Institutionalized Cruelty: Torture at SCI Dallas and
in Prisons Throughout Pennsylvania

Obviously we are not human beings to them, we are merely a number.
-SCI Dallas prisoner
“Okay motherfucker, game on. I can kill you and won’t nobody care because you ain’t nothing
but a number that’ll be replaced.”
-threat reportedly made by SCI Dallas guard

A Report by the Human Rights Coalition-Fed Up! Chapter
HRC-Fed Up!
5129 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15224
hrcfedup@gmail.com
412-361-3022

Table of Contents
Dedication………………………………………………………………………….……...4
Introduction: Report Summary and Legal Framework…………..………………........5
A Day in the Life of the Prison-house of Nations…………………………….....5
Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………..7
The Supreme Law of the Land: Note on the Legal Framework……………….11
Program for Accountability, Access, Oversight and Transformation……….…12
Human Rights Violations at SCI Dallas: Prisoners’ Voices……..……………………..14
Case Study: Matthew Bullock—Murder by Other Means……………………..……14
Case Study: Andre Jacobs and the Ethic of Resistance………………........…….17
Solitary Confinement: Torture Disguised……………….……………………...21
Environmental Conditions: Water to Waste…………………….……………..30
Medical Neglect………………………………………………………………….33
Retaliation………………………………………………………………………..39
Racism: A Systemic Crisis………………………………………………………45
Physical Assault and Violence…………………………………………………..46
Sexual Violence…………………………………………………………………..49
Denial of Due Process: Grievances, Misconducts, Legal Property, and Access to the
Courts……………………………………………………………………………….51
Seeking Accountability: SCI Dallas, Prior Notice and Official Indifference…..53

2

Human Rights Violations throughout the PA DOC………………………..………….57
Assault/Physical Abuse……………………………………………………………58
Mental Health and the Psychological Impact of Solitary Confinement………59
Malign Neglect: Profit over Prisoners………………………………………….61
White Supremacist Racism……………………………………………………..64
Denial of Due Process: Grievances, Misconducts, and Access to the Courts…..67
Prison Litigation Reform Act……………………………………………………..67
Misconducts………………………………………………………………………...69
Grievances………………………………………………………………………….70
Recommendations—Human Rights and Accountability: Organizing to Enforce the
Law………………………………………………………………………………………..….73
Investigate and prosecute crimes of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment……………...………………………………..74
Restructure the criminal legal system according to international law……..……76
Encourage prisoners to form associations for the defense of human rights…...79
Abolish solitary confinement……………………………………………………...80
Create a culture of human rights defenders……………………………………..81
Enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and make prisons
obsolete……………………………………………………………………………….82
Appendices…………..……………………………………………………………………..86
Appendix I—Case Study: Anthony Singleton—“I have relapsed. Daily the thought of
killing myself there.”…………………………………………………………...….86
Appendix II—What good is a jury? by Andre Jacobs………………………….…….89
Appendix III—Seeking Accountability: The Other Inauguration Celebration……….90

3

Dedication

The focus of this report is widespread allegations of criminal human rights
violations committed by Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PA DOC).
While we understand that many prisoners commit immoral and horrific acts we
do not feel a responsibility to focus on these: prisoners are not subsidized by
taxpayers to uphold the law and act as custodians of collective security and
social justice. The PA DOC bears that responsibility. Given the secrecy,
dishonesty, and cowardice that characterizes the official attitude of the PA DOC
to reports of human rights violations committed by its personnel, the only
recourse for those who demand accountability and the rule of law in the justice
system is to amplify the very voices these prisons try to silence.
This report is dedicated to past victims of torture and today’s survivors, those
subjected to the starvation, thirst, psychological deterioration, social isolation,
beatings, threats, lack of medical care, and racism that constitutes the regime
of solitary confinement in Pennsylvania. May we all listen to the cry for justice
from those who resist and survive so that the world may know their names and
stories and take collective action to abolish torture.

4

Introduction
These prisons serve no purpose. They’re graveyards.
—Wilson Booker, from his solitary confinement cell in SCI Dallas
I think the average tax payer will be mad to know that their money is going [to]
warehousing instead of rehabilitating and facilitating inmates
with the tools to be productive in society once they are released.
—Alex Melendez, September letter to HRC

A Day in the Life of the PrisonHouse of Nations
With 51,4871 people confined in
state prisons under the control of
the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (PA DOC), the state of
Pennsylvania ranks seventh in the
United States in terms of its prisoner
population.2 From 2007 to 2008 the
prison population in Pennsylvania
increased by 9.1 percent, the
highest in the U.S., far ahead of
second place Arizona’s 4.9 percent

growth rate.3 This trend represents
a continuation of a three-decade
long incarceration binge that has
seen the PA DOC prisoner
population increase by more than
458% since 1980, adding more than
38,000 prisoners.4 And there is no
end in sight. In remarks to PA
General Assembly members in 2008,
PA DOC Secretary Jeffrey Beard
stated, “the system has grown by
21% from 37,995 in 2001 to 46,028
in 2007. And, this growth is
3

1

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Monthly Population Report as of December 31,
2009.
2
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Prisoners
in 2008, William J. Sabol, Heather C. West and
Matthew Cooper,
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf.

“Pa. prison population shows big growth,”
Peter Mucha, Philadelphia Inquirer, December
10, 2009.
4
PA DOC Budget Request FY 2008-2009,
remarks by Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D, to
the Senate Appropriations Committee on
February 28, 2008 and House Appropriations
Committee, March 3, 2008.

5

expected to continue at an average
growth rate of 4% each year through
year-end 2012, reaching 57,000
state prisoners.”5
The PA DOC recently announced
plans to ship 2,000 prisoners to
other states in an attempt to release
the pressure from an overcrowded
system.6 This is being done despite
the state authorizing the
construction of three new prisons in
Centre, Fayette and Montgomery
counties and additional housing
units in Crawford, Forest, Indiana
and Northumberland counties, which
will add nearly 9,000 beds to the
system when complete.7
Absent from media reports and
governmental proposals on PA DOC
operations are any discussions of
the conditions of confinement in
state prisons. The lack of
rehabilitative programming,
especially vocational training and
mental health services, guarantees a
persistent recidivism8 rate where
nearly 1 of every 2 prisoners
become re-incarcerated within three

5

ibid.
“Pa. will transfer 2,000 inmates to Va., Mich.,”
Tom Barnes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December
22, 2009/
7
“State Unveils Plans for New Prisons and
Housing Units to Address Overcrowding,”
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Correctional Newsfront Volume XXXV, No, 2,
2009.
8
Recidivism refers to the “tendency to relapse
into a previous undesirable type of behavior,
especially crime.” Official recidivism rates are
calculated according to the percentage of
prisoners who become re-incarcerated within
three years after their release.
6

years of their release.9
This is the context in which this
report on human rights violations at
the State Correctional Institution
(SCI) at Dallas has been written.
In June of 2009, the Human Rights
Coalition-Fed Up! chapter (HRC)
initiated an investigation into
conditions of confinement at SCI
Dallas. The findings of this
investigation are detailed in the
following report, allowing the voices
and experiences of the prisoners
themselves to take center stage. In
the course of our investigation we
have reviewed thousands of pages
of prisoner letters, institutional
paperwork, civil litigation
documents, affidavits and
declarations, correspondence to and
from family members, and
conducted hours of interviews with
those who have loved ones at SCI
Dallas. Most of the material
providing the content for the report
was accumulated between June and
October, although certain reports
detailed prior violations. Additional
reports come in by the week, and
some of this more recent material
has been included in the final
report.
While certain aspects of conditions
reported to HRC are distinct to SCI
Dallas, the most disturbing fact of
the human rights violations detailed
herein is their consistency with
reports from other prisons in the PA
9

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Recidivism in Pennsylvania State Correctional
Institutions 1999-2004, Robert Flaherty,
December 2006.

6

DOC. While the intensity and degree
of particular violations varies from
prison to prison, HRC has amassed
an unassailable body of evidence
indicating that physical abuse and
assault, sexual harassment and
violence, overt and malicious racism,
psychological torment, medical
deprivation, deprivation of food,
exposure to dangerously unhygienic conditions, constant
intimidation and retaliation, and the
subversion of prisoners’ due process
rights are normative features of
prison life in Pennsylvania.
The purpose of this report is to
reveal the cruelty, illegality,
suffering, racism, violence, and
despair that constitute the reality
inhabited by inmates at SCI Dallas.
In this task we aim to contribute to
an enhanced public awareness and
outrage over what a day in the life is
like for some of the more than 2.4
million men, women and children
incarcerated in the United States,
the prison-house of nations.
Summary of Findings
“I was confined in the RHU for my
mental problem, and I can tell you
that the RHU of SCI-Dallas is Hell.”
—Roberto Rivera
The major findings of our
investigation into SCI Dallas are:
•

•

Frequent usage of racist slurs,
threats of violence, verbal and
physical abuse by guards;
Retaliation against prisoners
exercising their constitutional
rights to file grievances,

•

•

•

•
•

criminal complaints, and civil
suits regarding conditions of
confinement and guard
misconduct/crimes. This
practice commonly takes the
form of the issuance of
fabricated misconducts and
subsequent placement in
solitary confinement, as well
as the seizure and destruction
of legal property;
Failure to provide adequate,
or at times any, physical or
mental health care;
Brown drinking and bathing
water, filthy cells, exposure to
infectious diseases, and
generally substandard
environmental conditions;
Encouragement of prisoneron-prisoner violence,
including incitement to
murder and sexual violence;
Incitement to and
encouragement of suicide;
A defective inmate grievance
system that is systematically
biased against prisoner claims
of staff misconduct and
substandard conditions,
commonly refusing to permit
prisoners to present witnesses
or security camera evidence in
support of their claims, and
thus violating their right to
due process. This practice
conforms to inmate grievance
procedures throughout the PA
DOC (see enclosed official
inmate grievance statistics,
wherein less than 2% of
prisoner grievances were
upheld between January 2008
and May 31).

7

The highest concentration of
prisoner reports came from those
being held in the Restricted Housing
Unit (RHU). The RHU is a solitary
confinement/control unit10 where
prisoners are held in their cells 23
hours each day during the week and
24 on the weekends. Conditions in
the RHU at Dallas were summarized
by one prisoner as follows:
“The conditions were very
inhumane… hot, no working
vents at all… stuffy and
humid… My first cell bugs
were biting me all over my
body, when I said something
about it they (medical staff)
played like I was crazy then
finally
after
constant
complaining they gave me
benadryl then moved me and
still didn’t clean the cell. They
had a light on all day that felt
like a rotisserie lamp. It was
hard to sleep because of the
hot humid cells and constant
bugs biting me all day and
night… We had no cups to
drink the brown colored water
that came out of the sinks and
toilets. There was constant
screaming yelling kicking and
banging (with objects on
doors to multiply the sound
on the doors).”
Along with dangerously substandard
conditions comes the psychological
deterioration of prolonged isolation.
While a vastly higher prevalence of
10

RHU, solitary confinement, control unit are
used interchangeable in this report. Prisoners
and popular discourse commonly refer to these
units as “the hole.”

psychological instability and
disorder already exists amongst the
prisoner population than within the
population at large11 the rate of
mental illness becomes higher yet
amongst those confined in control
units. Responses to questionnaires
sent to large numbers of prisoners
led the U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics to claim in a September
2006 report that as many as 56% of
state prisoners likely suffer from a
mental health problem,12 based on
the presence of a recent history or
symptoms of mental health
problems.
The regime of solitary confinement
both exacerbates and generates
psychological instability,
abnormality, and disorder, therefore
perpetuating an escalating cycle of
mental illness and suffering inside
and outside the prisons. The
scientific consensus deduced from
copious research on the
psychological impact of solitary
confinement is that the experience
generates considerable and
sometimes permanent mental
suffering
Prisoners at SCI Dallas frequently
reported experiencing suicidal
tendencies, distortions in thought
11

Terry Kupers, Prison Madness: The Mental
Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We Must
Do About It. Dr. Kupers writes that “The
prevalence of mental disorders among prisoners
is quite high, at least five times the prevalence
rates in the general population,” p. 11.
12
“Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail
Inmates,” Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze,
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report,
September 2006.

8

processes, hallucinations, rage,
inability to concentrate, and
helplessness. During the course of
our investigation one prisoner,
Matthew Bullock, committed suicide
by hanging. In the days and weeks
that followed HRC obtained 8
statements from other prisoners
testifying that: (1) Mr. Bullock was
severely depressed as a
consequence of conditions in the
RHU, where he was being held in
violation of a judge’s sentencing
order that he serve his time in a
secure mental health institution; (2)
Mr. Bullock made staff aware of his
urge to commit suicide; (3) guards
ignored his plea for help and even
encouraged him to kill himself; (4)
guards moved him from a cell with a
camera to a cell without a camera
after Mr. Bullock threatened to kill
himself; (5) staff then failed to make
rounds for at least four hours
providing Mr. Bullock the
opportunity to kill himself.
HRC has received several such
reports of guards encouraging
prisoners to kill themselves. Mental
health care is virtually non-existent,
especially for those in solitary
confinement. These reports are
consistent with countless others
received from prisoners in the PA
DOC.
The lack of mental health treatment
fits within a more extensive problem
of medical neglect. The provision of
medical services in SCI Dallas, and
throughout the PA DOC, has been
contracted to Prison Health Services,
Inc. (PHS), a Tennessee-based forprofit corporation that has left a trail

of corpses and lawsuits in its wake
around the country (see section 3.3).
Prisoners frequently report being
denied medications, surgery,
hospitalization, and other necessary
care. The compelling and obvious
motive behind these restrictions on
access to medical services is the
lowering of costs, which for a private
corporation means the increase of
profits.
According to official PA DOC
statistics 13 prisoners died at SCI
Dallas in 2009. Aside from the
Bullock suicide 11 were listed as
“natural” while the death of 25 yearold Howard Kelley was
undetermined.13 Newspaper reports
subsequently reported that Mr.
Kelley died as the result of
complications from HINI, aka “Swine
flu”, although family of Mr. Kelley
report being told conflicting
information. HRC has received
several reports that Mr. Kelley had
attempted to seek medical care for
his illness prior to his death but was
refused. By the time he was given
attention it was too late.
Another lethal example of medical
neglect and cruelty in the RHU was
reported to HRC in late November by
Andre Jacobs (see case study in
section 2.2). Mr. Jacobs reports that
he informed both C/O Rayburn and
Nurse Dawn Williams that prisoner
Bernard Carr was coughing and
throwing up in his cell. Nurse
Williams replied, “Mind your
business. He can sign up for sick
13

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Inmate Deaths System data, obtained via PA
Right to Know request; on file.

