Cruel and Usual:
AN INVESTIGATION
INTO PRISON ABUSE
AT USP THOMSON

A Report By
The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs
Uptown People’s Law Center
Levy Firestone Muse LLP
Counsel to the Investigation: Latham & Watkins LLP

WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS

This report
is dedicated to

the brave individuals
who, despite facing retaliation,
physical danger, and psychological
trauma, spoke out about the conditions
in the Special Management Unit at
the United States Penitentiary
in Thomson, Illinois.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................2
History of the Special Management Unit............................................................... 4
The Investigation......................................................................................................5
Abusive Use of Restraints.................................................................................... 6
Dangerous Cell Practices and Extreme Isolation............................................... 8
Mental Health – From Indifference to Violence.................................................10
Sexual Assaults................................................................................................... 12
Rampant Racism................................................................................................. 13
Interference with Access to Counsel................................................................. 14
Grievance and Accountability Failures.............................................................. 16
Necessary Reforms................................................................................................. 18
Conclusion..............................................................................................................22
Endnotes.................................................................................................................24

CONTENT GUIDANCE: This report includes descriptions of torture, physical violence, sexual
assault, and racist, homophobic, and transphobic language. Please read with care.

Cruel and Usual

1

Executive Summary
Hundreds of people held in in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Special Management Unit
(SMU) endured years of unconstitutional and abusive conditions. Those abuses were particularly
extreme during the more than three years the program was located in the United States Penitentiary
in Thomson, Illinois (Thomson).
Over the past 18 months, more than 40 lawyers and legal staff members from the Washington
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Latham & Watkins LLP, Uptown People’s
Law Center, and Levy Firestone Muse LLP, investigated the conditions in the SMU at Thomson.
During that investigation we collected accounts of extreme physical and psychological abuse
from more than 120 people. We also witnessed firsthand abusive and obstructive staff behavior,
and saw with our own eyes injuries inflicted by Thomson employees.
Guards regularly placed individuals in dangerous four-point restraints for hours, sometimes
days, and often without food, water, or access to a toilet. Many individuals reported being beaten
and sexually assaulted while in restraints. Guards fastened the restraints so tightly that they
caused scars on individuals’ wrists, ankles, and stomachs. This happened so frequently that the
resulting scars became known as a “Thomson Tattoo.”
In addition to physical abuse, guards subjected people in the SMU to psychological trauma
through the use of extended solitary confinement, referred to by the BOP euphemistically as
“restrictive housing.”1 In the SMU, solitary confinement involved locking two people in a cell for
up to 23 hours a day, a practice known as double-cell solitary confinement. If Thomson officials
wanted to punish someone, they would deliberately assign them a cellmate with whom they had
known conflicts, or who posed a physical or sexual threat (forced celling). Refusing to move to
a double-cell in such dangerous situations often led to further staff-initiated violence, including
four-point restraints.
The physical and psychological trauma took its toll on everyone in the SMU, but was
particularly harmful to those who were psychologically fragile. BOP policy generally prohibits
people with severe mental health conditions from being placed in the SMU.2 Yet we regularly
interviewed people in the SMU with significant mental health diagnoses including bipolar disorder,
schizophrenia, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Not only did staff at Thomson refuse to provide
appropriate mental health care to these individuals, but they responded to suicidal ideations and
self-harm attempts with brutal beatings, restraints, and extreme isolation.

2

Cruel and Usual

Racism was also rampant. White SMU staff commonly targeted Black individuals in the SMU,
hurling egregious racial slurs such as “boy,” “n****r,” or “Black bitch” while commiting acts of
violence against them, and even made threats to “make you the next George Floyd,” a reference
to a Black man killed by police during an arrest.
When individuals held in the SMU would attempt to speak to an attorney about these and
other abuses, Thomson staff actively interfered. Staff either refused to schedule, or cancelled,
calls and visits, sometimes at the last minute, often under pretenses. Counsel often needed to
involve senior BOP staff and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General just to arrange a single legal
call or legal visit with a client. Following calls or visits, guards aggressively fished for information
about the substance of legal conversations and, sometimes, brutally retaliated against individuals
simply for having met with their lawyers.
Thomson staff also actively interfered with the administrative process that allows individuals
who are imprisoned to complain about the conditions of their confinement—referred to colloquially
as the “grievance process”—by refusing to provide, or otherwise destroying, the forms needed
to file a grievance. By preventing people from completing the grievance process, staff knowingly
increased the chance that any lawsuit filed would be barred for a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, no matter how unjustifiable the conduct or severe the constitutional violation. The
individuals with whom we spoke described nothing less than a culture of torture far too pervasive
to be the result of a few “bad apples.” More than 165 staff members participated in violence, abuse,
or other inhumane treatment at Thomson. Indeed, more than 35 staff members were involved in
4 or more separate violent incidents. For many, this cycle of violence and abuse was inescapable.
The BOP and Thomson officials regularly held people in the SMU for far longer than the expected
9-12 month duration of the program—in some cases, for close to 4 consecutive years.
This is also not a story of a rogue facility. After the BOP closed the Thomson SMU in
February 2023, they transferred individuals held in Thomson to locations all over the country.
Our clients report that similar issues are pervasive in the other facilities: 13 individuals reported
the use of excessive restraints at their new facilities, 20 have experienced assault by staff or
physical retaliation, 7 have reported being forced into cells with someone the guards knew
was dangerous, 16 reported staff have failed to protect them from known dangers, 6 described
encountering an inaccessible grievance process, and 30 reported a lack of access to mental
health and medical care.

Comprehensive, system-wide reform is needed. At a minimum, the
Department of Justice and BOP should take the following steps:

1.

The Department of Justice should
immediately open a criminal
investigation into the abuses in
the SMU.

BOP must immediately end the
2. The
SMU program and strictly limit the

BOP must create a meaningful,
4. The
accessible grievance process.
Department of Justice must
5. The
impose external independent
oversight.

use of other restrictive housing.

BOP must strictly limit and
3. The
monitor the use of restraints.

