extensions upon a showing of continuing constitutional violations.

Solitary Confinement: A “Social Death” – NYT on “Shocking” Data from CCR Case

A video the New York Times published, accompanying the article Solitary Confinement: Punished for Life (August 3rd, 2015, by Erica Goode) shows Todd Ashker, George Franco, Gabriel Reyes and Paul Redd talking on camera about solitary confinement, being locked down without any hope, with no ending in sight:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/bcvideo/1.0/iframe/embed.html?videoId=100000003831139&playerType=embed


This comes from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and it is about the Case Ashker v. Brown, in which the New York Times used research, including the 10 expert reports and a video with 4 of the class action representatives (Todd Ashker, George Franco, Gabriel Reyes and Paul Redd).

Today’s New York Times science section features a front-page piece about the research that CCR commissioned and compiled for our ground-breaking challenge to long-term solitary confinement. “Solitary Confinement: Punished for Life” introduces to the public the 10 expert reports we submitted to the court in Ashker v. Brown, the class-action lawsuit on behalf of prisoners in solitary in California’s Pelican Bay prison. Together, this research presents an unprecedented 360-degree look at the science behind how and why solitary confinement causes irreversible physical and mental harm.

According to the expert reports, prisoners subjected to prolonged solitary experience a form of “social death” that is not cured upon release, but rather lingers as a “post-SHU syndrome” characterized by social withdrawal, isolation, and anxiety. One researcher said it was “shocking, frankly” that some prisoners endure decades of isolation. The Science Times piece is accompanied by a moving video of our clients.

The reports also provide evidence that the profound impact of solitary is not just psychological; SHU prisoners experience unusually heightened levels of hypertension, placing them at risk for serious health consequences. The international and domestic experts agree that such prolonged isolation is not only unnecessary for prison security, but actually counter-productive, as well as a violation of international law.

The expert reports – by leading scholars in psychology, neuroscience, medicine, prison classification, prison security, international law, and international corrections – are part of the discovery phase of our case. They are critical to our argument that prolonged solitary confinement violates the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

But the reports do more than support our case. They help the growing national movement to end solitary. By bringing public scrutiny to the severe physical and psychological harm our clients and so many others are suffering as a result of their isolation, we hope to continue turning the tide against this form of torture until it is eradicated from the U.S. once and for all.

PHRM: Cease Participation within CDCr’s Sensory Deprivation/Behavior Modification Program (SDP Steps 1-4)

Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa

April 15, 2015

Our non-Violence Peaceful Protest continues via our Prisoner Human Rights Movement (PHRM), Local Council. For each prison / institution, and here at California Correctional Institution, Tehachapi prison, we, the Local Council, are:

Brutha Sitawa; Danny Troxell, B76578; Gabriel Huerta, C80766; and Javier Martinez, T62995, who shall represent the PHRM.

On the state level the PHRM Four (4) Principal Negotiators are: George Franco, Arturo Castellanos, Todd Ashker and Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa (Dewberry).

The statewide Representatives of our PHRM and Agreement to End Hostilities (AEH) are D. Troxell, L. Powell, A. Guillen, G. Herta, P. Redd, R. Yandell, J.M. Perez, J. Baridi Williamson, S. Sandoval, P. Fortman, Y. Iyapo-I (Alexander), A. Yrigollen, F. Bermudez, F. Clement, and R. Chavo Perez.

All of the above named Prisoner Activists are recognized by CDCr leading officials there in Sacramento head office. We shall not allow for CDCr leading officials to condone and sanction CCI, (specifically), Pelican Bay, CSP-Corcoran and CSP-Sacramento continue to violate our Human Rights, Civil Rights, U.S. Constitutional Rights, California Constitutional Rights, CCR-Title 15 Rights and those statewide sanctioned standardization policies for all SHU, SDP and Ad Seg Prisoners.

We know that CCI officials have been consistently violating our 1st and 8th and 14th Amendment Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

We, the PHRM, stand in Solidarity with all CDCr Women SHU and Ad Seg and GP prisoners. California Women Prisoners Lives Matter !!