9

call.” Sick call was not until
tomorrow. At approximately 6:00
am on the morning of 11/25 C/O
Wilk found Mr. Carr dead in his cell.
When Sgt. Ransom arrived on the
block that morning, it was reported
that he loudly stated, “Another dead
nigger. Jacobs’ next.” Mr. Carr’s
death was confirmed by the official
PA DOC inmate deaths list.
Guards at SCI Dallas routinely
engage in racist harassment and
intimidation, targeting black and
Latino prisoners with fabricated
misconducts, physical abuse and
assault, and deprivation of food,
water, and other rights. One
example amongst many came from
Randolph Creighton when he sent
HRC a copy of a private criminal
complaint he submitted to the DA of
Luzerne County regarding Sgt.
Henry, stating that “Dec. 2, 2009,
roughly after 3:00pm, Sgt. Henry
ordered myself and other compound
workers to pick up all the rocks that
were left around the edge of the dug
up hole. As I proceeded to do so,
Sgt. Henry stated the following
comments “you black guys sure are
fucking lazy (stated twice); If those
were crack you guys would kill each
other trying to pick them up! You
black guys should all be fired. I’m
going to see if you all can be fired.
You’re nothing but punks and drug
dealers.” The complaint also stated
that on December 9th Sgt. Henry
refused to sign paperwork of Mr.
Creighton’s, stating, “I’m not signing
your pass. I’m leaving Friday for
good so take that pass and shove it
up your black nigger unemployed
ass you black bitch.”

Prisoners who attempt to resolve
problems of substandard conditions
and staff misconduct through nonviolent, constitutionally-protected
means such as filing grievances or
lawsuits are singled out for
retaliation. Along with racist
intimidation and threats of violence,
commonly reported tactics of
retaliation include issuing false
misconduct reports that provide a
pretext for holding prisoners in
prolonged, sometimes indefinite,
solitary confinement. Once in the
RHU these prisoners are routinely
subjected to deprivation of food,
running water, yard, showers,
personal property, access to the law
library; their mail is opened,
delayed, confiscated, or destroyed.
Prison misconduct hearings are
virtually always formalities that rule
against prisoners after refusing
them the right to call witnesses or
access security camera footage for
purposes of evidence.
Those who file grievances do so with
the knowledge that these too are
virtually always decided against
prisoners. Official PA DOC
grievance statistics reveal that
between January 1, 2008 and April
28, 2009 less than 2% of prisoner
grievances were upheld throughout
the state.14 Yet because of the
provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (see section 3.5.1) those
who want to challenge violations of
their rights in court are forced to file
grievances, despite the serious risk
to their health and safety, lest the
14

PA DOC Inmate Grievance Tracking System
Summary Totals, on file.

10

claim be dismissed on a procedural
technicality.
In sum, conditions of confinement at
SCI Dallas fail to meet minimal
standards of decency, competency,
morality, or legality. Substandard
conditions expose prisoners to
infectious diseases and ill-health
(see section 3.3) and medical staff
routinely refuse adequate or any
treatment; mental health services
are grossly deficient when they are
available at all; solitary confinement
is being used as a warehouse for the
mentally ill and as a tool of
retaliation; and flagrant racism of a
distinctly white-supremacist nature
governs the entire operation of the
prison. In all of the above SCI Dallas
falls squarely within the mainstream
of the PA DOC.
The Supreme Law of the Land:
Note on the Legal Framework
Torture seeks to annihilate the
victim’s personality and denies the
inherent dignity of the human being.
The United Nations has condemned
torture from the outset as one of the
vilest acts perpetrated by human
beings on their fellow creatures.15
International human rights law
provides the general framework for
the legal analysis contained in
sections 3 and 4 of this report. The
three primary documents in this
regard are the Convention against
15

Human Rights Fact Sheet series No. 4,
Methods of Combating Torture, published by the
Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, United
Nations Office at Geneva.

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or
Punishment; the International
Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. Other guidelines
for interpreting and implementing
human rights principles that have
been adopted by the United Nations
are also included in order to provide
analytical support and as useful
tools for addressing violations of
prisoners’ rights.
We have chosen not to focus on U.S.
domestic law for this particular
report, although the conditions
alleged herein violate numerous
aspects of such, because it is our
contention that international law
(which is also constitutional law, see
below) must be the legal standard
which government actions are
measured by if human rights and
the rule of law are to be respected.
The treaties, resolutions, and other
guidelines presented herein
represent the customary
understanding of international law
acknowledged by the world
community. For this reason HRC
recognizes international human
rights law as binding upon the
United States under article 6 of the
U.S. constitution, which states that
“all treaties made . . . under the
authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land.”16
This report does not probe the U.S.
record on ratifying, recognizing, or
abiding by international conventions
16

The Constitution of the United States of
America, Article VI

11

and customs. Nor does it seek to
distinguish with finality which
violations amount to torture and
which fall into other categories of illtreatment. This latter concern can
only be adequately achieved by
officially authorized criminal
investigations conducted in accord
with international standards.
Instead, this framework is advanced
in order to further the development
of the human rights culture and
movement in the U.S. Rather than
engage in discussions of official U.S.
interpretation and application of
international law, we find it more
direct to expose severe violations
and utilize the human rights
framework as a tool for
understanding and action.
Ultimately, ratification, recognition,
and adherence to the conventions
and customs of international human
rights law is not the responsibility of
the government per se, but the
responsibility of the people.

of the state can only be understood
to represent a position of tacit
approval at worst or a decision of
political expedience at best.
We offer the following
recommendations (see section 4) to
our allies in civil society as a
framework for sustained, principled,
committed political struggle. These
recommendations are in no way
comprehensive and demand further
elaboration and integration into a
broader movement for the
enforcement of human rights law
and a corresponding restructuring of
the political, economic, and social
relationships and institutions that
govern our communities and shape
our collective future.
As an organization comprised of
prisoners, their families and support
people, and human rights
defenders, we expect these
constituents to be most receptive to
the following recommendations.
I.

Program for Accountability,
Access, Oversight and
Transformation
II.
The contents of this report describe
an unsustainable and appalling
culture of criminal conduct within
the PA DOC. To date, no effective
action has been taken by those in
positions of power to address the
human rights crisis inside the prison
system. The inaction and
indifference from DOC and state
officials when presented with
substantial documentation of crimes

III.

Investigate and prosecute
crimes of torture and
other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or
punishment.
Restructure the criminal
legal system according to
international law,
bringing conditions of
confinement into accord
with the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of
Prisoners.
Encourage prisoners to
form associations for the
defense of human rights.

12

IV.
V.
VI.

Abolish solitary
confinement.
Create a culture of human
rights defenders.
Enforce the Universal
Declaration of Human
Rights and make prisons
obsolete.

These recommendations, which are
explained more fully in section 4,
provide a framework through which
the human rights movement can
pursue varied and mutually
supportive initiatives for
accountability for state crimes,
access to prisoners, monitoring of
conditions, and system-wide
transformation. Anything less will
guarantee that the abuses of power
described below will persist.

13

Human Rights Violations at SCI Dallas: Prisoners’
Voices
“So many things is going on in this
prison like nothing I’ve experienced
in 26 years of incarceration and I’ve
been under some physically rough
conditions.”
– Eric Rambert (AM-9223), 2/3/2009
“I recently had the misfortune to be
shipped into SCI Dallas where every
complaint you have from here is
only the tip of the iceberg.”
– Steven Mable (CW-1531), 8/3/09
“The Christian in me says it's wrong,
but the corrections officer in me
says, ‘I love to make a grown man
piss himself.’”
—Charles Graner, Abu Ghraib guard
and former Correctional Officer at
SCI-Greene in Pennsylvania17
For this section of the report we
reviewed all the letters, reports,
criminal complaints and other
documents we received from Dallas
throughout 2009 in order to provide
an overview of the dominant
patterns of human rights violations
in the voices of those on the target
end. Due to space constraints, we
can present only a fraction of these
stories. The reports are grouped by
type of abuse: physical, sexual,
medical, etc. Listening to these
voices is a harrowing experience.
17

“Punishment and Amusement,” Scott Higham
and Joe Stephens, Washington Post, May, 22,
2004.

The conditions reported herein,
coupled with comparable reports

from throughout the PA DOC and
new reports of assault, starvation,
retaliation, death threats, and abuse
of the mentally ill give the definite
sense that things are getting worse.

Case Study: Matthew
Murder by Other Means

Bullock—

Matthew Bullock committed suicide
on August 24, 2009. Days after his
death, we received the first report
from a prisoner that guards had
tormented him until he killed
himself. In the coming days and
weeks no less than eight eyewitness
reports were sent to HRC/Fed Up!
describing guard encouragement
and facilitation of this suicide. As
David Sierra (DV-0642) wrote on
9/12/09,
“Hopefully
something
could be done before more people
die.”
Carrington Keys (EF-4010) wrote on
9/17/09:
“I Carrington-Alan Keys hereby
declare, swear and affirm
under penalty of perjury, true,
correct, complete, and not
misleading that during the
month of August and the days

14

following up to August 24th
2009 that several officers
including
Officer
Bath,
Corbett, McCoy, Pudlowsky,
Rasburn
and
Matello
encouraged prisoner Matthew
Bullock to kill himself, called
him child molester, kicked on
his door, and deprive him of
protection against suicidal
tendencies. Specifically I recall
on 8-26-09 and 8-27-09
Officer McCoy was bragging
that it was him (McCoy) that
made Bullock commit suicide
and that he would like to see
other inmates kill themselves.
On 8-27-09 C/O McCoy stated
that he is going to make the
baby raper ‘[name withheld]’
kill himself too. The days
following up to the date that
prisoner
Matthew
Bullock
committed suicide Mr. Bullock
was complaining about being
unable to breathe in hot cell
with the bright light shining in
his face 24 hours a day.
Prisoner Bullock was in a
camera cell and told the
officers that he would kill
himself.
The RHU officers
moved inmate Bullock to a cell
without camera and provided
him the means to kill himself.
No officers made any rounds
to check on Bullock on the 210 shift. Therefore Mr. Bullock
being under the pressure of
solitary
confinement
and
being treated less than a dog
committed suicide.”18
18

Affidavit of Carrington-Alan Keys, executed
on 9-17-09, on file.

In a similar vein, Isaac Sanchez (GY8440) wrote on 8/24/09:
“That on the date of 8/24/09
around 6:15pm I did witness
with my eyes and hear with
my ears officers Mattelo, Babs
[sp] and first shift and second
shift
passionately
and
aggressively state such foul
energy comments towards
Matthew Bullock. Stating such
things as child molester,
snitch, pedophile and many
other disrespectful names.
They
also
told
Matthew
Bullock that they don’t take
his suicide threats seriously
and that if he wanted or
needed a helping hand to
assist his suicide task/threat…
The officers here at Dallas
definitely caused this inmate
to kill himself by agitated him
in various ways and by totally
ignoring
his
health
problem/conditions.”19
David Sierra (DV-0642) submitted an
affidavit
written
on
9/17/09,
swearing the following:
“On 8-24-09 at 6:16pm a
Lieutenant
in
the
RHU
contacted
the
medical
department claiming that an
inmate hung himself.
This
inmate, a ‘Matthew Bullock’,
was in KA-50 cell where a
camera is placed in front of
cell for observation, then
abruptly moved to KA-48 cell.
During the move to a different
19

Affidavit of Isaac Sanchez, executed on 8-2409, on file.

15

cell C/O Wilks (who was drunk
and comes to work like that
daily) taunted him (Bullock)
and antagonized him by
calling
Bullock
a
child
molester, and rapist.
C/O
Colbert, C/O McCoy, on the 62 shift, and C/O Bath, C/O
Matello, and C/O Sromovski
on the 2-10 shift antagonized
Bullock for days, telling him to
kill himself.
This was an
ongoing process until he did
what they forced him to do.”20
In an undated letter that also
addressed the inhumane conditions
of solitary confinement, Lawyer
Lanier (GU-5777) wrote:
“They also murdered a man on
approximately August 22. A
man named Mathew Pollock
[sic] died in K-A-48 cell of
Dallas RHU. Officer Bath
worked along with Officer
Montello. Officer Bath was
instigator. He was making
comments of how we’ll ‘all get
your day’ and ‘we’re just
saving tax dollars, it’s a
depression.’ When inmates
screamed man dying get him
help. They lounged around
making comments of obscene
nature to which I can’t repeat
in detail. No one knew his
family to tell them real story
and be able to offer affidavits
and testimony so they can get
justice. Surely they were given
a trumped up version of their

loved one’s death. May God
Bless his soul!”
Abdus-Shahid Ali (HU-5599) reported
a final indignity to us in a letter from
10/8/09 that said, “The next day
they moved someone in without
cleaning the cell.”
Matthew Bullock was serving a 20-60
year sentence for the murder of his
pregnant wife in November 2003.
He was found guilty but mentally ill
by a jury and ordered to serve his
sentence in a secure mental health
facility by Judge Jospeh Augello.
Despite this sentencing instruction,
Mr. Bullock spent only a small
portion of his time in the PA DOC in
a “secure mental health facility,” SCI
Waymart. He was sent to SCI Dallas
on July 15, 2009. According to one
of his trial attorneys, Al Flora, Mr.
Bullock’s family reported that he had
attempted suicide six times while in
the PA DOC.21 It has also come to
the attention of HRC/Fed Up! that
psychiatric personnel re-established
Mr. Bullock’s prescription level to a
“baseline zero”, which means they
terminated
all
his
current
medications.
As a result of our ongoing
investigation several articles related
to the Bullock suicide, human rights
violations and control unit torture
were published in the Wilkes-Barre
Times Leader, which is the local area
newspaper for SCI Dallas, and
another in the state capitol’s
21

20

Affidavit of David Sierra, executed on 9-1709, on file.