Cruel and Usual

3

History of the SMU
The BOP has a long history of abusing people in its care. One of many examples is the
pervasive abuse of individuals in the SMU at Thomson.
More than 15 years ago, the BOP opened the first SMU at the United States Penitentiary
in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Advocates filed multiple lawsuits challenging the unconstitutional
conditions in the SMU at Lewisburg, including the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil
Rights & Urban Affairs and Latham & Watkins. The BOP closed the SMU at Lewisburg in 2018,
mooting the litigation. Rather than address the unconstitutional conditions that led to the
lawsuits, or address the culture of brutality, the BOP simply transferred approximately 400
individuals—and many members of the staff—to a new SMU at Thomson, shifting the same
venal culture from one SMU to the next. In the absence of any criminal accountability for staff
offenses at the Lewisburg SMU, the culture at the Thomson
SMU became even more medieval.
From the moment the SMU opened at Thomson, people
held there reported unconstitutional conditions surpassing
…the BOP and its
those at Lewisburg, and an increase in staff violence.
Specifically, they reported excessive use of restraints, staff
assaults, racial discrimination, being forced into cells with
individuals who were known threats, interference with access
any accountability.
to counsel and the grievance process, being forced by staff
to fight other detained people, and wide-spread retaliation
by guards.
In response we opened an investigation that would last more than 18 months. Yet again, before
litigation could be filed, the BOP closed the SMU at Thomson. While we applaud its closure, the
BOP and its staff have once again avoided any accountability. It is our understanding that none
of the abuses described in detail below have resulted in either administrative consequences or
criminal charges against the BOP staff involved. In fact, individuals at three different facilities have
reported that multiple former Thomson guards are now working at their new institutions.

staff have once
again avoided

4

Cruel and Usual

The Investigation
During our investigation we received information from more than 120 people in the SMU,
conducted at least 100 interviews and legal calls, and reviewed over a thousand pages of
correspondence and institutional records.3
We uncovered a widespread culture of abuse involving officials up and down the chain
of command. Thomson staff assaulted people in the SMU almost daily—for personal reasons,
retaliation for grieving prior abuses, and sometimes for no reason at all. Five individuals imprisoned
at USP Thomson died unnatural deaths between 2019 and 2022, the most of any BOP facility.
Countless other individuals suffered serious injuries and unquantifiable psychological trauma,
and many risked grave retaliations just to stand up for their rights.

Records and interviews with people in the SMU revealed:

241
178

acts of physical violence
by guards

136

separate incidents of retaliation
by guards against more than

50 people

uses of excessive restraint
by guards

These numbers reflect only the experiences of the people who contacted us. Understandably,
many more were uncomfortable with disclosing, were otherwise unable to disclose their
experiences, or had left the SMU by the time we began investigating. Since the BOP closed
the SMU in February 2023, more than 25 additional people have provided their own first-hand
accounts that are highly consistent with those reported to us during the investigation. Thus, the
true extent of the abuse is likely far greater.
Below we describe the most common forms of abuse inflicted by Thomson staff on people in
the SMU. This list is not exhaustive.

Cruel and Usual

5

The Investigation

Abusive Use of Restraints
SMU staff regularly violated both federal regulations and BOP policies prohibiting the use of
force, including restraints, as a form of punishment. Specifically, BOP staff repeatedly violated
BOP Program Statements and federal regulations, which only allow for temporary and progressive
use of restraints, only for the purpose of preventing an individual from hurting themselves, staff,
or others, or causing serious property damage, and never in a way that causes unnecessary pain
or extreme discomfort.4
SMU staff repeatedly and intentionally violated these prohibitions. Staff went so far as to
dedicate a cell to be used as a restraint room, making it easier for guards (and their supervisors)
to avoid accountability. Multiple people reported that staff denied them food, water, and access
to a toilet while in restraints, contrary to federal regulations.5 As a result, they were forced to sit
or lay in their own excrement.

Overall, we were able to uncover evidence of the following abuses:

82
39
28

people who guards assaulted or
violently restrained
people who guards assaulted while
in restraints
people who guards assaulted or
restrained multiple times

13

people who guards left in 4-point
restraints anywhere from 24 to 96
hours straight

178

individual incidents of guards
using restraints as a form of
punishment or torture

Four-Point Restraints. Four-point restraints severely limit a person’s movement by individually
shackling all four limbs. At Thomson, guards would often add a belly chain and tighten the
restraints so much that individuals were painfully stretched in four different directions and forced
to lie prostrate on a concrete slab for hours or even days at a time. The restraints often caused
temporary paralysis or numbness and left permanent scars, or “Thomson Tattoos.” Attorneys
visiting people held at the Thomson SMU saw the scars on multiple individuals firsthand.
Restraint Chairs. Restraint chairs immobilize a person in a chair through straps applied
across their chest, ankles, wrists, and arms—like a full body harness. In the SMU, the straps
were intentionally applied to cut into people’s skin and to force their elbows and wrists into
uncomfortable positions that cause shaking, numbness, and even temporary paralysis. Restraint
chairs are banned in several states and have been linked to more than 36 deaths going back to
the 1990s.6
Ambulatory Restraints. Ambulatory restraints limit a person’s ability to move their arms and
legs while still allowing for some mobility. For example, a person who is handcuffed and wearing
leg shackles can walk, but the length of their stride is restricted to exceedingly small steps. In the
SMU, staff added a chain connecting the restraints on the ankles to the restraints on the wrists
and tightened the chain to cut off circulation and pierce the skin during movement.

6

Cruel and Usual

The Investigation

Was in hard restraints 1or 1our days. Concem regarding un
Genera\ Radio\ogy-Wrist-2 \Jiew AP/Lat

One 1irne

lBi1
Survivor: A.S.
Officials abused A.S. in retaliation for
writing letters to the American Civil Liberties
Union and Department of Justice’s Office of
the Inspector General (OIG). Just after A.S.
handed the letters to his counselor to mail, a
group of guards dragged him from his cell and
attacked him at the direction of a Lieutenant,
who initiated the attack by simply saying
“Now.” The guards dug their nails into A.S.’s
eyes, bent his fingers backwards, bashed his
head into the ground, and struck him in the
back, side, and legs. “We’re going to teach
your dumb n****r ass,” one said.
Then, while wheeling A.S. to the restraint
room on a gurney for further punishment,
they choked him and dug into his eyes with
gloves covered in pepper spray. Once in the
restraint room, officials placed him in fourpoint restraints, sneaking in blows to his body
while carefully avoiding the view of a handheld
camera operated by a guard at the door.
Two hours later, six officials came back
with a lieutenant to assault him again. One told
him, “You’re our bitch. We can do whatever
we want to you. Now there’s no cameras and
nobody is going to stop us.” Over the course
of several hours, officials repeatedly tortured
A.S., kneeing him in the groin and prying
apart his lips so they could bang metal keys
on his teeth. At one point a Lieutenant asked
the other officials in the room, “Y’all haven’t
broken him yet? I would’ve had him at least
three inches taller by now.”
The officials immediately tightened the
restraints in response, which gouged into

A.S.’s skin, and violently stretched his legs
toward the table at the bottom of the concrete
slab. The lieutenant exclaimed, “That Black
bitch is going to be taller,” laughed, and left
the cell.
A.S.’s body convulsed as he screamed in
pain and prayed for death. Hours later, during
a restraint check, another lieutenant said,
“I’m not going to help you. I don’t give a fuck
about you. Stop crying.” Another hour passed
before a nurse finally loosened the restraints.
Thirteen hours after the assault began, a
third lieutenant took A.S. back to his cell, but
warned him, “Better not tell nobody what
happened or next time will be worse. You see
nobody can stop us, so keep your fucking
mouth shut about this whole ordeal, boy.”