CDCr and CCI both realize that on Sept. 4, 2013, myself, along with the above named Prisoner Activists, entered into an agreement to the PHRM to suspend our July 8, 2013 Historic Third Hunger Strike, so that Director M. Stainer can carry out and complete the mandates of Undersecretary Scott Kernan’s policies and directives to all CDCr Wardens, and afford all SHU and Ad Seg people their new CDCr rights as prisoners.

On Sept. 5, 2013, our Third Historic Hunger Strike of 30,000 state prisoners, we, Principal Negotiators entered into another CDCr Agreement with M. Stainer, Director of DAI, along with his two (2) leading, acting Special Directors, G. Guirbino and S. Hubbard, who are the architecture of the STG/SDP. We Principal Negotiators went through a two (2) month (Sept., Oct. 2013) process of dialogues and negotiations over the Five (5) Core Demands and the Forty (40) Supplemental Demands, which are now a part of the SHU/SDP Standardization Current Policies.

Now, the realization of the PHRM-Local Council that we are a recognized Political Prisoners Movement, by the California State Legislature, CDCr’s past and present Secretaries, UnderSecretaries, and Directors of DAI, etc., operating inside and outside of California Prison System since January 1, 2011. No Warden in CDCr can state that they are not aware of the PHRM, especially the five SHUs, etc. within California Prison System and the laws and policies and Standardization of Rules, which are a result of the struggles that the Prisoner Activists have been directly involved with the PHRM, which drastically transformed California Prison system (i.e., CDCr).

The PHRM-LC is struggling for their Rights, Civil Rights, State Constitutional Rights, U.S. Constitutional Rights and those CDCr, CCR-Title 15 Procedural Due Process Rights, which have been denied to our Prisoner Class here at CCI/ Tehachapi prison.

“California Correctional Institution, CCI have denied all SHU and SDP prisoners their Rights, knowingly with malice aforethought, to cause permanent psychological damage while utilizing sensory deprivation and mandatory behavior modification (i.e., SDP).” S.N.J. © January 20, 2015

The above description of our suffering has been sanctioned by CDCr’s leading officials who actually knew or should have known about CCI’s blatant disregard of laws and policies and prisoners rights not to be tortured on any aspect of prisoners humanity.

This is our tentative list of CCI officials who have been violating our rights daily and implementing these rule violations:  Kim Holland, Warden; W. Sullivan, Chief Deputy Warden; J. Gutierrez, Chief Deputy Warden; P. Matzen, Associate Warden; Mayo, Capt.; Y. Ybarra, CC-I; M. Esqueda, CCI; M. Montano, IGI Sgt.; Mike Tann, SDP Facilitator, CC-III; Cole, Sgt.; Cantu, Sgt.; J. Tyree, IGI Lt.; Nathaniel, Laundry Supervisor; W. Whitson, Sgt.; B. Snider, CC-II; Campbell, Lt.; and the various co-conspirators, i.e., Sgt’s, Lt’s, CC-II’s, CC-Is, etc., who are retaliating, discriminating and directing cultural and racial prejudice at SFP Step 3 and 4 prisoners specifically, and against SHU prisoners as well.

Those above named CDCr employees are directly responsible or was directly aware of our suffering and did nothing to stop it. Yes, that constitutes co-conspiracy, according to California Penal Code titled Conspiracy, and these CCI officials cannot claim they were not aware of these blatant disregards of our Prisoner Rights.

These Prisoner Rights have been sanctioned by the three (3) highest ranking CDCr officials within the State of California during their tenure, between July 2011 to the present day of May 2015, as the Secretary of CDCr, Undersecretary of CDCr and Director for Division of Adult Institutions for CDCr.

PHRM-LC realized that CCI named officials feel that they are above the laws of this State and have continuously undermined their superior authorities from CDCr head office. CCI have been operating their rogue IGI with the sanctioning of the Warden, Chief Deputy Warden, and Associate Warden of this institution.