“Lawsuit in inmate suicide possible,” Steve
Mocarsky, Wilkes-Barre Times Leader,
September 29, 2009.

16

Harrisburg Patriot.22 Both PA DOC
spokeswoman Sue Bensinger and PA
DOC
Office
of
Professional
Responsibility (OPR) Director James
Barnacle alleged that the PA DOC
would investigate any credible
claims regarding this or other
related matters of prisoner abuse.
In the weeks following the suicide,
HRC/Fed
Up!
submitted
7
eyewitness accounts and over 100
additional
complaints
regarding
comparable
human
rights
violations—including
guard
incitement to suicide, abuse of the
mentally ill, death threats, and
unbearable living conditions in the
solitary confinement units—to OPR,
PA DOC Secretary Beard, state
Attorney General Corbett, and
Governor
Rendell,
requesting
transparent investigations and the
enforcement of the rule of law in SCI
Dallas and throughout the PA DOC.
To date no investigation has been
forthcoming.
Unsurprisingly, several inmates fear
that they will meet the same fate as
Bullock. As John Paolino (GN-5925)
wrote on 11/05/09, “Since I got to
this prison I’ve been in the RHU
more
time
than
in
general
population. I need someone to help
me because I should have been Matt
22

“State to investigate allegations about Dallas
prison guards,” Steve Mocarsky, Wilkes-Barre
Times Leader, September 11, 2009; “Prisoner
rights group wants probe of state prison,” Steve
Mocarsky, Wilkes-Barre Times Leader,
September 27, 2009; “Lawsuit in inmate suicide
possible,” Steve Mocarsky, Wilkes-Barre Times
Leader, September 29, 2009; “Suicide raises
questions about prison treatment,” Pete Shellem,
Harrisburg Patriot, September 19, 2009.

Bullock. I hung myself Nov. 12, ’08
and all these people did was lock me
in a room naked for 18 days and
take every medication that had
helped me. I wouldn’t have hung
myself if they would’ve listen to me.
If they wouldn’t have continually
messed with all my medications.”
And Frederick Collins (GZ-8313)
wrote on 10/05/09 that he “was
subjected to mental abuse, and was
not fed by CO Bath. [I] was told to
kill [my]self, this is a regular form of
abuse used by CO Bath and other
officers in the ‘hole’. While [I] was in
the RHU inmate Matthew Bullock
committed suicide, he was subjected
to the same abuse as [me], so much
so he committed suicide, due to
cruel and unusual punishment.”
Case Study: Andre Jacobs and the
Ethic of Resistance
Andre Jacobs entered the criminal
legal system at the age of 15 and
has been incarcerated ever since,
subjected to assaults, constant
racism, and convicted on allegedly
false criminal charges on multiple
occasions. He has spent the last
nine years and counting in solitary
confinement in retaliation for filing
lawsuits against violations of his
rights by prison guards and DOC
officials.
An affidavit submitted to HRC/Fed
Up! in November, 2009 stated:
“I only know Andre Jacobs
from being transferred to SCI
Dallas in May 2009. A week
prior to his coming there I

17

heard prison guards Robo,
McCoy and Sgt. Buck
propositioning prisoners to
attack Mr. Jacobs verbally and
physically because ‘he is a
snitch’.
“I also witnessed that on 1010-09 [Mr. Jacobs received a
visit] and while Jacobs was on
the visit Sgt. Buck specifically
sent guards Provo and
Harrison to search and destroy
legal documents in Jacobs’ cell
to which we all were hollering
that the search is illegal, and
the toilet kept flushing
everything paper was
crumbled, which later was
discovered by Jacobs. They
were in his legal box and
documents are missing.
“It is no mystery that the
guards are highly retaliatory
against Jacobs for winning his
lawsuit because everyday they
are making remarks about it,
and I found out about it
listening to Robo, McCoy and
Sgt. Buck talk about it before
Jacobs got there, they were
mad.”23
These acts of retaliation and others,
including death threats and physical
assault, were corroborated by other
prisoners and Mr. Jacobs himself in
a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
filed pursuant to civil action no. 041366 with Judge Conti in the U.S.
District Court for the Western
23

Declaration of Eric X. Rambert #AM9223,
November 2, 2009, on file.

District of Pennsylvania.24 The
motion was denied.
Andre has brought four lawsuits to
jury trial against DOC defendants.
After the first trial resulted in an
unfavorable verdict for him, U.S.
Marshals reportedly dragged Andre
onto an elevator and beat him
unconscious. In multiple interviews
with Mr. Jacobs and his
grandmother, who witnessed the
assault, it was recalled how Andre
had called out to his grandmother
that he loved her. The U.S.
Marshals, who had displayed a
hostility toward Andre during the
entirety of the proceedings in the
federal court in Pittsburgh, told him
he was not to say a word, and
subsequently dragged him on the
elevator and assaulted him.25
Despite being handcuffed and
shackled with his arms full of legal
documents at the time, charges
were brought against Andre for
assaulting the officers. Mr. Jacobs
was found guilty in a trial in which
he claims that he was provided
ineffective counsel and that U.S.
marshals perjured themselves
regarding the events of that day. He
was sentenced to 17 years under
federal law.

24

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Preliminary Injunction, Jacobs v. DOC et
al. Civil Action 04-1366, October 10, 2009,
copy on file.
25
Based on several interviews with Mr. Jacobs
and Elizabeth Springer, along with a federal
habeas corpus petition filed by Andre Jacobs this
fall, a copy of which is on file.

18

Another lawsuit brought by Andre
that is ongoing describes abuse and
torture at the hands of psych staff at
SCI Fayette. The complaint reads, in
part:

made to live in it for several
days. […]
“When I asked defendant
Saavedra why he was denying
me placement in a treatment
unit and singling me out, he
stated that I shouldn’t
‘complain so much’ and that
I’m ‘nothing but a lab rat’.”26

“On June 19, 2004, defendant
Saavedra ordered that I be
placed in four-point restraints
after I set the water sprinkler
off in my cell.
“Defendant Saavedra forced
me to remain in restraints
until June 22, 04 without ever
talking to or observing me.
“While already restrained,
defendant Saavedra then
ordered that I be involuntarily
injected with anti-psychotic
drugs (unknown to me at the
time) at the suggestion of
non-medical LTSU [Long-Term
Segregation Unit] staff. Prison
guards physically held me
down while a female nurse
forcibly pulled down my
underwear and injected me in
the buttocks with a needle.
“I was injected with Haldol at
defendant Saavedra’s
direction, with full knowledge
that this drug is known to
cause restlessness and muscle
spasms in patients. Due to
me being restrained and
unable to stretch, defendant
did this as torture.
“While in these restraints, I
urinated and defecated on
myself several times and was

Despite a traumatic childhood,
which saw him prescribed antidepression and anti-psychotic drugs
at age six and involuntarily
committed to mental health facilities
on two occasions, Andre has
become a proficient jailhouse lawyer
at the age of 27. In November
2008, a jury in a civil rights lawsuit
against the PA DOC awarded Andre
$185,000. In November of 2009,
Andre wrote an article in response
to Judge Conti’s efforts to diminish
his victory by nullifying decisions
made by the jury. That article is
republished in Appendix II of this
report.27
Andre is being subjected to daily
threats, acts of brutality, fabricated
misconducts, obstruction of his
access to the courts, deprivation of
food and water, and mail tampering.
Whether or not this continues is
dependent on how many outside the
prison walls recognize and act
26

Amended Complaint in Jacobs v. Saavedra
and Kolli, civil action #07-514, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, copy on file.
27
Originally published online by the San
Francisco Bay View,
http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/what-good-isa-jury/

19

according to the credo of resistance
he articulated in an article he wrote
in December 2008, shortly after his
victory:
“Hopefully, the DOC heard me
also and will consider addressing
prisoners’ complaints more
honestly in the future instead of
attempting to bury our claims by
falsely characterizing us as liars,
or, as I suspect, they can
continue oppressing and
persecuting me for exercising my
rights. But I will never stop
resisting because I live and die
on principles. It is who I am.”

—Andre Jacobs
12-6-08

On December 7, 2009 HRC/Fed Up!
received a manila envelope from
Andre
Jacobs
containing
two
declarations and a dead mouse
wrapped in newspaper.
The
Declaration pertaining to the mouse
read as follows: “On 11-30-09, Sgt.
Konycki and John Doe delivered me
my religious kosher bag at dinner
time. Upon pulling the brown bag in
my cell, I immediately noticed
something moving in it. I slammed
the bag down and out ran a mouse
which I was able to kill, its blood on
my floor, my food, jelly, and cottage
cheese splattered all over my legal
work. When Sgt. Konycki came to
my cell to collect trash he kept
making a ‘squeak squeak’ noise all
the way down the tier and when he
reached my cell, he stated ‘the
mouse was from Sgt. Ransom was it

good?’ I gather that the mouse had
to have come from outside of this
unit since I have been here since
May 13, 09 and haven’t saw a single
mouse; nor have I heard any
prisoner complain about them being
here. I note that my kosher bag has
been smashed, contaminated with
disinfect and trash, feces and now a
mouse, which I am sending to HRC
as proof of my claim and I showed it
to Lt. Martin.”
Two sworn affidavits submitted to
HRC/Fed Up! state that on January 7,
2010, Andre Jacobs was assaulted
by at least 6 guards in the solitary
confinement unit at SCI Dallas.
Carrington Keys reported hearing
“KB-25 cell door opened and heard
officers MCoy, Wiles, Chalker, Wilk,
and Walters making racial remarks
while repeatedly striking prisoner
Jacobs with loud strikes of blows
repeatedly,” for several minutes. Lt.
Mosier was present during the
assault. During this time Keys heard
McCoy and Chalker state “We told
you we were going to get your black
ass nigger.”
The affidavit of
Anthony Kelly states that he heard
C/O Chalker say “Told you we would
get your nigger ass.” Andre Jacobs
reportedly suffered a busted lip and
head, with cuts at the side of his
face and legs. After the assault both
Keys and Kelly overheard the guards
conspiring to fabricate a pretext for
the attack. Kelly reported hearing
McCoy say “We got to get our stories
together,” to which C/O Chalker
responded “We got to get them
tapes.” Lt. Mosier assured them that
“The cameras aren’t working.”
Chalker then reportedly suggested

20

that they claim Mr. Jacobs “slipped
his cuffs,” before McCoy replied that
“No, we’re going to say he was
attempting to hang himself and that
gives us all the power we need to
enter his cell.”
This version of
events was corroborated by both
affidavits. Andre Jacobs and another
prisoner confirmed this version of
events in communications received
later.
Criminal complaints were sent by an
HRC investigator to the District
Attorney of Luzerne County and the
Civil Rights Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice on Mr. Jacobs’
behalf during the third week of
January.
Solitary
Confinement:
Disguised

Wilson Booker noted that being in
the hole (RHU, or Restricted Housing
Unit) involves deprivations other
than those inherent in solitary
confinement. Residents of the hole
are deprived of the programs
enjoyed by other prisoners. Booker
writes, “Being in the hole, ‘RHU’ I’m
being
deprived
of
education,
vocational
and
academic,
and
various other programs.”

Torture

In a New Yorker article by Atul
Gawande dated 3/30/2009, Sen.
John McCain (R-AZ) is quoted on the
effects of solitary confinement: “It’s
an awful thing, solitary. It crushes
your spirit and weakens your
resistance more effectively than any
other form of mistreatment.”28
McCain regularly suffered more
traditional types of torture including
physical abuse, but found solitary
confinement a more effective and
fearsome
torture.
Gawande
concludes that solitary confinement
is indeed a form of torture because,
he writes, “simply to exist as a
normal human being
requires
interaction with other people.”
28

Humans are social creatures on an
elemental level, so denying someone
interactions with other humans is
inhumane. “How,” he asks, “did we
end up with a prison system that
may subject more of our own
citizens to it than any other country
in history has?”

See
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/3
0/090330fa_fact_gawande (accessed November
7, 2009).