QJ

Survivor: O.P.
Thomson staff frequently assaulted O.P.
while he was restrained. Once, guards choked
O.P. in restraints. As he struggled to breathe,
he heard an official say, “Don’t kill him right
now because we’re still under investigation
for the last murder.” Another official then
held O.P.’s head against the concrete restraint
slab, hitting him repeatedly. As O.P. lay there,
battered, he heard an official ask if anyone
would volunteer that O.P. attacked them first.
O.P. was then held in four-point restraints
for four days. To this day, O.P. suffers injuries
including a “Thomson Tattoo,” nerve damage,
and scars from a rash that developed as he
laid in his own waste.

Cruel and Usual

7

The Investigation

Dangerous Cell Practices and Extreme Isolation
People confined to the SMU were subject to what the BOP euphemistically calls “restrictive
housing.”7 In restrictive housing, people are locked in their cells more than twenty-two hours a
day, often for months or years at a time. Some people are completely isolated without any other
human contact, while others are forced to share a cell the size of a parking space8 with another
person—a form of extreme confinement called double-cell solitary. Psychologists and those who
have been subjected to double-cell solitary say is often worse than single-cell solitary because it
regularly leads to violent outbursts 9that cellmates cannot escape.

Forced Confinement with Dangerous Individuals
Staff at Thomson intentionally contrived dangerous cell assignments to incite violence
(referred to here as “forced celling”). For instance, officials paired together cellmates with
known conflicts or vulnerabilities; offered incentives, like reduced time in the SMU, to encourage
fights; used those fights as a pretext to intervene with acts of violence; falsified subsequent
incident reports; and beat up or restrained anyone who refused to play along. According to one
person, this led to multiple “staged fights” every week. As another put it, “Cell consolidation
days are when officers get geeked out or happy because they know 9 times out of 10 there’s
going to be violence.”
The BOP was well aware of these problems. On March 2, 2020, SMU staff locked Matthew
Phillips, a 31-year-old Jewish man, in a cage with two known white supremacist/anti-Semitic gang
members.10 The gang members beat and kicked Matthew unconscious while the guards watched.11
He died three days later.12 All of this occurred before we began our investigation, yet violent forced
celling arrangements continued.

41
8

individuals experienced at least one forced-celling
arrangement against their consent.

Cruel and Usual

The Investigation

Indefinite Solitary
People imprisoned in the SMU at Thomson were primarily held in double-cell isolation for
more than 23 hours per day, every day. Being constantly locked in a space the size of a parking
space with another person can be worse than being alone.13 Many people in the Thomson
SMU endured double-cell solitary for years, despite the BOP’s own program statement, which
states the SMU is intended for periods not longer than 9-13 months at a time and 24 months
in total.14 For many, the SMU became an indefinite form of isolation in violation of the BOP’s
own program statement.15

44

individuals spent more than 24
consecutive months in the SMU,
in direct violation of the maximum time
permitted

54

individuals spent a combined 112
years in the SMU, an average
of more than 2 years each

14

individuals spent more than 3
consecutive years in the SMU,
with several approaching 4 years

Survivor: Kareem Louis
Over repeated objections, officials forced
Mr. Louis to cell with an individual they knew
was dangerous. This cellmate eventually
stabbed Mr. Louis in the hands, back, arms,
and neck, then raped him while he was
unconscious.

Survivor: E.C.
Guards tried to use E.C. to punish a different
person, saying, “We’re going to put you in his
cell, and you have to beat his ass. He’s coming
off suicide watch; you’re going to have to fuck
him up or you got one coming.” The last time

“…you’re going
to have to

fuck him up

or you got one coming.”

he refused to fight a cellmate, guards beat
him so badly they blinded him in one eye.
However, E.C. still refused to cooperate. As a
result, he was too terrified to leave his cell for
eight months—even to shower.

Survivor: E.M.
Officials forced E.M., a trans woman, to
cell with an openly anti-LGBTQIA+ individual,
who threatened to rape her and beat her until
she died. When she reported this to an official
and asked for a different cell assignment, he
told her to “fight or fuck.” E.M. then attempted
suicide.

QJ

Survivor: Daryl Hickson
When Mr. Hickson objected to a cell
assignment because of a conflict with his
cellmate, a white guard told him, “You either
kill or be killed.” The guard then added,
“You’re going back in that cell to get killed,
n****r.” When Mr. Hickson continued to object,
officials placed him in four-point restraints.

Cruel and Usual

9

The Investigation

Mental Health – From Indifference to Violence
Individuals with serious mental health conditions are generally not supposed to be placed in
the SMU.16 BOP psychologists are required to assess whether a person has a disqualifying mental
health condition before they are transferred to the SMU, and if an individual develops a mental health
condition that interferes with their ability to progress through the SMU program, staff are required to
transfer that person out of the SMU.17 In reality, neither happened. We spoke with dozens of individuals
in the SMU who had severe mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and
posttraumatic stress disorder. A number of them reported the BOP downgraded their mental health
care level, either just prior to or after their transfer, so they would be eligible for the SMU—when they
otherwise would not have been.
Our findings are well-known to the BOP, and they are consistent with a 2017 report by the OIG.
In that report, the OIG found that mental health policies adopted in 2014 resulted in a significant
decrease in the number of individuals identified as having mental illness.18 Principally damning
was the OIG’s finding that “mental health staff may have reduced the number of inmates who
needed regular mental health treatment because they did not have the necessary resources
to meet the policy’s increased treatment standards.”19 The OIG found the problem “particularly
pronounced among SMU inmates at USP Lewisburg” where all 27 individuals with mental illness
had their care levels improperly reduced.20
Solitary or restrictive housing, an ever-present condition of confinement in the SMU, can be
especially harmful to individuals with mental health conditions. The OIG’s 2017 report was extremely
critical of the BOP’s policies and practices relating to restrictive housing, finding they: did not adequately
address the use of such housing for people with mental illness, did not sufficiently track or monitor the
confinement of individuals with mental illness in such housing, and did not consistently document
individuals’ mental illness, and therefore the BOP was unable to provide accurate or appropriate mental
health care.21
Officials at Thomson exacerbated these problems by failing to provide even the most basic mental
health care. Treatment instead consisted of one or two-minute psychology visits, approximately once
a month. These “meetings” would be conducted with the psychologist on one side of the cell door and

10

Cruel and Usual

The Investigation

the person in the SMU on the other. And in-between meetings, officials “treated” people by providing
them books or puzzles.
The misclassification of serious mental health conditions combined with the complete lack of
any meaningful mental health treatment led to highly foreseeable—and devastating—results. Many
individuals held in the SMU in Thomson reported a significant deterioration of their mental health
and increases in suicidal ideation and attempts. Yet, when an individual reported suicidal ideations to
guards or engaged in self-harm, guards would often respond with violence rather than care. Officials
would beat suicidal individuals and place them in restraints in a suicide watch room, where they were
left completely isolated, wearing only paper clothes. Individuals would languish there, sometimes for
a week or more, with no mental health services.

43

individuals in the SMU reported a
serious mental health diagnosis,
including severe depression and schizophrenia

Survivor: J.B.
J.B. attempted suicide nine times in the
SMU. Once, after telling staff he had swallowed
excess pills, guards restrained him to a chair
for 24 hours. He was denied food, water, and
access to a toilet the entire time. Another time,
after telling the BOP’s Health Services Clinic
he was hallucinating, and asking to speak
with a psychologist, guards punished him by
placing him in restraints for four days straight.
When J.B. complained about the inadequate
psychological care to Thomson’s doctors, one
told him: “Get with the program or you’ll die.”

15

individuals attempted suicide, in some
cases as many as 9 times

there and continued to file grievances. Just
before shuttering the SMU, the BOP admitted
he needed additional psychological services
and transferred him to a different facility.

“He’s playing games,

so beat his ass

and take him back
to his cell.”

m

Survivor: D.L.

Survivor: O.P.

Prior to being placed in the SMU, D.L. had
been diagnosed with schizophrenia and placed
on mental health care level 3. His mental health
care level was reduced, however, so he could
be transferred to the SMU at Thomson. While
waiting to be transferred, D.L. filed grievances
disputing the reduction in his mental health
care level. Despite these grievances and his
known mental illness, D.L. was transferred to
the SMU. For eight months D.L. repeatedly
told staff at Thomson that he should not be

After O.P. told a doctor that he wanted to
kill himself, the doctor replied, “Why did you
wait until I’m supposed to leave work to bring
me this crap?” The doctor asked O.P. how he
planned to do kill himself and in response
said, “Go do it then!” She subsequently told
officials, “He’s playing games, so beat his ass
and take him back to his cell.”

Cruel and Usual

11

The Investigation

Sexual Assaults
Sex- and Gender-Based Violence
Staff routinely used sex- and gender-based violence against people in the SMU. Fifteen
individuals reported 22 separate incidents of sexual assault by staff, sometimes while they were in
restraints. People also reported being assaulted after guards intentionally double-celled them with
someone known to be sexually violent. Additionally, multiple transgender individuals reported
that staff forced them to cell with individuals who were openly anti-LGBTQIA+, resulting in several
sexual assaults or rapes. Staff, in retaliation for meeting with lawyers, threatened sexual assault.

19

incidents were reported in which
guards sexually assaulted a person in
the SMU directly

8

3

individuals reported being sexually
assaulted after being forced to
double-cell with someone who Thomson staff
knew was sexually violent

of those assaults were committed while
the individual was in restraints

Survivor: J.H.
On at least two occasions, officials
strapped J.H. to a gurney, wheeled him to
the rotunda, stripped him naked, and filmed
themselves assaulting his genitals, laughing
when he begged them to stop.

Survivor: O.P.
Officials sexually assaulted O.P. multiple
times, squeezing and twisting his testicles;
attempting to insert a finger into his rectum;

and sawing a security shield into his penis,
leaving cuts and abrasions.

Survivor: M.B.
Officials restrained M.B. in four-points as
retaliation for a note he wrote alerting the
Warden to threats against his life by guards.
While in restraints, an official threatened to
cut off M.B.’s penis but instead cut off three of
his dreadlocks, waving them in the air while
shouting, “I spared your dick!”

False Charges and Infractions
Staff frequently fabricated incident reports and filed false disciplinary infractions against
individuals. The most common allegation was that individuals stuck their penises through a tiny
flap in their cell doors and masturbated. Staff would then use these false disciplinary infractions
to mislabel individuals as sex offenders and spread that information throughout the unit, placing
them in grave danger.
Contrary to staff claims, the people we spoke with generally had no history of this behavior in
their records and had not been identified as sex offenders before being transferred to the SMU.

12

Cruel and Usual

The Investigation

Survivor: O.P.
Thomson staff placed O.P. in four-point
restraints for four days, claiming he had
harassed one of the nurses. Staff repeatedly
insisted O.P. admit to this false charge during

torture sessions while restrained. O.P. never
admitted to the infraction. Months after the
fact, O.P. was exonerated and the infraction
expunged from his record.

m

Rampant Racism
Much of the violence in the SMU resulted from blatant, unadulterated racism. White guards
targeted Black individuals with derogatory racial terms—such as n****r, boy, monkey, and Black
bitch—on a daily basis, often while committing assaults or placing individuals in restraints, but
sometimes to simply assert their control.

Survivor: Darius Townsend
Following his return from suicide watch,
an official told Mr. Townsend that he was
going to “teach [Mr. Townsend] a lesson”
not to harm himself. Several officials later
rushed into Mr. Townsend’s cell, punched,
kicked, and dragged him to the designated
restraint room where they restrained him
on a concrete slab. As he laid there, one of
the officials put his knee on Mr. Townsend’s
chest, choked him, and told him that if he
“kept being disruptive”—which Mr. Townsend
understood to mean raising grievances about
prison conditions—”We’re going to make you
the next George Floyd.”

Survivor: J.B.
Guards restrained J.B. 17 times while he
was in the SMU at Thomson. Once, a guard
came to his cell and said, “You n*****s are
going in chains. We’re gonna fuck y’all up.”
During a different assault, an official shoved
his genitals into J.B.’s face, calling him “my
little n****r boy.” Another time, in response to
J.B. filing a sexual assault grievance, an official

told him to “assume the position, snitch f****t
n****r.” Another added, “You think you mean
something, n*****r? White men run the world.”
When J.B. tried reporting this abuse to a
lieutenant, he refused to accept the grievance
saying, “I’m not taking that shit, n****r. It’s
gonna keep happening to you.”

Other Survivors:
An Official told a restrained O.P. that he
was his “master,” then lifted his shield high in
the air and slammed it twice into O.P.’s face,
bloodying his nose. After J.B. attempted to file
a grievance about an assault, officials told him,
“Stop filing on us, n****r.” When Wade Wilson
complained about not having access to a
shower for days at a time, one official called
him a “dumb ass Black n****r,” a “bitch,” and a
“dumb ass Black monkey” before destroying
his belongings. A supervisor responded by
saying, “Good, cause y’all n****rs need to
pack shit, cause y’all are moving to G-3, and
just to mention, G-3 is a disciplinary block.”
And while J.T. was in four-point restraints, an
official told him, “Lay the fuck back, you n****r
monkey jacking fuck,” then choked him.