Abdus-Shahid Ali wrote on 8/20/09
of his suicidal tendencies. “My blood
pressure is up and I constantly have
headaches. I have bug bites all over
my body which I was giving benadryl
for and never seen a doctor, then
moved from my cell to another cell
with the same results. I fear for my
life and sanity everyday I live. I often
think and have suicidal thoughts
from the abuse I am suffering from
back here.” In a later letter from
10/08/09, he wrote,
“The conditions were very
inhumane… hot, no working
vents at all… stuffy and
humid… My first cell bugs
were biting me all over my
body, when I said something
about it they (medical staff)
played like I was crazy then
finally
after
constant
complaining they gave me

21

benadryl then moved me and
still didn’t clean the cell. They
had a light on all day that felt
like a rotisserie lamp. It was
hard to sleep because of the
hot humid cells and constant
bugs biting me all day and
night… We had no cups to
drink the brown colored water
that came out of the sinks and
toilets. There was constant
screaming yelling kicking and
banging (with objects on
doors to multiply the sound
on the doors).”
Eric Rambert on 7/16/09 discusses
his and Ali’s detention in solitary
confinement as follows:
“Suffering under 24 hours a
day lights on in the cells, a
spit shield fixed on the cell
door without violating a spit
policy that make the cell on a
80 degree day feel like 110 in
our cells cause there is no
ventilation in the cell, the vent
doesn’t blow air out or take
air in, they refuse to put the
fans on the tier, obstruct and
tamper with our food, showers
and exercise yard, have us
housed in close proximity with
mental health [patients] who
they agitate and have . . .
banging on doors, metal desk,
sinks
and
toilets
and
screaming all night for days at
a
time
causing
sleep
deprivation.”
Entry into RHU can be triggered by
misconduct, but given the ease with
which guards are able to fabricate a

misconduct, there is a danger of a
prisoner being placed in RHU for
insufficient
reasons.
Victor
Yarbrough (GQ-4316) wrote on
8/24/09, “The guards/staff planted
a weapon inside my footlocker
during a
search without my
presence. I was given 90 days D/C
time.” Sometimes prisoners are
involved in fights, giving license to
guards to divide them along racial
and
supposed
“gang”
lines.
Cooperating
with
guards’
investigations can lead to RHU time,
as one prisoner related in his letter
of 7/16/09: “I was assaulted up
here, 2 other inmates, but I didn’t
want to tell. But the Lt. Miller told
me don’t worry, nothing will
happen, so I told. He stated I would
be transferred within 30 days but he
lied. The [deputy] superintendent
Mr. Mooney stated I would have to
stay on AC status and not be
transferred. Now I’m stuck in the
RHU… it’s not right, I didn’t do
nothing wrong to be in the RHU.”
Lawyer Lanier (GU-5777) gave a
generous
response
to
our
questionnaire
on
solitary
confinement.
Here
are
some
excerpts from his undated letter:
“The cells are the size of a
small bathroom. In fact, they
remind you of a bathroom
minus bathtub with bunk bed
in place. The water smells like
steel and it is always brown.
We are not allowed paper cups
so it is difficult to drink. It has
a desk only big enough for a
child. The door has plexiglass
covering window, on top of

22

bars and gates. That plus the
added block at bottom allows
no room for air to come in. We
only come out for 1 hr
recreation
in
dog
cage
Monday-Friday. They will take
away a yard if they feel like it
although it’s against state law.
We also get 10 min. for a
shower, three times a week.
Showers are dirty, filthy and
the water gives people rashes.
We are due law library but
they may skip on that also. We
only have mail as outside
outlet. Yet, the mail may be
delayed or may never show.
The mail has come with pieces
missing or open, and the
outgoing mail may not leave
jail for 1 week to a month.
The light in cell is blinding. It
reminds me of old war torture
tactics. It hurts your eyes and
gives you migraines. I’ve seen
medical for migraines and am
due to receive glasses for
damage to retina. Only noises
we hear are the screams of
the mental patients of which
there are many.
The hole has affected my
attention span significantly. I
often wander in thought as of
habit, being only left to do so
for such periods of time.
[On anxiety:] The CO’s are
liable to do any level of
indignifying acts to you at any
given time. It’s constant worry
and unease. It makes one feel
so helpless and vulnerable
and you never know what

tragedy
today.

may

affront

you

At first I slept too much, now I
rarely sleep. The loud screams
and banging and kicking on
doors make it difficult. Plus
I’m always attentive to C/O
keys and the possibility that
they’re coming for me. I
mainly steal away naps here
and there and that’s how I
sleep.
My perception has changed
but I know not as badly as
those who have suffered
longer. I believe it will take
time to adjust to reality
again.”
Another writer who has greatly
increased our understanding of the
psychological effects of solitary
confinement will remain anonymous
for his own security. His undated
letter is below.
“One thing I want to point out
first is although this is a level
5 segregated housing unit
(RHU), a lot of us, myself
included, are forced to have
cellmates back here (at least
at SCI Dallas). That means 23
and 1 five days a week and 24
hour lockdown the other two
with a cellmate not of our
choice I think that in itself is
pretty inhumane especially
being as though this is socalled ‘solitary confinement.’
I, for one, was physically
assaulted
by
a
previous

23

cellmate and some people are
even sexually assaulted by
cellmates.
The
CO’s
do
nothing to prevent or stop this
from happening.
The conditions are horrible.
The cell was disgustingly filthy
when I first entered it. There
were stains on the walls and
the bunk that looked like
boogers/snot and dried blood.
Hair and dirt was everywhere
and it smelled very bad. Also,
the cells have no windows and
very minimal air circulation.
Plexi-glass
“spit
shields”
prevent air from flowing in
cells. The water that comes
out of the sink and the
showers is a dark “rust” color
and tastes like chemicals. It
even stains my white boxer
shorts that I wear in the
shower.
We are let out for one hour a
day, Monday through Friday,
for recreation which consists
of being cuffed and led by a
“dog leash” attached to the
cuffs to an outdoor area
where there are a whole bunch
of cages similar in size to our
cell. We are placed one person
per cage and left out there
with nothing for one hour.
This is where some inmates
smuggle containers filled with
feces, urine and other bodily
fluids and fling it on each
other. Some inmates actually
undress, squat down and
defecate into their hand and
throw it like that. We also

come out 3 times a week for
shower which lasts anywhere
from 5 to 15 minutes usually.
Occasionally I’ve been left
locked in the shower stall for
close to an hour or more,
obviously forgotten about.
This is another area where
inmates can throw feces, etc.
because they put 2 inmates
per shower stall, next to each
other only separated by a
fence-like partition.
Other
than
special
circumstances, these are the
only times we come out of our
cells. Also I’d like to point out
the fact that to sign up for
these activities (recreation,
shower) we must be standing
at our cell door early in the
morning when a CO will come
around with a list. Often the
CO will not announce that he
is coming around or he will
speed by so fast that we are
not prepared. If this happens
we are “burnt.” In other words,
no rec, no shower. Other
times COs will just skip over
us at random when it’s time to
come out.
…Often I’ve suspected that my
mail was being “lost” or
tampered with, both incoming
and outgoing. But obviously
this is extremely difficult to
prove. We also are allowed
one non-contact visit per
month for one hour. During
such visits, C/Os sit in the
room and eavesdrop on the
conversation and make it hard

24

for a person to speak frankly
especially
concerning
any
abuse or conditions in here.
Any time we speak out, we
must fear retaliation in all
imaginable forms…
The noises I hear are mostly
constant
banging
from
inmates near and far in the
RHU. And I’m talking about
24/7. Some inmates bang on
tables, bunks, doors, sinks,
etc. and it seems like it never
ceases. Other than that I hear
guards yelling and cursing at
people. Often I hear them use
racial
slurs
and
other
derogatory
terms
towards
inmates. The COs tell inmates
to
“kill
themselves”
and
sometimes kick doors or clang
keys to disturb our sleep.
Also, I hear inmates constantly
screaming.
My ability to focus has
definitely changed. When I try
to read I cannot focus on what
I am reading even on rare
occasions when it is relatively
quiet. I’ll find myself reading
the same page of a book for
like 20 minutes or half an
hour at a time because I can’t
concentrate
enough
to
comprehend
what
I
am
reading. My mind constantly
wanders and I sometimes find
it difficult to talk to people
because of this as well.
Thankfully, I’ve never had an
impulse to hurt myself, or at
least a serious one I should

say. This place definitely
makes you think about it
though. I feel sorry for weakminded or mentally unstable
inmates, though, because I
can see how they would have
such impulses. In fact, at least
one inmate committed suicide
by hanging himself in his cell
while I’ve been in this RHU.
(The C/Os harassed him into
hanging himself.) It was a few
weeks ago, I don’t recall the
date. But the jail swept that
incident under the rug and put
a new inmate in that cell the
very next day.
My sleeping patterns are
different while in RHU. I must
try and doze off during the
rare times that it is quiet. But
my sleep is often interrupted
by banging, clanging, C/Os
yelling, inmates screaming
etc. Also the light makes it
almost impossible to sleep
during the day. My sleep is
very disturbed and I’m sure
the pattern is unhealthy. I
have frequent nightmares. I
have daydreams and fantasies
very often in RHU. Mostly they
are about being somewhere
else, what I would be doing or
like to be doing if I was home,
planning for my future when I
get out or just imagining that
things
were
different.
I
sometimes reminisce about
my
childhood
or
past
experiences.
My perception of reality is
usually OK. I have noticed

25

slight visual hallucinations in
my peripheral vision and also
if I focus on an object for
extended time. Now that I
think about it, my perception
of reality maybe isn’t as good
as I’d like to think it is. I must
admit, my thoughts are often
irrational in relation to reality
and often violent. Sometimes
my perception of time is off. I
sometimes get paranoid and
think my cellmate is watching
me or paying too much
attention to my business. We
get absolutely zero privacy. I
often
get
paranoid
and
wonder if he is a homosexual.
Sometimes I have urges to
hurt him, but I try to control
myself. I try to remind myself
that it is not his fault we are
forced to be in this situation.
The banging noises and
screaming voices often seem
unbearable. Sometimes the
toilet flushing sound even
becomes unbearable as well.
Also, I sometimes get very
claustrophobic and feel like I
am having a panic attack. My
heart beats very fast, I sweat
and have shortness of breath.
I do not feel that the prison
administration was justified in
placing me in the RHU. I was
placed back here for what I
perceive to be relatively minor
infractions both times. Also,
the hearing examiner is
completely biased when it
comes
to
his
findings.
According to him, a C/O or

prison official is incapable of
lying. In cases where it is our
word against a staff, he always
sides with the staff. And often
we are found guilty based on
no other evidence but a C/O’s
word. The hearing examiner
refuses to call any witnesses
of ours.
Often times, I for one, as well
as other inmates I’ve spoken
to, will plead guilty to charges
that we are not guilty of
simply because we know the
sanction will be much worse if
we plead not guilty…
I think that the whole idea of
solitary confinement is insane.
We are already in prison. This
is just a form of inhumane
punishment and torture. I
think that most of the C/Os
that work in this RHU in
particular are sick individuals
that get off on torturing us.
The
administration
is
obviously
indifferent
and
could care less about the long
term affects that this type of
confinement has on us as
human beings. Obviously we
are not human beings to
them, we are merely a
number. Most of the inmates
in solitary confinement need
mental help but are not
receiving it.
If they were to use solitary
confinement in prisons, it
should be limited to extreme
cases where it is a last resort.
As it stands now it is a first

26

resort. Inmates can come to
RHU for something as petty as
sleeping through count. It’s
totally ridiculous. My first time
back here was for using a
curse
word
(“abusive
language”)…
Lastly, there are so many
guards
and
staff
who
perpetrate
human
rights
violations,
it
would
be
impossible to name all, but I
will try my best to list as many
as I can. Some spellings may
be incorrect.
-Hearing Examiner McKeown.
The hearing examiner is the
#1 perpetrator. He is totally
bias[ed] against inmates and
he has way too much power
and discretion when it comes
to sanctioning inmates. He
should be investigated and
fired.
-Lt. Bleich. He calls people
“niggers and spics” and tells
people to kill themselves.
-Lt. Mosier. He basically allows
all of this to occur and also
engages in racial slurs.
-Sgt. Ontko. He spits in
inmates trays and burns
inmates for rec and showers
often. Also racial slurs.
-Sgt. Ransom. He also uses
racial slurs and tells inmates
to hang themselves with a
sheet.
-C/O Wisinski. Tells inmates to
“suck his dick” and calls us
“faggots”, also burns us for
yard, shower, etc.
-C/O Bath. He burns inmates

for meals and kicks doors
calling
inmates
child
molesters, rapists, snitches,
etc.
-C/O Wilk. He prevents people
from utilizing the grievance
drop box, also uses sexual
slurs often telling inmates to
“suck my dick”, etc.
-C/O Matello. He often burns
inmates for meals etc.
-C/O Elmore. He threatens
inmates with violence and
uses derogatory terms etc.
…I have also been denied
access to the grievance “drop
box” that we are supposed to
be able to utilize on the way
to showers. This box is the
only way we can be sure that
RHU officers can’t tamper with
or read our grievances.
Lastly, I want to address the
fact that I for one have seen
C/Os spit in people’s food. I
am not aware of the officer’s
name to identify him. Some
C/Os don’t even wear name
tags. I believe this is on
purpose, so we can’t identify
them.”
Walberto Maldonando (FN-3537) also
wrote to us about conditions in the
SCI Dallas solitary confinement units
on 9/17/09:
“The cells are terrible. You
can’t hardly breathe, ain’t no
type of circulations, the bed
have no pillow, the doors are
cover-up
with
a
plastic
glass…The only time I was let

27

out was for yard, but most of
the [time] they would not let
me out, they would lie and say
that I did not sign up, so I had
to stay in my cell all day, they
would not take me to medical
when I sign up. I was not
allow to communicate with no
one outside of this prison and
when I try to send my family a
letter they would not receive it
and when I was put on
administrative custody I would
ask for a phone call because
you’re allow one phone call a
week when you’re in AC.
When I ask they would deny it
talking about I don’t deserve
anything because I’m a piece
of shit…I hear all type of
noises, people crying, people
screaming and yelling all day
and night. My ability to focus
is not the same anymore. It
seem like every time I try to
think or focus all I think about
is everything that go on in the
solitary confinement… Yes I
try to hurt myself because the
officers will always tell me to
kill myself, calling me all type
of names and encouraging me
to do so because they say the
world would be a better place
without me and it came to
point where I started believing
them. I can’t sleep at night
because I’m always thinking
that the officers were going to
come in my cell and attack
me. I’m always having dreams
whenever I get a chance to
sleep. I’ve dreams about the
officers trying to kills me or
trying to poison my food. I

wake up shaking where I can’t
control my nerve.
I be
hallucinating that everybody
that I look at always laughing
at
me
and I’m
always
hallucinating
that
every
officers I see is wearing a shirt
that said ‘kill yourself.’”
Shawn Sharp (BQ-8429) elaborates
on the intimidation that Mr.
Maldonado and several others touch
upon. He wrote in an undated letter,
“I personally heard the Sgt. of the
RHU tell an inmate that they were
going to grind him up until he killed
himself. This is a mental health
inmate! What is worse is that this
stuff goes on with the sanction of
the supervisory staff of this prison.”
Such intimidation is thought to be
what killed Matthew Bullock and
what threatens to kill many of the
other mentally unstable inmates as
well.
Solitary confinement can cause
lethargy, as observed in the
testimonies
above.
Another
common
and
predictable
psychological by-product is anger.
Obviously, this is not an ideal
emotional problem to have in
prison. Carrington-Alan Keys (EF4010) wrote on 8/20/09:
“My ability to focus has been
severely hindered. I have short
term memory as a result of
long
term
isolation,
my
attention span has been
hindered. I was not able to
watch TV, read newspapers, or
magazines. I was not allowed
to hear radio and I was denied