Cruel and Usual

m

13

The Investigation

Re: Legal Calls Mon\to«d, Mai\ '{aro\leced Vilt\\, and G<i..,••« v,oeess \Jn>'•\\•b\e ••
lJSP 'fhotnson

Interference with Access to Counsel
Federal regulations,22 BOP policy,23 and legal ethics24 require attorneys to have unmonitored
access to their clients. Thomson consistently failed to provide regular access to people in the
SMU, let alone unmonitored access.

Confidential Legal Mail
Throughout our investigation, staff at Thomson unconstitutionally interfered with our clients’
right to confidential legal mail.25 Staff opened incoming legal mail outside the presence of the
recipient, unreasonably delayed outgoing legal mail, and destroyed legal mail individuals kept in
their cells, all in violation of BOP policies and federal regulations.26 This interference with legal
mail was routine and pervasive.

Survivor: D.S.

m

14

Staff never informed D.S. about a legal
visit with our attorneys in September 2022.
While we were able to meet with D.S., when
he returned to his cell from that visit, he found

Cruel and Usual

that staff had opened a confidential legal letter
from us about the visit and placed it on his
bed in an ominous and threatening manner.

The Investigation

Confidential Legal Calls
Likewise, staff at Thomson interfered with our ability to have confidential legal calls with
clients. Our requests for unmonitored legal calls were repeatedly met with inappropriate inquiries
into the nature of our relationship with the person we requested to speak with, and demands that
we disclose the subject matter of the conversations. Calls would be scheduled and then cancelled
with no explanation. Staff would trump up false charges against individuals scheduled to speak
with us, then punish them in order to create a pretense for cancelling a legal call. Likewise, when
individuals were on suicide watch, staff would not allow them to speak with us and would even
conceal from them that we were trying to reach
them, compounding their mental health crisis.
Even when allowed, calls usually took weeks
Staff would trump up false
to schedule. One counselor simply refused to
charges against individuals
schedule any calls with the people on his case
scheduled to speak with us,
load.27 When staff did schedule legal calls,
then punish them in order
they would frequently stagger them weeks
to create a pretense for
apart and not inform individuals—including
individuals on suicide watch—that the call was
cancelling a legal call.
scheduled until just hours before the call was to
take place, leaving the individuals with the false
impression that counsel had forgotten about them. Keeping individuals unaware of their lawyers’
efforts to reach out to them only compounded the individuals’ poor mental health, distress, and
suicidal ideation.
Staff would also inappropriately monitor privileged calls in violation of BOP Program
Statements,28 often forcing individuals to conduct legal calls from a shower stall while staff
remained in the room. Attorneys could sometimes hear staff (and others) in the background. In
January 2022, the Warden at Thomson further interfered with attorney-client phone conversations
by initiating a new policy charging 23 cents per minute for long-distance unmonitored legal calls,
even if the call was requested and scheduled by counsel. The policy was ultimately withdrawn
after our attorneys raised the issue with BOP regional counsel.29

Confidential Legal Visits
Thomson staff also interfered with legal visits, often by retaliating against individuals who met
with us. Staff (including Thomson’s lawyers) also used pretenses to cancel attorney visits at the
last minute, including on the day of the visit itself. This was done despite the visits being longscheduled and staff knowing the lawyers had flown from Washington, D.C. to Illinois. Counsel had
to contact senior BOP staff and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to reverse Thomson
staff’s efforts to interfere with these legal visits.

Survivor: A.J.
When A.J. met with us in September
2022, he attempted to bring his legal files,
grievance and medical records, and other
documentation. Staff not only refused to

allow him to bring his records, but invasively
strip-searched him before allowing him to
meet with counsel.

Cruel and Usual

QJ

15

The Investigation
Dear Regional Counsel Winter:

We ~ave iust learned_ that Thom~on staff assaulted two ot our clients immediate\',' atter the',' spoKe wit!
retaliatory assaults violate our clients' constitutional and civil rights . Our clients attempted to submit 1
regarding the assaults in response to these incidents, but 1homson staff refuses to distribute BP tom
wrote handwritten BP-8 grievances. Thomson staff intercepted those grievances and retused to acci

that Thomson staff assaulted two of our clients immediately after they spoke with us via legal, (attached), 1homson staff
elate our clients' constitutional and civil rights. Our clients attempted to submit BP-8 grievandrceratedat1 h~mson.~eh
·
• •
. .
ommurncate with our client
s in response to these 1nc1dents, but Thomson staff refuses to distribute BP forms. As a result, public records shows thatl
-8 grievances. Thomson staff intercepted those grievances and refused to accept them.
urt dates (see attached stat
1st s ak to our c\ients
.. ,-\;".--1 , ·,---·.-.---•..... ~
J'~ =~~=~=-=.=....c=
~tod:
-

a orney S

t11e'elTOfl57:0-5Cneo1;m::--o

,:;901

von

to speak to the following individuals today:

Grievance and Accountability Failures
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, individuals usually cannot bring suit to address
unconstitutional conditions—like the ones in the SMU—without first completing the prison facility’s
administrative remedy process, commonly referred to as the “grievance process.” At Thomson, staff
weaponized structural flaws in the grievance process to prevent individuals from ever being able to
file lawsuits.
To start, SMU staff made obtaining grievance forms unnecessarily difficult. Guards and counselors
at Thomson routinely refused to provide or process grievance forms. Because an individual is typically
completely barred from bringing a lawsuit if they do not file their initial grievance within 20 days of
an incident, staff could easily interfere with the grievance process by simply refusing to provide or
process the forms. In other instances, staff ripped up the forms (completed and not) inside the cells
of people incarcerated at the SMU.
Filing grievances could also be dangerous. Individuals in the BOP are often required to get
grievance forms from, and file their initial grievances with, the very staff who abused them.30 As a
result, individuals are often left with an impossible choice: waive any right to legal redress or seek
justice and risk severe retaliation. In the SMU, guards punished people for filing grievances by putting
them in restraints, placing them in dangerous celling situations, threatening to rape them, destroying
their property, and trumping up false sexual assault or masturbation infractions. Thomson staff
created a culture of fear and intimidation that systematically suppressed the use of the grievance
process, both shielding and emboldening the very people it is supposed to hold accountable.
Even if a person in the SMU can obtain and submit an initial grievance form, the process is virtually
impossible to finish. It has four levels, each with its own form and strict deadlines. As the person
moves through each level of the grievance process, they must attach the BOP’s written response to
the prior level of grievance. It is quite common, however, for BOP staff to simply fail to respond. If
the person does not attach the BOP’s written responses, even if they have not received it before the
deadline to appeal, they are routinely found to have “failed” to comply with the grievance process. As
a result, they are barred from bringing a lawsuit no matter how bad the violation of their constitutional
or federal law rights.
All told, staff control the grievance process, they are incentivized to make it as difficult to complete
as possible, and they routinely use it to thwart litigation.