28

all contact to the outside
world for years at a time. This
caused me to have a short
attention span and short term
memory loss, blackouts in the
middle of a conversation my
mind
goes
blank.
No
exaggeration…
While in solitary confinement I
lost
control
over
my
psychological
and
verbal
reactions causing me to act
out in ways that hurt myself.
While being in a state of
temporary insanity from the
long
term
continuing
deprivation.
I daydreamed so much while
in solitary confinement that
when I was finally returned to
population I walk around
spaced out much of the day,
unable to focus my mind on
goals due to the lack of being
able to focus without drifting
off into a far away thought.
My thinking became altered
while in solitary confinement,
accelerated heartbeat, chest
pains, paranoia, panic attacks,
post traumatic stress, and a
feeling that all the state
officers were against me . . .
An anonymous prisoner adds:
Solitary
confinement
has
altered
my
psychological
[health]
by
making
me
uncontrollably
angry,
and
more violent than when I
entered solitary confinement,

from having no outlet for
years upon years and feeling
trapped,
oppressed,
suppressed and depressed,
subject to constant racial
slurs,
inadequate
food
portions, deprived of yard,
shower and all human contact
for months at a time. I have
short term memory lost, and I
daydream most of the day. I’m
shell shocked, and I have
trouble
communicating
in
large groups, because I’m
used to being confined by
myself. I cannot be in a cell
with another man due to my
sudden
outbursts
and
blackouts,
violent
mood
swings, and post traumatic
stress syndrome. I often roam
by myself because not too
many others understand the
after effects of long term
isolation.
I do not believe that inmates
should be denied magazines,
newspapers, television and or
radio, because this gives them
a lost of touch with reality and
causes a abnormal psychosis.
If the same treatment were
given to dogs, the animal
rights people would have a
fit.”
Finally,
Walberto
Maldonado
FN3537) wrote on 9/17/09 about
the inevitability of re-offending once
a prisoner is released from solitary
confinement. In his words, “[Solitary
confinement] should be abolished,
because it has become a chamber of
cruel and unusual punishment all

29

over, a torture camp so to speak… It
resemble a cattle ranch where
people are tortured to death then
released back to society without a
chance in the world due to being
treated like animals. It’s inevitable
for people to return back. It’s more
money in their pockets.” Maldonado
also wrote, “I hope my answers [to
the solitary questionnaire] can help
in the pursuit of your set goal of
trying
to
terminate
the
concentration camps they call RHU.”
As Roberto Rivera (AS-2743) wrote
on 10/12/09, “I was confined in the
RHU for my mental problem, and I
can tell you that the RHU of SCIDallas is Hell.”
Environmental Conditions: Water
to Waste
Most if not all of the unsafe sanitary
conditions can be
traced to
overcrowding. With far more inmates
than jails were designed for, the
sewage and water systems are
strained, leading to health and
safety problems. One of the most
common complaints the Human
Rights Coalition receives from SCIDallas is that the water is brown in
color, dangerous to drink, and a
cause of skin irritation. Devin
Alexander wrote on 8/17/09 that he
was forced throughout his period of
incarceration to drink brown water
that stained white cloth and put him
(and other inmates) at risk of illness.
Raymond Caliman (AY-7131) wrote
on 9/17/09, “At times the water
comes out of the sink (basin) brown,
as if it were tea.
Also I have
received a skin infection from the
shower which I had to receive

medical attention for. At times this
infection does flare up and I receive
irritation
and
bumps.”
Joseph
Schloder
(GX-8481)
wrote
on
7/14/09,
“Since I have been at Dallas I
have been concerned about
the drinking water here. The
water here is discolored all the
time. What I mean is it comes
out rusty. I brought the
attention to medical staff, and
they brushed me off about the
problem… The water is so
discolored that you can for
instance put a brand new
white rag where water comes
out and you will see a rust
stain; it actually will make
stains in your whites… when I
am done showering I will see
what it looks like is rust stains
on my boxer shorts… it is not
normal to drink discolored
water…”
Schloder added on 8/19/09 that
“this water has been discolored for
years. People put grievances in
about the water for years now, still
nothing happen,
nobody took
action. And the water is discolored
all throughout the jail.” Victor
Yarbrough (GQ-4316), on 8/24/09,
wrote, “The water here is constantly
brown, dark brown, and it’s not safe
to use or drink. The water is like this
throughout the facility. My skin gets
irritated and itches all the time and
the water gives me really bad pains
in my stomach and through my body
every time I drink it.” And Jason
Stine (HT-1582) wrote on 7/16/09,
“The water up here [in RHU] is

30

brown, they don’t care.”
Anthony Kelly (GX-0834) wrote to
HRC on 11/4/09 with a harrowing
story of inadequate water supply.
“From 10/14/09-10/24/09 I was
denied water for my cell.
All
plumbing for my cell was shut off. I
had to wash up with the water that
was in my toilet and drink the water
that was in my toilet. I was forced
to urinate and defecate then let it sit
in my toilet for 3 to 5 days.
Numerous days at a time I was
forced to sleep with that in my
toilet.”
Jim Lippart (CQ-2549) wrote on
10/17/09 about the unsanitary
conditions that arise from nonhandicap-accessible conditions:
“I am Mr. Jim Lippart, ADA
qualified handicap inmate. On
Sept. 28, 2009 transferred
from
a
fully
handicap
accessible facility Mahanoy to
Dallas facility on a fully
handicap accessible transport
vehicle… RHU in Dallas is nonhandicap accessible with no
handicap accessible cells so
Dallas
staff
provided
placement in the Dallas facility
hospital on RHU status… in
RHU I can’t have containers.
So they took my urinal and
bedpan. I am urinating and
defecating all over myself,
bed, floor, etc. due to staff’s
actions.
They have no
handicap shower for me
either… I have urine/feces on
my hands, which I am unable
to wash due to non-handicap

accessible sink. I must eat in
this manner.”
Air quality is another common
complaint. Abdus-Shahid Ali wrote
on 8/20/09 that the fans serve only
to blow around the dusty air, not to
provide relief from the extreme heat
brought upon by the spit guards.
When the inmate already suffers
from
asthma
and
breathing
problems, lack of circulation can
lead to serious health problems.
Thomas Nicholson is one such
inmate. He wrote in a grievance
dated 7/5/09:
“I am in the RHU and I have
asthma. I am having problems
with breathing, and the reason
being is because there is a
shield blocking any air that is
able to make its way in my
cell. Now I understand that it’s
for people who spit, but I have
never spit on anyone. So I am
asking that this shield be
taken down. I am a asthmatic
person
who
is
having
problems breathing.”
Similarly, Walberto Maldonado (FN3537) wrote on 9/17/09, “You can’t
hardly breathe, ain’t no type of
circulations, the bed have no pillow,
the doors are cover-up with a plastic
glass… The lights are on 24 hours a
day not letting me sleep at all. It’s
come to a point now where my eyes
hurt all the time and I get
headaches. I never use to get any
type of headaches.” Eric Rambert
(AM-9223) had the same concerns
on 7/7/09, when he wrote,

31

“I am writing this complaint
due to the serious hazard and
safety code violation to my
health and similar situated
prisoners. We are currently in
SCI Dallas RHU under 24 hours
a day lights with a spit
shield/plexiglass on our cell
doors with no ventilation from
the vent that doesn’t blow any
air out nor such any stale air
in, if its 90 degrees outside its
120 in the cells, the light draw
heat because its constantly on
24 hours, we can’t turn it off
because they are controlled by
guards.”
Another
potentially
deadly
air
pollutant is asbestos. David Crews
(DC-0924) wrote to HRC on 6/2/09
and included a sample of material
that was alleged to be asbestos. He
notes that there is:
“the possibility of inmates
including myself here in the
RHU at SCI Dallas being
exposed to asbestos that is
known to cause or that is the
cause
of
mesothelioma
cancer. There is a high level of
dust in the air and in these
cells.
The cells stay dusty
even after you clean them the
dust
comes back within
minutes. As you may know I
just was transferred to SCI
Dallas in March 2009 but
other inmates who have been
here reported cases where
several blocks except J block
and K block which is the RHU
have been evacuated because
of the high level of asbestos

and also said there has been a
high rate of inmates dying
from cancer who didn’t even
smoke.”
Gregory McCrae (DP-2860) wrote on
9/12/09 that he had been moved to
the hole after an altercation with
C/O Salsmon and was placed in #50
K/A, where Bullock had been held
prior to being moved out of camera
sight on the day of his suicide.
McCrae reports that “I’m now being
housed in the Restricted Housing
Unit (RHU), where I’m being denied
food and water.
I’m also being
housed in a cell that can be the
equivalent to a dungeon, #50 K/A
block.
It’s suppose to be an
observation cell, but water pours
through the ceiling as if I’m under a
sewer line.” If the water that is
seeping through the ceiling in his
cell is indeed sewage, it represents a
huge potential health hazard. On the
subject of sewage, Alex Melendez
(EX-5417) wrote on 9/10/09 that
“the sewage system is from primitive
times, the water we drink is often
dirty. The showers are germ
incubators for staph infection,
fungus, and so on.” Similarly, Gary
Green (AS-2652) wrote on 6/28/09:
“I been here at SCI Dallas for
20 years. During my 20 years
at this Institution it’s gotten
worse. The water is rust
(reddish brown), the showers
are overcrowded, which is due
to the increasing population,
and out of 28 shower heads,
probably 22 of them work.
The
drainage
is
always
clogged. The waste from the

32

cell next to you comes in your
toilet. Poor ventilation in the
cells especially in the RHU –
they have a glass covering the
doors… All the cells are
inadequate and far below ACA
[American
Correctional
Association] standards.”
H. Lewis Jefferis (AF-9517) summed
up the issues of overcrowding
succinctly on 6/27/09:
“SCI-Dallas recently added c.
150 beds by installing these
beds in cells that already had
one bed, and this, even
though the prison is already
well over capacity… Many of
the men being affected by this
double-celling are aging men
with health problems, most
with 30+ years served. Some
are this country’s war vets.
The cells are small (c. 6’ by 9’)
and do not meet space
standards for two men set by
the American Correctional
Association. Their size does
not
even
meet
size
requirements for dogs in PA
kennels. Both men can’t even
be out of bed at the same
time and have room to move…
The water and sewer system is
inadequate
for
this
population.
Frequently
throughout the year there are
water problems when men go
without water to flush toilets
for periods of 36 hours and
more…They also often have to
go without showers and hot
meals (no steam), because the
water has been shut off for

several days at a time… There
are also long waits for medical
services. Men wait for 3
months or more for medical
procedures, and up to 6
months for glasses, and the
same
goes
for
dental
procedures.
The
building
structures were not designed
and built for double capacity.
There are many cracks in
concrete
and
bricks
throughout…
Vocational,
education, drug and alcohol,
and
other
rehabilitative
programs are over-burdened,
hindering the rehabilitation
process,
creating
higher
recidivism rates.”
Overcrowding is the root cause of
many of the situational abuses
detailed
above.
Now
that
overcrowding is being recognized as
a harbinger of cruel and unusual
punishment, it must be addressed
by implementing sentencing policy
reforms and introducing safe,
effective, and cost-wise alternatives
to incarceration. Doing so will
ensure that those who do get sent to
prison do not suffer such egregious
abuses of their constitutional rights.
Medical Neglect
The PA DOC does not permit
prisoners to access their own
medical records and efforts to
secure documentation of medical
and psychological diagnoses and
histories are often refused without
cause
and
are
prohibitively
expensive when granted.
All of
these restrictions on access to

33

information
create
substantial
obstacles
for
human
rights
organizations, citizen and media
watchdog groups, and families of
the incarcerated from being able to
verify reports of medical neglect
such as those below. Thus, because
of the various restrictions, it is very
hard to verify wrongful deaths. The
quotes below are simply some of the
stories we get.
Some cases of medical neglect can
be traced to the problems of
overcrowding
outlined
in
the
previous section. Alex Melendez (EX5417) wrote on 9/10/09, “They only
got one psychiatrist for over 2000
people.” And it is probably because
of
overcrowding
that
several
mentally ill inmates’ Z-codes were
taken away, because there is not
enough space to keep Z-code
inmates in separate cells.
Thus
Fernando Camilo lost his Z-code
status after twenty years. As he
wrote on 7/2/09,
“I was assigned a z-code,
which is a status to remain in
a single occupancy cell. Now,
almost twenty years later, they
(prison staff) disregarding my
prior problems and difficulties
with a cell-mate, removed my
z-code and later ordered me
to share a cell. This was and
still is devastating to me and
so, on the day prison officials
ordered me to leave my single
cell, I attempted suicide.
Prison officials still punished
me by putting me in a socalled “observation room” with
no bed, but a hard stump to

sleep on and in the nude with
just a make-shift robe and
blanket and the room is
disgusting. I’m sure that if you
see this room you will agree
that it’s inhumane just as the
psychological
cruel
and
unusual punishment I am
enduring at the present time.”
But not all medical neglect is due to
overcrowding; some inmates write
to HRC with medical problems that
continue to go untreated due to
negligence. One prisoner wrote, “I
also need medical treatment for
HCV, Prostate and Inguinal Hernia
which causes pain.” It seems that
often, when inmates report pain or a
suspected medical problem, they are
not treated for various reasons. Such
was
the
case
with
Duane
Bartholomew Peters, who wrote on
6/8/09 that he signed up for a sick
call. He says,
“[Medical personnel] came to
my cell door and blamed me
for causing trouble and then
said I was talking to him fine
so he does not see no
symptoms of any illness… The
medical staff have a scam
system going on here that if
you sign up for sick call they
blame you for having a
problem with the guards, and
walk away from your cell like
it’s a joke and take your
money29 – denying you even
29

This is in reference to PA DOC policy DCADM 820 “Co-Payment for Medical Services,”
which requires a $5 charge to a prisoner who
requests any “non-emergency” medical attention
and some emergency procedures in certain

34

an opportunity to even be
heard.”
Similarly, Walberto Maldonado (FN3537) adds on 9/17/09, “They
would not take me to medical when I
sign up.” Another inmate speaking
on condition of anonymity (for fear
of retribution) wrote in early 2009, “I
am contacting you from solitary
confinement. I am 65-plus years of
age, and I am in failing health… I am
also… being denied access to
specialists for several different
serious health problems, including a
heart attack. I am currently being
charged unwarranted medical co-pay
fees.”
Ronald Collazo (AM-8569) was
diagnosed with cataracts in April
2008, one in his right eye and
another one starting in his left eye.
Outside
referrals
recommended
removal of the cataract in the right
eye, but the DOC has turned down
the operation because it is an
“elective surgery.” The DOC has a
“one good eye” policy, whereby an
inmate is allowed to go blind in one
eye provided the other eye is
functional. Thanks to this policy
Collazo is going blind, as in fact
both of his eyes have problems,
though the DOC ignores that he has
vision troubles in more than one of
his eyes. On 6/28/09, he wrote,

circumstances. This policy contravenes
Principle 24 of the UN Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form
of Detention or Imprisonment, which declares
that “medical care and treatment shall be
provided whenever necessary” and that this care
“shall be provided free of charge.”

“The DOC, through their
inaction, is basically taking my
right eye from me for no other
reason but to save a dollar. I
did nothing wrong. I am 54
years of age and my eye
simply developed a cataract. I
am being punished by them
taking my eye away from me.
Now my other eye has to do
the work of two eyes, I have
no depth perception, and
bright lights cause me pain. I
don’t even enjoy reading
anymore. A pastime I have
enjoyed over the years being
incarcerated.”
And he adds, “Notwithstanding the
fact that my left eye is not ‘normal,’
any policy that would allow for a
human being to lose his sight to
save money can only be said to be
inhumane and would amount to
cruel and unusual punishment.”
Jason Milisits’ case is so bad that he
could not write to tell us about it.
Instead, William Davidson (EG-0745)
wrote about his case on 8/28/09,
and explained, “I am writing this
letter on behalf of my friend Jason
Milisits. Jason has a severe case of
the shingles that he contracted from
a chicken pox outbreak in 2006. To
this date the medical dept. refuses
to treat or do a culture for this
condition. Recently his condition has
gotten worse. Jason is in a lot of
pain; he cannot sleep because of his
pain.”
Susano Pagan’s case is another that
was so bad, the inmate could not
write to HRC himself. Alex Melendez

35

(EX-5417) wrote for him on 9/10/09,
“I am writing you in behalf of
Susano Pagan AM-7039… Sir,
Susano was hospitalized for 2
weeks then he was led back
out to population. I arranged
to see him in the yard a day
after. He wasn’t looking good.
We had agreed to meet the
next morning in the yard so
he could give me all his family
info so that I could help him
put a letter together for you. I
went to meet him the
following morning, and I
found out by someone in his
unit that, for 6:20AM count
the CO found him in the cell
unconscious
and
unresponsive…someone said
that a guard had said that he
passed away. I don’t know
how true that is, I’m worry,
Susano is like a uncle figure to
me, always gave me good
advice so when I make parole I
don’t
come
back… This
medical
system
here
is
corrupted. Just last week a
guy had a stroke in the gym. It
took the medical staff ½ hour
to walk from the infirmary
which is only a half a hallway
away to help him, this man
died in front of everyone who
was in the gym. Susano had
health
issues
but
his
depression status is really
what was deteriorating his
health… Susano was in a
single cell for 28 years… the
administration put pressure
on [the new psychiatrist] to
clear people for double cell…”

Pagan’s case illustrates the causal
link between overcrowding and
medical neglect. Although the
specifics of Mr. Pagan’s situation
cannot be discerned without access
to comprehensive medical records,
we have received additional reports
of prisoners throughout the PA DOC
having their medically-mandated
single-cell status terminated despite
no alteration in the condition
originally
prompting
such
a
classification.
Susano contacted HRC/Fed Up! in
early
November
about
his
deteriorating condition. Mr. Pagan
had been given less than 6 months
to live and wanted to seek
compassionate
release
or
commutation so he could be with his
family in New York or Puerto Rico.
We contacted the prison and his
family in Puerto Rico in an attempt
to offer support, but it was too late.
Susano Pagan died on November 20,
2009.
Mr. Pagan and Matthew Bullock are
not the only instances of deaths
reported to HRC/Fed Up! during the
course of our investigation. Roberto
C. Rivera (AS-2743) on 9/11/09
wrote indirectly of Bullock and
another wrongful death that took
place in the gym, most likely the
same one that Melendez mentions in
his letter on Pagan:
“People beginning to die in
here because of neglect on
the part of the staff. A man
just died in the gym area here
and it took a nurse 23

36

minutes just to get the man
out of the gym area. No CPR
was administered by staff and
people just stood by watching
the man die while they took
their good old time about
even moving him.
About a month ago, another
inmate who was supposed to
be under observation in a hard
cell on camera on suicide
watch status did kill himself.
This man was to be under
psychological treatment…”
Recent reports have indicated that a
number of prisoners have died as
the result of negligent medical care.
Multiple prisoner reports regarding
the death of Howard Kelley, a 25
year-old lifer from Pittsburgh, claim
that he had been seeking medical
attention for days for flu-like
symptoms. Some of these reports
speculated that his death may have
been caused by H1N1 (aka “swine”
flu), and that others have died under
similar circumstances. The coroner
informed the local newspaper that
an investigation into Mr. Kelley’s
death determined that H1N1 was in
fact the cause of death.30

PA DOC list of inmate deaths
actually lists 13 who had died at SCI
Dallas in 2009.31
Some medical problems stem from
the conditions of the RHU, where
constant
light
can
lead
to
psychological problems, headaches,
dizziness, and anger. As Andre
Williams
(GF-5169)
wrote
on
9/13/09, “These people are hurting
me with my psychological problems
and with my meds. I’m stuck in the
RHU. This light is triggering my
psychological problems.”
Problems with medications deserve
special mention, three cases in
particular. First, Eric Rambert (AM9223) wrote on 9/12/09 that his
insomnia had not abated:
“As
far
as
my
sleep
deprivation situation, no, Dr.
Jesse
who
administered
Benadryl to regulate my sleep
due to my not being able to
sleep because of the 24 hour
day of constant illumination
having lights on in the cell, I
received 3 misconducts for
covering them so I could get
some sleep because Dr. Jesse
only gave me a week’s worth
of sleep meds and to this day
never
examined
me
to
determine [if] any further
treatment [was] needed… no
I’m still not getting much
sleep if any, I’m still suffering
the headaches and vision
impairment and Dr. Jesse

Another prisoner reporting on
condition of anonymity claims that
five prisoners died in the last week,
after many more deaths in the
preceding weeks. He continues: “I
stopped counting at 14, I don’t even
know the count now!” The official
30

“Inmate died from swine flu,” Steve
Mocarsky, Wilkes Barre Times Leader, January
8, 2010.

31

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Inmate Deaths System data, obtained via PA
Right to Know request; on file.

37

refuses to even acknowledge a
request slip.”
Rambert is not alone in his problems
with medication. Andre Williams (GF5169), in the same letter from
9/13/09 quoted above, told HRC the
following story:
“On 2/12/08 [the urine test]
came
back
positive
for
amphetamines from a pill
called Zantac, which has
Ranitidine. They lock me up in
the RHU for 17 days then they
let me out. The PA who
prescribed this medication
was PA O’Brien but his boss is
Dr. Bohinski. He lied and told
the guards that I wasn’t on
any medication that would
give me a positive urine. And I
was. PA O’Brien showed me a
piece of paper that shows all
the medications that would
result in a positive urine and
Dr. Bohinski never gave it to
the
officers
of
shift
commander. So every month
until they got it straight I was
getting a misconduct report
about this matter. On 2/22/08
I saw parole and they asked
me what’s going on, and I
explained to them, because I
was still in the RHU. They
didn’t care about what I was
saying so they gave me a 21
month hit behind all this that
this man Dr. Bohinski put me
through… Even though I got
found not guilty of all charges
they didn’t care. So this Dr.
Bohinski ruined my life. Now
my daughter’s mom is taking

my parental rights. My life is
over. At the same time they
disrespecting me with my
psychological illness. I never
been through so much torture
in my life.”
Finally, Eliot Lopez (HL-6561) wrote
on 9/25/09 about how he had
received the wrong injection, and
because of this mistake, suffered
intense internal pain.
“On 9-9-09 between the hours
of 3:30-4:00pm, while the
institution (SCI Dallas) was
under a “Lock Down Situation”,
health care providers were
assigned the task of going to
each block to administer vital
medications to inmates. Ms.
Irene
Benzdziecki,
was
assigned to O-Blk. Since I am
a diabetic Ms. Benzdziecki was
to
provide/administer
my
insulin shot to help maintain
my diabetes. On the above
listed date and time, Ms.
Benzdziecki administered by
way of injection the wrong
medicine into my body. At the
time of this incident I was
unaware of any change to my
medical status that would
allow Ms. Benzdziecki to inject
me with anything other than
insulin. The full effects of this
act is unknown to me at this
time, the night of this incident
I was place in the hospital due
to severe shakes and intense
internal pain that I could not
describe. But my reaction to
this medication was so serious
that I was removed from my

38

housing area and placed in
the hospital while the entire
institution was in lockdown
mode. While in the hospital I
was
informed
that
Ms.
Benzdziecki had not given me
insulin and that I had been
injected
with
Pegylated
Interferon. . . . On 9-10-09 Dr.
Bohinski informed me that I
was in fact feeling the effects
of the Peg-Intron shot. Then
released
me
without
conducting any type of test.”
Retaliation
Retaliation is forbidden by DOC
policy32 , yet HRC/Fed Up! receives
frequent reports that guards take
action against prisoners who use
staff request forms or the grievance
system in good faith.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) of 1995, which was supposed
to
limit
unwarranted
prisoner
lawsuits by forcing inmates to
exhaust all internal remedies before
filing a lawsuit, has served instead
to restrict prisoners’ rights to access
the court. However, it is now clear
that the PLRA has only hurt the
grievance
system
by
creating
incentive for prison personnel to
obstruct the grievance system in
order to have inmate claims
dismissed on procedural grounds.
Less than 2% of grievances filed in
the PA DOC between January 1,

2008 and April 28, 2009 have been
decided in favor of the inmate33 ,
which is statistically improbable, and
the PLRA discourages rape and
sexual abuse victims from seeking
remedy from the courts, as cases
claiming sexual assault have been
thrown out under the provision in
the PLRA that requires prisoners to
demonstrate that s/he has suffered
a physical injury in order to have a
valid claim.34 (see section 3.5.1 for
further discussion of the PLRA)
Thomas Barndt (CT7510) told HRC
on 7/29/09 that the guards work
together to retaliate against a
prisoner. After Mr. Barndt had filed a
lawsuit against one guard’s friend,
the guard did not tell him that he
had a visitor. Mr. Barndt explains:
“my family had to wait an hour in
the visiting room before a different
guard finally told me that I had a
visit.” Fernando Camilo says the fear
of retaliation is enough to keep
prisoners from expressing their
grievances. On 7/2/09, he wrote,
“There are men here (prisoners) that
have been and are going through
similar circumstances whom like
myself fear retaliation and that’s
why most of us don’t complain.”
Similarly, Wilson Booker (AF-7672)
wrote on 9/12/09 that “There’s
many inmates here at SCI Dallas that
been a part of being violated, but
many of them fear to speak because
of retaliation or transfer, or
33

32

DOC Policy DC-ADM 804, Inmate Grievance
System, Section 6(A)(12) states that “[n]o
inmate shall be punished, retaliated against, or
otherwise harmed for good faith use of this
grievance system.”

Inmate Grievance Tracking System Summary
Totals, official PA DOC figures, obtained via a
Right to Know Request.
34
No Equal Justice: The Prison Litigation
Reform Act in the United States, Human Rights
Watch, May 2009.