16

Cruel and Usual

The Investigation

h us 11ia legal calls. ihese
~\l-8 g1ie11ance fo1ms
,s. /\s a 1esult, om clients
eptthem.

refoses to schedule legal
a11e not 'fet 1ecei11ed a
.s in w1it1ng unless the client
ihomson staff is 1e\using to
.us repmt detailing an

ay. P\ease ensure we are ab\e

Survivors
When D.L. attempted to grieve one
of many forced celling arrangements, his
counselor took over a month to provide forms.
During that time, the counselor would ask why
D.L. wanted a form and what he was going to
say in it.
When A.S. attempted to grieve an issue
concerning his legal mail his counselor told
him, “I’m not giving you no more grievance
forms.” When he attempted to file a grievance
for more than one incident at a time, his
counselor said, “You’re issued one [grievance
form] per policy.” There is no such policy,
and A.S. still does not know what happened

“You must have forgotten
what we do to n****rs
around here.
I’m gonna break
your fucking hands since
you like to write us up,
motherfucker.”
to his legal mail. Officials also confiscated
and destroyed all A.S.’s stamps, legal papers,
and family pictures. When he asked why, an
official screamed in his face: “You must have
forgotten what we do to n****rs around here.

I’m gonna break your fucking hands since you
like to write us up, motherfucker.” He then told
A.S., ominously, “Filing grievances will get you
in a lot of trouble.”
Officials likewise took every piece of
documentation M.R. kept in his cell pertaining
to an excessive force grievance, including
copies of appeals he had yet to mail to the
Regional Office, causing him to miss his
deadlines. No one has been held responsible
for the underlying excessive force used
against M.R.
When D.T. attempted to file a handwritten
grievance for a violent assault after he was
unable to obtain a prison-provided form
for weeks, his counselor simply responded,
“That’s not how this works.” No one has been
held accountable for assaulting D.T.
When H.D. asked about the status of
multiple grievances, the guards lied, telling
him he never filed anything. He never received
responses and was unable to complete the
grievance process.
When M.S., who is transgender, filed a
handwritten grievance after officials refused
to give her a prison-provided form, officials
placed her in a cell with an openly antiLGBTQIA+ cellmate, who beat her up. No one
has been held accountable for the forced
celling or assault because M.S. could not
access the grievance process and was afraid.

Cruel and Usual

m

17

Necessary Reforms
The SMU at Thomson is closed, but many of the same constitutional and civil rights violations
continue to occur throughout the BOP. The Washington Lawyers’ Committee and Uptown People’s
Law Center receive intakes from individuals throughout the BOP that report assaults by staff,
prolonged unnecessary use of restraints, intentional interference with the grievance process,
lack of mental health services, and denial of access to counsel, among other things.
The BOP should not implement the SMU in some other location, as it did when it moved the
SMU from Lewisburg, PA to Thomson, IL in 2018. Moreover, many of the staff responsible for
abusing the individuals in the SMU remain employed by the BOP. We are aware of no disciplinary
actions or criminal charges against any of them. Indeed, a May 2023 report by the OIG found
the BOP was “unable to effectively investigate and adjudicate employee misconduct cases
because [the BOP] is not sufficiently staffed.”31 As of September 2022, the BOP had approximately
7,893 open employee misconduct cases and only 60 Special Investigative Officers to conduct
investigations.32 Perhaps more concerning, the OIG found that the BOP had not imposed discipline
in 2,279 other cases where the allegations of misconduct
were sustained.33

ons,
adjudicati
tions and
a
g
of
ti
s
e
rd
v
a
in
f
Stand s
backlog o
nforce its
e
ly
e
o
v
ti
h
Due to this
c
w
e
es
eff
unable to
s employe
er, it allow
th e BOP is
h
rt
u
ose
F
th
t.
s
c
a
well
Condu
onduct, as
c
Employee
is
in
m
a
in
m
d
re
34
to
engage
isconduct.
m
may have
in
d
time.
e
f
g
o
a
s
g
d
n
e
o
ri
e
e
v
p
a
h
ed
fo u n d to
fo r extend
y th e BOP
b
d
e
t
y
lo
p
em
adership a
e BOP's le
th
h
g
u
o
h
alt
u n d that,
The OIG fo

The BOP’s inaction, however, does not excuse the DOJ from its
obligation to investigate and bring charges against SMU staff who have
violated the law. The DOJ’s failure to do so serves to reinforce the notion that staff
are untouchable and are free to abuse individuals in their care. In the interest of justice
and to protect the constitutional and civil rights of those in the BOP’s care, the following reforms
should be adopted immediately:

18

Cruel and Usual

Necessary Reforms

1 – The Department of Justice Should Immediately Open
a Criminal Investigation into the Abuses in the SMU.
To our knowledge, the BOP staff involved in the abuses at the Thomson SMU remain employed
by the BOP. A thorough independent criminal investigation is necessary to ensure that staff and
their supervisors are held accountable for any criminal act or constitutional violation against the
people imprisoned in the SMU at Thomson. The BOP culture needs reform far more than the law
does. The Thomson SMU’s staff, based on the credible allegations from the people with whom we
spoke, are responsible for widespread violations of law and policy.

2 – Immediately End the SMU Program and Strictly Limit
the Use of Other Restrictive Housing in the BOP.
The BOP should shutter the SMU permanently and retract Program Statement P5217.02. The
BOP should also end the regular and systematic use of restrictive housing. As of the date of this
report, there are 11,171 individuals held in either prolonged isolation with limited human contact
(solitary confinement) or prolonged isolation in a cell with another individual (double-cell solitary
confinement).35 Instead, the BOP should design alternatives that are consistent with American
Public Health Association Policy Statement 201310, American Bar Association Standard 23-2.8,
American Medical Association House of Delegates Resolution 403 (A-23), United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), and H.R.176, as follows:
1.

If used, restrictive housing should be limited to circumstances where there is reasonable
cause to believe that substantial and immediate serious harm to another exists.36

2.

Mental health and medical examinations should be required prior to placing an individual
in solitary confinement.37 The BOP should ban the placement in restrictive housing of
anyone with a history of a serious mental health conditions and those who are currently
experiencing symptoms consistent with a serious mental health or medical condition.38
Rather, the policy should mandate that such individuals be transferred to an appropriate
medical facility as soon as possible. This policy change is critical.