39

misconducts.” Thomas Nicholson
told HRC on 7/5/09 that he was
accused of being uncooperative,
because he did not know who had
thrown an object at his neck during
a fight between several other
inmates.
He
was
placed
in
Administrative Custody in the RHU:
“I wasn’t involved in what was
going on and whatever hit me
on my neck caused it to bleed
which is why the officer locked
me up. I had nothing to do
with any of that. I wasn’t
assaulted so I cannot tell what
I don’t know. On 7/23/09 I
seen PRC and Deputy Mooney
started saying about I’m not
telling him everything that I
should ask inmate Sanchez
how
he
feels
about
uncooperative inmates that
he’ll keep me locked in the
RHU for a long time. I found
out that Sanchez is a inmate
who came from another prison
for a separation from inmates
who alleged to cut him with a
razor and because he won’t
give them up he’s been
illegally
and
unlawfully
detained in the hole for 18
months… Plus they are going
to transfer me all the way out
western Pennsylvania so that I
would not be able to see my
family. Because they ask me
how old were my Mom and
Dad. Not understanding the
question really, I told them
that they were getting old. So
Lieutenant Miller told me that
if I didn’t tell those more of
what they need to know I am

no[t] going to see my family
for a very long time. And he
said trust me I have did it
before, and I can do it again.”
Not only the guards within each
prison, but also guards in other
prisons in Pennsylvania’s DOC seem
to work together to retaliate against
individuals who report abuse. Thus,
transferring an inmate from one SCI
to another does not eliminate the
risk of retaliation for speaking out
against abuse. One individual who
spoke out about SCI Dallas was
transferred to SCI Fayette where the
guards retaliated against him.
Another inmate wrote to us on
7/1/09 about this case, but wrote
on condition of anonymity, for fear
of being on the receiving end of
retaliation himself:
“On several occasions prison
guards have come to Mr.
Singleton’s cell and asked
him, ‘you ain’t hang it up yet?
Just go and kill yourself. If you
need some help or a rope to
put around your neck, that
would end all your problem
nigger!’ I spoke with Mr.
Singleton who has explained
to me that he thinks about
killing himself because he can
not
sleep
due
to
inmates…who
bang
their
toilets and doors all night long
so loudly that noise is
stressing him out, and the fact
that he was housed on this
block in
the
past
and
witnessed another inmate kill
himself, and as a result it has
caused him mental torment

40

and trauma which is extremely
shocking to his mental state
and every time he falls the
sleep he is haunted by the act
of witnessing… Furthermore,
one officer told Mr. Singleton
that we know about the full
investigation
that
was
launched against the officials
at Dallas S.C.I. However we
will make sure that this time
you never get to testify ever
again against Correctional
Staff and we’re going to finish
off what [we] started… You
will not get that chance
against because we’re going
to do it the Green County
Prison, the way it should have
been done before!”
Israel Torres wrote on 4/14/09 with
a similar story of retaliation
following an inmate around the
DOC. Before being transferred to SCI
Dallas, Torres had filed grievances
against staff at SCI Somerset. Torres
explains: “I arrived to S.C.I. Dallas on
3-31-09. On 4-1-09 I was set up and
accused of threatening staff. I DID
NOT DO IT!... I really feel that I am
being retaliated on. Because of this
misconduct, my chances of going
home is zero!... Because of this I can
not complete any of my prescriptive
programs, trades or any other
rehabilitative programs.”
Duane Bartholomew Peters wrote on
6/8/09 about how medical neglect
can be used as a retaliation tactic. In
retaliation for filing a lawsuit against
Sgt. Buck and his wife, both of
whom work at SCI Dallas, Sgt. Buck
tampered with Peters’ mail and

refused to let him be treated for
sever chest pains.
“I am recovering from serious
back pains and chest and
heart pains and an attempt on
my life by one SGT. Buck in
retaliation for me filing a
lawsuit against him and his
wife who both work here at
SCI Dallas because he was
obtaining my mail from his
wife who used to work in the
mail room, then he would
come on the tier with my
personal and legal mail, read
it out loud to the tier as the
‘daily report from Peter’ and
then tear it up in front of my
cell door and leave the
confetti on the range as an
intimidation tactic. In his
latest attack he and his guards
deliberately
refused
me
medical attention when I
asked them to call medical
because my back and ribs
were pressing in on my lungs
making it hard for me to
breathe causing me severe
chest pains, to cover up the
fact that they told the nurse
who came to the RHU to leave
me unattended, their C.O.
Corbett issued a fabricated
misconduct that (although I
was paralyzed in the cell by
the pain) I was kicking the
door and he told me to stop!
An event which never took
place which never transpired
not even on their cameras,
and which . . . Mr. Eric
Rambert can verify, because
as my neighbor, he was the

41

one who called ‘man down’ for
me.”
Duane Peter wrote in an undated
letter from 2009 that guards have
stolen mail and money in retaliation
for trying to file a suit. In addition,
they have kept him from visiting the
law library, thus obstructing his
right to access the courts.
“On 5/22/07, the Security
searched my cell (only my box
of
papers)
and
took,
specifically, my evidence in
support of my claim of fraud
and structural alteration of the
court’s docket in my case, my
criminal complaints and my
defaults. . . . The RHU Sgt’s
make sure I do not get into
the law library by throwing
away my request slips or
refusing to let me use the law
library. Lately the guards in
the RHU have taken to giving
my mail to inmates on the
bottom tier instead of giving it
to me. I am being forced to
stay at an indigent status, and
my regular money orders sent
to me by my family is either
being
returned
or
not
recorded. Currently I have at
least 2 $500 money orders
which cannot be accounted
for, and my family have the
receipts and the Western
Union claims the jail received
the money.”
Carrington Keys (EF-4010) is another
inmate who is being punished for
attempting to pursue legal redress.
As he wrote on 7/13/09, “The

superintendent knows that I have an
appeal on Habeas Corpus against
him. However he allowed his officers
to steal my copies of the court
record as contraband… I’m being
punished for my legal filings.” Keys
also wrote on 10/14/09 about how
inmates are punished for contacting
HRC. In an affidavit, he states:
“That on the date of 10-14-09
upon returning from yard, I
was approached by Officer
Angelove who stated to me,
‘You shouldn’t be filing
complaints with Human Rights
Coalition. I advise you to
mind your business because it
is only making you a target
and that there are some
serious allegations being
made that is going to cause
you trouble if you don’t sign
off on your complaints.’ Upon
returning from shower I was
handcuffed by Officer Elmore
who pushed me up against the
wall and began punching me
about the arms, sides and
ribs. Officer Elmore stated:
‘You better sign off on that
prison investigation with
Human Rights Coalition or
next time I’m going to punch
your teeth down your throat.’”
Isaac Sanchez on 3/19/09 confirmed
that when inmates reach out to the
HRC, they risk retaliation from the
staff. Sanchez writes, “Exactly a day
after I have received your offices
letter I received a write up for no
apparent reason.” And on 8/7/09 he
wrote, “the law library is not sending
anything back to me. In fact they

42

stated that they are not even
receiving any of my paperwork…
what I’m hearing is that this facility
is trying to put a stop to your
incoming and outgoing mail because
they feel that you are a threat that
can lead this jail to a total
destruction.”
Isaac Sanchez (GY-8440) wrote again
on 10/22/09 with a similar story:
“The
other
day
I
was
threatened that if I didn’t stop
writing HRC that they were
going to set me up with
frivolous misconducts and
start throwing my mail away.
Which they did... I mean for
example they stopped feeding
me and even when they do
feed me they poke holes in my
sandwiches and they spit and
piss on it. Also, they have
assaulted me numerous times
as well which is all on
camera… I have been placed
on all type of restrictions for
falsified accusations and my
mail isn’t coming to me
because they are throwing it
away… My water/toilet is
never on, and I’m not even
allowed to take a shower or
even have my hours of rec.”
Sanchez had suffered an attack at
SCI Coal Township, where he was
held before being transferred to
Dallas. The attack came from behind
and he did not see his assailant. Yet
until he fabricates names, as he
wrote in his letter on 1/25/09, he
will be held in RHU in retaliation for
not cooperating, according to staff:

“On 9/30/07 while at SCI-Coal
Township I was attacked from
behind
by
unknown
assailant(s) in which I was cut
on my face and back… since
being here [in Dallas] I’ve
been held in Administrative
Custody [because] Deputy
Mooney, Capt. Zakaraukis and
the
Program
Review
Committee staff and Michael
D. Klopotosky [refuse] to
release me based on my not
being able to identify my
assailant(s) from the SCI-Coal
Township
incident.
NOTE:
Deputy Mooney was also the
Deputy at SCI-Coal Township
when the attack happened. He
has stated on numerous
occasions that until I identify
those assailant(s) that I will
remain in his RHU even if they
have to max me out 2014. He
said until then I will never be
allowed to hold my 2 small
children. I’ve been in this RHU
11 months in RETALIATION for
my not being able to identify
who attacked me… I’m being
denied
my
required
prescriptive programs so that I
can make parole and have
been told until I identify
someone I will remain in the
RHU… I don’t know who
attacked me from behind.”
And later, on 9/14/09, Sanchez
wrote to tell HRC about an assault
that took place in August, not long
after Matthew Bullock’s death. The
assault was retaliation for filing
grievances. As he wrote:

43

“I have been assaulted by a CO
named Elmore on the date of
8/27/09 around shower time.
I was dragged all the way up
the tear and smacked while
inside the shower by officer
Elmore. This is all on camera
and I have witnesses that
would like to make themselves
known… This officer has
threatened me in various
ways, such as telling me that
he could abuse me and fuck
me up every time an opening
had occurred. He called me
names from spic, a disgrace to
his country, etc. This problem
started because I wouldn’t
sign off on any of the
grievances that I have wrote
up against his boss Deputy
Vincent Mooney…this same
officer is being allowed to
continue
his
verbal
and
physical abuse…smacking me
and threatening me… We as
inmates should not have to
live with fear and torture. I
mean one painful death
already occurred around me
behind
these
acts
of
domination. How much more
shall happen before it is too
late?”
Retaliation comes in many forms.
John Taylor-Bey wrote on 3/11/09
that “a select few who do not play
nor joke-around, who stand up for
their Basic Human Rights we are
retaliated against with falsified
misconducts, deprived of access to
law libraries, property, our legal
papers, and our mail both legal and

personal incoming and outgoing is
suppressed.” The retaliation can also
come in the form of a death threat,
as happed to Eric Rambert (AM9223), who wrote to HRC on
8/13/09 about the retaliation he
received after filing a criminal
complaint. Rambert says that C/O
McCoy
told
him,
“Okay
motherfucker, game on. I can kill
you and won’t nobody care because
you ain’t nothing but a number
that’ll be replaced.” Rambert goes
on to state “this is the second time
C/O McCoy threatened to kill me in
violation of PA.C.S.A. 470235 in
retaliation under 18 PA C.S.A.
495336 for my filing a criminal
complaint.”.
Sometimes
prison
staff
warn
prisoners against filing grievances
as an intimidation tactic. Shawn
Sharp (BQ-8429) wrote in an
undated letter: “I myself attempted
to file grievances against a Sergeant
and when interviewed for the
complaint I was told to withdraw the
complaint or I’d be retaliated against
by the Sergeant. I refused… I
personally saw and heard the
Sergeant I originally grieved telling
officers to ‘bang’ me.”

35

The citation is in reference to a Pennsylvania
criminal statute, 4702 “Threats and other
improper influence in official and political
matters.” See
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-andoffenses/00.047.002.000.html.
36
18 PA 4953, “Retaliation against witness,
victim or party.” See
http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-andoffenses/00.049.053.000.html

44

Deprivation of food and water is
another routine tactic of retaliation
in the RHU at SCI Dallas, and HRC
gets frequent complaints about both
kinds of abuse as well as food
tampering, when staff place foreign
objects or bodily fluids on food
trays.
Gregory McCrae (DP-2860), who
wrote to us on 9/12/09, reported
that he had been deprived food for
an unknown number of days. Staff
involved in this food deprivation
include “C/Os Morelli, Corbett,
Pudloski, McCoy, Angelovic, Bath,
Sgt. Buck, Lt. Mosher.” Another longterm food deprivation case is that of
Duane Peter, who wrote on 5/15/09
and said, “the authorized RHU
guards [kept] me in my cell for
months on end [with] no shower or
exercise yard, and no food trays
during the first shift. This went on
for all of the first 2 years (05-07).”
Charles Oliver was offered food on
the condition that he would perform
a sexually explicit act; when he
refused, he was denied food. As he
wrote on 4/12/09, “On 3-26-09…
C.O. Wilke was passing out the A.M.
and on 3-27-09 P.M. meals and said
if the complainant wanted to be fed
he would have to perform a sexually
explicit act, ie; expose himself, get
nude
and
repeat
demanding/demeaning comments,
when I refused… Wilke closed my
door slot, denied the complainant
his meal.”
Racism: A Systemic Crisis
So many of the letters HRC receives
report guards frequent use of racist

language that it is hard to separate
racism from the other abuses that
go on in SCI Dallas.
Dallas,
Pennsylvania has a population of
8,179 people, 98.4% of whom are of
white/Euroamerican
ethnicity
according to figures from the 2000
census.37 Luzerne, County, where
Dallas is located, has a population
that is 96.6% white.38
The
demography
of
the
prisoner
population at SCI Dallas is as
follows: 33.7% white; 55% black;
10.9% Hispanic; 0.4% other.39
The prevailing culture of arbitrary
control and repression within the PA
DOC coupled with the demographic
realities of the prisoner population
are fertile soil for racism. While only
a few examples follow, race is a
dominant factor determining who is
singled out for placement in solitary
37

U.S. Census Bureau website,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_
event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=06000US42
07918056&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000U
S42%7C05000US42079&_street=&_county=Da
llas&_cityTown=Dallas&_state=04000US42&_
zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoS
elect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_subme
nuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF
&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anu
ll&_keyword=&_industry=.
38
U.S. Census Bureau website,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_
event=&geo_id=05000US42079&_geoContext=
01000US%7C04000US42%7C05000US42079&
_street=&_county=Luzerne&_cityTown=Luzern
e&_state=04000US42&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=
on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgs
l=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=AC
S_2008_3YR_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=n
ull&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=.
39
PA DOC Monthly Institutional Profile as of
November 30, 2009, linked from
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/.