3.

Anyone placed in restrictive housing must have the right to a hearing within 72 hours of
placement, with the assistance of counsel, and daily evaluations by a clinician.39

4.

BOP policy should limit solitary confinement to as short of a time as possible,40 with a
maximum of 15 consecutive days and no more than 20 days during a 60-day period.41

5.

Even when placed in solitary confinement for these limited periods, the BOP should require individuals to receive a minimum of four hours a day of recreation or other activities
outside of the cell during daylight hours.

3 – Strictly Limit & Monitor the Use of Restraints
The BOP should revise the current Use of Force and Application of Restraints Program
Statement, BOP Program Statement 5566.06, to strictly limit the use of four-point, chair, and
ambulatory restraints, and to increase oversight in any circumstance where such restraints are
applied. The BOP should not permit any restraint for more than two hours under any circumstances.

Cruel and Usual

19

Necessary Reforms

If an individual is unable to self-regulate within that time, the program statement should require
they be immediately moved to an appropriate mental health or medical facility.
Program Statement 5566.06 should also be amended to require all restraint be continuously
recorded for the entirety of the restraint. The policy should further require the Warden at every
facility, or their designee, to review all restraint recordings within four working days of the
beginning of the restraint, unless requested sooner by the Regional Director, and to preserve all
such recordings for no less than five years. Any videos wherein staff potentially violate BOP policy
or an individual’s constitutional rights should be immediately forwarded to the Regional Director.
The Regional Director should be required to review the recordings and forward videotapes of
potential policy or constitutional violations related to the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs
Division, and Central Office, for review within five working days. Further, the BOP should amend
the policy statement to require a written report any time restraints are used other than for the
purpose of transportation.

4 – Create a Meaningful, Accessible Grievance Process
The BOP must rectify the problems with its Administrative Remedy Program by:
1.

Updating Program Statement 1330.18 to limit the administrative grievance process to
three steps: a formal grievance filed with the Warden, an appeal to the Regional Director,
and a final appeal to the General Counsel;42

2.

Incorporating procedural safeguards identical to those contained in the Remedy Procedures under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), for individuals who submit a grievance alleging the use of force, forced celling, failure to intervene, or other forms of physical or emotional abuse by BOP staff, or physical or emotional abuse by third parties but
with the knowledge of BOP staff;43

3.

Developing and implementing a process across all BOP facilities that allows people in
prison to have unrestricted access to grievance forms without the need to engage BOP
staff directly—such as an electronic grievance process or a grievance form library available in all housing areas. If paper rather than electronic grievances is provided, the facility should provide opaque sealable envelopes and access to a locked grievance box daily
so that individuals can submit grievances without review or interference from staff;

4.

Directing additional resources to conduct a comprehensive review of all grievance documents and to conduct unannounced regular audits of every facility to ensure grievances
are responded to and returned with sufficient time for the person to include the response
in the next step in the process.

5 – Create External Independent Oversight.
Office of the Inspector General. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
should establish a regular inspection regime of all BOP facilities to assess and report on the
appropriateness of the use of single-cell solitary confinement, forced double-celling practices,
administrative segregation, all other forms of restrictive housing, use of restraints, and the use
of force against individuals held in BOP facilities consistent with its authority under 28 CFR Part
0 Subpart E-4, 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515–519. The Inspector General should be given

20

Cruel and Usual

Necessary Reforms

authority to conduct additional inspections or investigations to monitor the BOP’s compliance
with all corrective action plans. Such additional inspections or investigations can be either
announced or unannounced at the discretion of the Inspector General.
Ombudsperson. Establish and fund an Ombudsman office in the Department of Justice who
is authorized and directed to do the following:
1.

Maintain a nationwide toll-free telephone number, a collect telephone number, a live
caption or other phone system for deaf and hard of hearing individuals, an accessible
website, and a mailing address for the receipt of complaints and inquiries regarding
the BOP;

2. Promote awareness among BOP department employees, imprisoned people and their
family members, and the public regarding the purpose of the office of the ombudsperson, services provided, and how the office can be contacted;
3. Receive complaints from individuals who are imprisoned, their family members, the
representative of a person in prison, staff, contractors, or others with personal knowledge about the conditions in the relevant BOP facility;
4. Provide information, as appropriate, to individuals who are in prison, their family members
and representatives, BOP employees, and others regarding the rights of imprisoned individuals;
5. Establish a nationwide uniform reporting system to collect and analyze data related to
complaints received by the ombudsperson regarding the BOP;
6. Establish procedures to collect and resolve complaints;
7.

Establish procedures to gather stakeholder input into the ombudsperson’s activities
and priorities, which shall include holding public meetings at least quarterly;

8. Aid people in prison or their family members whom the ombudsperson determines
needs assistance, including advocating with an agency, provider, or other person in the
best interests of the person who is imprisoned;
9. Make referrals, including to appropriate law enforcement authorities, when criminal
complaints by people in prison are received by the office;
10. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, review criminal investigations to ensure the investigations were accurate, unbiased, and thorough;
11. By a date certain each year, annually submit to the DOJ OIG and Office of Civil Rights,
and make publicly available, a report that is both aggregated and disaggregated by
each facility and includes, at a minimum, the number of complaints received, the number of complaints resolved by the ombudsperson, a description of systemic or individual investigations or outcomes achieved by the ombudsperson in the preceding year,
any outstanding or unresolved concerns or recommendations of the ombudsperson,
and input or comments from stakeholders regarding the ombudsperson’s activities
during the preceding year;
12. Adopt and comply with rules, policies, and procedures necessary to implement the
above provisions.

Cruel and Usual

21

Conclusion
The investigation of the SMU at Thomson has exposed systemic problems within the BOP that
must be addressed immediately—including the excessive and violent use of restraints, insufficient
treatment of individuals with mental health conditions, and pervasive use of restrictive housing.
The administrative grievance process must also be revised to ensure that it provides actual,
timely opportunities for individuals to seek remedies through the BOP, rather than simply shield
staff from accountability. Finally, until such time as the BOP proves it is capable of investigating
complaints about staff and enforcing its Standards of Employee Conduct in a timely manner, the
DOJ must impose robust external oversight.

22

Cruel and Usual

“[Thomson] was the

absolute worst experience
of my life… I’d rather be dead than
trapped in [that] dangerous place.”
~ Matthew Smith

Cruel and Usual

23

Endnotes
1. The BOP claims that it does not practice
solitary confinement. However, the Department
of Justice Office of the Inspector General issued
a report in 2017 finding a practice across several
facilities of housing individuals, including those
with mental illnesses, “in single-cell confinement
for long periods of time, isolated from other
inmates and with limited human contact.” Review
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Use of Restrictive
Housing for Inmates with Mental Illness, Office
of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Justice, Evaluation and Inspections Division 17-05,
Executive Summary (July 2017). Instead, the BOP
euphemistically refers to its program of locking
individuals in cells for 22 hours or more a day,
“restrictive housing.” The BOP considers special
housing units, housing at the Administrative
Maximum Facility (ADX), and housing in SMUs to all
be restrictive housing. As of June 30, 2023 there
are 11,173 people being held in restrictive housing
in the BOP: 10,846 in special housing units and
327 in ADX. With the closure of Thomson, there
are no individuals currently being held in an SMU
program. Restricted Housing, Statistics, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, June 30, 2023, https://www.bop.
gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_shu.jsp.
2. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement, P5310.16 (May 1, 2014).
3. We primarily reviewed documents collected
from the individuals who contacted us, all of which
corroborated their experiences. Obtaining files
from the BOP directly was close to impossible.
The BOP requires attorneys to file FOIA requests
to get even basic records, but it can take years for
the BOP to respond, if they ever do. During this
investigation, we submitted more than 28 FOIA
requests. To date, the BOP has responded to one.
On May 10, 2023, Latham & Watkins LLP, and the
Washington Lawyers’ Committee filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia to compel the BOP to provide the
records from over 55 outstanding FOIA requests.
Washington Lawyers’ Comm. v. United States
Department of Justice, No. 1:23-cv-01328 (D.D.C.
filed May 10, 2023).
4. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement, 5566.06, CN-1 (August 29, 2014); 28
CFR § 552.24 (1989).
5.

28 CFR § 552.24.

6. Maurice Chammah, They Went to Jail. Then
They Say They Were Strapped to a Chair for Days,
The Marshall Project (Feb. 7, 2020),

24

Cruel and Usual

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/02/07/
they-went-to-jail-then-they-say-they-werestrapped-to-a-chair-for-days.
7. Restricted Housing, Statistics, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, June 30, 2023, https://www.bop.
gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_shu.jsp.
8. The average cell size in the BOP is 7 x 12
feet, or a maximum of 84 square feet, while the
average parking spot is 7.5 x 16 to 20 feet. Ryan J.
Reilly and Saki Knafo, America’s Top Prison Official
Doesn’t Know How Big a Prison Cell Is, Huffington
Post, February 26, 2014, https://www.huffpost.com/
entry/bop-director-prison-cell-size_n_4855865;
Charles Montaldo, Maximum Security Federal
Prison: ADX Supermax, ThoughtCo., updated
January 29, 2020, https://www.thoughtco.com/
adx-supermax-overview-972970.
9. Christie Thompson and Joseph Shapiro,
How the Newest Federal Prison Became One of
the Deadliest, The Marshall Project, May 31, 2022,
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/05/31/
how-the-newest-federal-prison-became-one-ofthe-deadliest.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement, P5217.02 (August 9, 2016).
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’
Use of Restrictive Housing for Inmates with Mental
Illness, Office of the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice, July 2017, https://oig.justice.
gov/reports/2017/e1705.pdf.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. 28 C.F.R. § 540.103.

23. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement, P5264.08 (corrected copy February 11,
2008).

32. Id.

24. Rules of Professional Conduct, Amended
Rules 1.6 and 1.18, District of Columbia Bar.

34. Id.

25. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement 5265.14 (April 5, 2011); 28 C.F.R § 540.18
and 28 C.F.R § 540.19.
26. Id.
27. March 18, 2022 email to Rick Winter,
Regional Counsel from the Washington Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs; April
26, 2022 letter to Mary Noland from Washington
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs
(documenting no response to requests for legal
calls for over a month).
28. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement P5264.08 (January 24, 2008).
29. March 11, 2022 letter to Rick Winter,
Regional Counsel from the Washington Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs,
outlining staff interference with clients’ access
to counsel. The fee for calls with counsel were
eliminated because of the letter to regional
counsel.
30. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement, 1330.18 (January 6, 2014). There are two
limited exceptions that exist within the program
statements but are in practice unavailable. For
grievances filed pursuant to the Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA), individuals who allege
sexual abuse may submit a grievance without
submitting it to a staff member who is the subject
or the complaint, and the grievances will not
subsequently be referred to the staff member.
Id., 28 C.F.R. § 115. The same program statement
theoretically allows imprisoned individuals to
mail certain “sensitive” grievances directly to the
Regional Office (avoiding the first two levels of
review). However, if the regional coordinator does
not consider the request sensitive, it will simply
be returned to the person filing the grievance
and they will be required to complete the regular
administrative remedy process. Id. Not a single
individual we spoke to in the SMU, however,
reported successfully filing a sensitive grievance
with the regional coordinator.

33. Id.

35. Restricted Housing, Statistics, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, June 30, 2023, https://www.bop.
gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_shu.jsp.
36. H.R. 176 (2021); American Bar Association
Standard 23-2.7(a).
37. United Nations General Assembly
Resolution 70/175, Rule 45 (adopted 17 Dec.
2015); American Public Health Association, Policy
201310, Problem Statement (2013); American Bar
Association Standard 23-2.8.
38. United Nations General Assembly
Resolution 70/175, Rule 45 (adopted 17 Dec.
2015); American Public Health Association, Policy
201310, Problem Statement (2013); American Bar
Association Standard 23-2.8.
39. Id.
40. American Public Health Association, Policy
201310, Action Steps; United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 70/175, Rules 43 and 45
(adopted 17 Dec. 2015).
41. H.R. 176.
42. Currently, there is a four-step process.
Individuals held in the BOP only have 20 days
after an incident occurs to complete the first two
steps in the grievance process. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Program Statement, 1330.18, (January 6,
2014); 28 U.S.C. §§ 542.13 and 542.14. Specifically,
the individual must file a BP-8 form, also known as
an “informal grievance,” within 20 calendar days
of the incident they are grieving. They are also
required to file the second step using a BP-9 form,
referred to as a “formal grievance,” before the
end of the same 20-day period. Given the overlap
between the deadlines for the BP-8 (informal
resolution) and BP-9 (grievance to Warden), the
BP-8 should be eliminated.
43. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Program
Statement 1330.18.

31. Limited-Scope Review of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons’ Strategies to Identify, Communicate, and
Remedy Operational Issues, Department of Justice,
Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and
Inspections Division, May 2023, https://oig.justice.
gov/sites/default/files/reports/23-065.pdf.

Cruel and Usual

25

For More Information Contact:

WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS

700 14th St NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
202.319.1000
www.washlaw.org

26

Cruel and Usual

Cruel and Usual

27