45

confinement or subjected to the
most
intense
human
rights
violations, and should therefore be
understood as an underlying factor
in both the policies of mass
incarceration
that
generate
overcrowding and the subsequent
violations detailed in this report.
Gregory McCrae (DP-2860) reports
on 9/12/09 that CO Salsmon
referred to him as “darkie,” “nigga,”
“coon,” and “black faggot.” Salsmon
also told McCrae in one incident to
“get the fuck out of here, you’re
going to be late for nigga service.”
Wilson Booker wrote on 3/16/09
that as a prisoner in the RHU, he is a
constant witness to racism. “This is
a very racist jail, despite [the DOC]
adding diversity to the chain of
command. Some things just don’t
change… I ask that [the DOC]
transfer me from this very racist jail,
where a man’s skin is his sin.”
Thomas
Barndt’s
letter
from
4/16/08 shows one instance of how
religious repression and racism can
go hand-in-hand. He writes, “I
believe my being transferred had
something to do with me giving
National Geographic magazines and
candy to an old handicapped black
Muslim…
I
also
gave
chess
magazines to another Muslim.”
Anthony Kelly (GX-0834) on 11/4/09
reported to HRC that “Even to this
day they continue to verbally abuse
me.
Calling me nigger, coon,
monkey, say they’re gonna kill me
because of my religion which is the
Nation of Islam.
They go into
homosexual verbal abuse telling me
I have a fat ass and that they would

stick their dicks in my ass telling the
tier I suck dick and all types of other
things.” The abuse leveled at Kelly is
not unusual in its combination of
homophobic and racist rhetoric.
Physical Assault and Violence
Physical abuse, both threatened and
actual, is a common theme in the
letters HRC receives. The stories
include
incidents
of
staff-onprisoner, prisoner-on-prisoner, and
prisoner-on-staff
violence
and
threats of violence.
Juston Boyle (HC-1235) wrote on
9/13/09 about an incident that took
place two days earlier in the security
office, where there are no cameras.
“On 9-11-09 I was taken up to
the security office to talk to
the Superintendent Klopotoski
while I was waiting for Mr.
Klopotoski
the
Security
Captain Joseph Zakaraukas
placed a metal bar across my
neck saying that if I don’t
drop my civil suit he will snap
my skinny fucking neck and
toss me down the steps saying
I fell cause there is no
cameras
in
the
security
offices. And that if I try to
report this he will have me
killed. I am in fear for my life
and I want to be seen by the
police asap… On Monday July
13, 2009 R.J. Bath and J.
Matello came to my cell door
and hit my door saying I am a
deadman and R.J. Bath made a
gun with his hand and said
bang-bang and stayed for 5

46

minutes making more threats
and sexually harassing me.”
No one denies that inmates fight
among themselves. Mental health
problems, often exacerbated by
solitary
confinement
and
the
generally inhuman conditions in
prison, can lead prisoners to anger
management problems. But this
does
not
excuse
staff
from
provoking such fights. Shawn Sharp
(BQ-8429) notes this problem: “I’ve
seen inmates put into a cell with a
mentally ill inmate who was
supposed to be single cell just so
that the other officers could watch
the 2 inmates fight and take bets.
This happened on 2 occasions while
I was confined in the RHU.”
One inmate speaking on condition
of
anonymity
experienced
for
himself the “spectacle sport” of
condoning and watching inmates
fight. Staff told other inmates that
he was a child molester, with full
understanding that this would
endanger him. Then, after he was
attacked, he was warned against
pursuing a complaint.
“When I entered and place my
boxes on the desk 3 inmates,
one being a lifer, entered 30
cell and started to assault me
hitting me numerous times in
the head and about my body
with master locks [for] which I
received stitches in my head…
my case has nothing to do
with
being
a
child
molester/pedophile…
they
said I raped a 14 year old girl,
then they said I raped a 16

year old boy. Which isn’t true.
The only way the inmates
could have even got that
impression was from one of
the officers. I was also
informed that after the assault
officer Macausky stated to
another inmate in a loud voice
that the assault was a
necessary evil… I am always
looking around and behind
me. I have a hard time
sleeping at night sometimes
and I have dreams of the
assault… Since the assault I’ve
been having headaches and
sometimes blurred vision…I
am worried about retaliation
from the officers and other
inmates from pursuing this
which I have seen many times
since I’ve been here from the
officers. I have already been
confronted about pressing
charges already. Someone
stated that what happened to
me ‘it is what it is’ and I
shouldn’t press charges.”
One of the worst cases of staff
provoking or condoning inmate
fights reported to us involved two
individuals whose names have been
changed to protect their identity.
Murphy assaulted Thompson, a
mentally ill inmate, so badly that
Thompson’s arm was dislocated and
he could barely talk. HRC asked
Murphy to explain the incident in his
own words, which he did in a letter
dated 9/11/09/
“I did not want to be in the
cell with the dude, he stinks,
his breath stinks, and he does

47

things to little kids. Note: I got
kids and I did not want to be
there. To get me out before I
do something that I will regret
later did no good. They kept
coming by our cell banging on
the door yelling at [him]
telling me that I should kick
his ass and not feed him. The
whole time they were taking
me to yard telling me that if I
don’t do this stuff to my celly I
would be buried in the RHU
not eating, telling they would
do things to me so bad that I
would want to hang myself
and all that. I was scared that
if I didn’t do these things that
they would be doing them to
me. So after a while he started
getting on my nerves and I
really wanted out of that cell
so I started beating him up,
stopped him from eating. I
pulled him out of his bed and
he did not eat for seven days.
I was doing this because they
were telling me it could
happen to me so figuring
them telling me that if I did do
these crazy things that my
hole time would disappear
and I would be alright…
Things here in Dallas are so
bad, not too long ago a dude
killed his self here in the
RHU… I have thought about
killing myself a whole lot.”
HRC also heard about the incident
from Eric Rambert, who wrote on
6/25/09 to say that C/Os who were
aware of each inmates’ mental
health status placed two inmates
together in the RHU. They called the

first inmate (Thompson) a baby
rapist and child molester, refused to
separate the two inmates, and told
the second inmate (Murphy) to kill
and rape the first one (Thompson).
Then they “threatened Thompson if
he let Murphy eat anything that they
will give him more RHU time.” The
guards failed to tour that cell range
one day and “caused inmate Murphy
on April 19, 2009 to torture
Thompson
by
dislocating
his
shoulder, pulling his toe nails out
and pouring salt over it, abrasions
and hematomas, right thigh and
tortured his penis by slamming it
between a book and the cell desk,
threatened
to
rape
and
kill
Thompson and his mother and sister
while they watched.”
The prison
“gave Thompson a higher dosage of
medication to make him incoherent
put him back in population and
brought him right back to the RHU
for failure to stand for count. The
kid can’t even tell you his name let
alone stand for count… the staff
using him [Murphy] as their hired
weapon to cause the harm that was
caused to Thompson.”
Yet another inmate who wrote to us
about Thompson spoke on condition
of anonymity. He wrote on 6/22/09,
“I personally was next door to
[Thompson], my previous stay
in RHU Oct/Nov 2008; guards
placed him in with an inmate
they encouraged to take his
trays and abuse him.
The
inmate . . . did not act as they
suggested. He left the cell
and the following inmate was
also instructed to abuse

48

Thompson. Now I found out
this year the same practice
being repeated resulted in
Thompson being raped and
tortured in cell terribly. The
torture is so unbelievable I
have a difficult time repeating
it.
Mr. Thompson was/is
single cell status and never
should’ve been in cell with
anyone, especially the known
psychotic person they stuck
him with. Thompson is a very
little man, heavily medicated
to the point of lacking basic
comprehension.”

hurting they took pictures of
his injuries he was black and
blue even in his private parts.
They took him to Wilkes
general hospital. Thompson
spoke to the state police and
put a complaint on the other
prisoner.”
At the time of writing Thompson’s
future remains unclear, he is still
being
given heavy medication
instead of mental health treatment,
and the man who assaulted him is
still at SCI Dallas.
Sexual Violence

Finally, Thompson’s mother emailed
HRC in July with concerns about her
son’s safety because “he hears
voices and sees things . . . and it
makes him really lethargic.
The
correction officers threaten [him] all
the time and drop his food tray and
call him a child molester to the other
inmates to get him attacked.”
According to her, Thompson has
been put on haladol, thorazine,
depakene,
and
other
antidepressants. She then wrote,
“Thompson was placed in
another cell in the RHU with
another prisoner. [He] knew
this prisoner and asked him
you are not going to beat me
up are you?
The other
prisoner said no.
Well the
other prisoner who is known
as a psycho beat [him] up,
raped him repeatedly and
dislocated his shoulder for a
couple
hours
I
guess
Thompson called the guard
over that night said he was

Like Anderson’s case above, sexual
violence is often combined with
physical violence and many cases
fall under both categories. The
National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission recently reported that
2.9% of inmates reported sexual
abuse by staff, and 2% reported rape
by fellow inmates.
An anonymous letter received on
4/12/09 reported the following:
On 3/20/09 CO Wilkes did
grabbed the Complainant by
his penis and held on to it in a
massaging manner asking
what’s this as if he was
searching
for
something
which took or lasted five
seconds too long for a search.
I pulled away and he then
slammed me into the wall and
was laughing. On 3/26/09 the
suspect CO Wilke was passing
out the A.M. and on 3/27/09
P.M. meals and said if the

49

Complainant wanted to be fed
he would have to perform a
sexually
explicit
act
i.e.
expose himself, get nude and
repeat demanding/demeaning
comments. When I refused the
suspect Wilke closed my door
slot
and
denied
the
Complainant his meal. He also
slammed the Complainant’s
hand in the door slot which is
still swollen and told the
Physician’s Assistant I refuse
to see her on sick call for my
swollen hand he injured… On
4-10-09 suspect Wilkes came
to work and was passing out
the breakfast meal, stating
that I the suspect is a fucking
“snitching bitch” and “just wait
motherfucker you put your
foot in your own ass buddy.”
Later during showers the
suspect denied his shower and
yard exercise, this was in
retaliation
for
the
Complainant filing a grievance
against
C.O.
Wilke
the
suspect… The Complainant
later tried speaking to Lt.
Bliche who was making his
rounds, when the suspect
begin to yell ‘I Don’t want to
fucking hear it, you getting
out of control homes, you
better wise up and do it real
fast if you know what’s good
for you.’”
Charles Stark (BX-4196), in an
undated letter, wrote about the
aftermath of such sexual abuse,
particularly the lack of resources
available for the victim of the
assault.

“Sir, during the earlier part of
my
incarceration,
I
encountered
an
incident
where I was sexually attacked.
Later, while residing at SCIPittsburgh there was another
sexual attack in which, in this
case a CO, intervened and I
was written-up for fighting. . .
. The written report was
believed in favor of the
reporting officer, that there
was only a fight. Although, a
psychiatrist and psychologist
determined through their own
investigations for the DOC’s
evaluation that it was more
than best that I receive a Zcode status, i.e., single cell
status, which was due to said
attacks, my history of nervous
break downs, stress, anxiety,
and mental anguish. They
recommended
me
for
placement on psychotropic
medications. My condition and
my taking of the psych-meds,
have not changed since 1993.
I have never received nor have
been informed before arriving
at SCI-Dallas that my program
code had been changed… Yet,
now I am being told…that I
have never been nor had a Zcode status and therefore that
I do not have a need to be Zcode while housed here at SCIDallas… I never received any
type of counseling after the
attacks . . . There is no type of
psychological programs or
counseling for victims of
sexual attacks, or assaults in
the PA.DOC . . . The only

50

resolve of my mental anguish
and physical suffering from
the attacks was to be placed
on Z-code status and psychmeds… The officers and staff
of
the
PA
DOC
has
systematically repressed my
grievances
and
fabricated
misconduct reports against
me for seeking help.”
These two cases showcase the
variety of issues associated with
sexual assault in prison, both
inmate-on-inmate
and
staff-oninmate, as well as the residual
psychological after-effects.
A final problem is abusive language,
particularly
the
rhetoric
of
homophobia that is directed against
homosexual inmates or those
perceived to be feminine or weak.
Like racist speech, such language
occurs in many other places in this
report. Two more examples come
from Gregory McCrae (DP-2860),
called a “black faggot” by CO
Salsmon (letter dated 9/12/09) and
Anthony Singleton (CW-8923), who
says, “Upon arrival here nearly a year
and a half ago, I was told by staff
that they did not like my kind here.
(This referring to my sexual
orientation and my race.)
I was
repeatedly harassed by staff, called
faggot and threatened” (letter dated
3/04/09).
Denial of Due Process: Grievances,
Misconducts, Legal Property, and
Access to the Courts
HRC receives countless letters from
inmates who are denied access to

the law library, or who have been
involved in cases where evidence
disappears or is not allowed to come
to light.
Shawn Sharp (BQ-8429) told a typical
story in his undated letter:
“I myself have attempted to
file grievances that are issued
numbers and never issued an
initial response to appeal
from. Documents are falsified
and back dated in the
grievance process. You go to
a misconduct hearing and the
same guard that wrote you up
is escorting you to the
hearing, sitting at the table
with the hearing examiner,
and practically running the
hearing with all of the other
RHU officers even though the
hearing examiner has an
officer assigned to him and
you are locked in a cage with
handcuffs on over 10 ft. away
from the hearing examiner.
Not to mention that this
person was never called as a
witness. All of these things
were
brought
to
Supt.
Klopotoski
and
PRC’s
attention. Mr. Klopotoski told
me personally, ‘So what, I’m
not going against my officers
and you can’t prove it!’ So we
are faced with no real means
of redress.”
Thomas Barndt’s letter (7/29/09)
echoes Sharp’s concerns about the
grievance system. He suggests that
the grievance system does not
proceed quickly enough for inmates

51

to report their grievances effectively.
“I filed [a grievance] and it was
signed by Grievance Coordinator,
Ms. Robin Lucas on June 12, 2009. I
still have not received an initial
response for that.” His story is not
unique. Duane Bartholomew Peters
wrote on 6/8/2009 about how he
was denied the opportunity to
appeal a grievance denial because
officers refused to take him to the
hearing:
“I am enclosing a copy of my
latest grievance concerning
the incident I described above
which is pending. I don’t
expect anything other than a
boilerplate
denial,
and
concerning the write-up – I
was denied a hearing and one
of the Officers, Wilk, who is a
witness
on
the
write-up
executed a Hearing refusal
form stating that I refused to
attend the hearing, which the
RHU
officers
purposefully
refused to take me to –
whereby according to DOC
policy an inmate cannot file an
appeal [for a] hearing he
refused to attend.”
Later in the letter, Peters says that
staff’s response to complaints is,
“when they come along and hear
complaints they tell the person
complaining ‘Well you still alive
right! Then keep it moving.’”
The sexual abuse case of Charles
Stark, discussed above, is also
reportedly a case of fabricated
misconducts and denied grievances;
as he wrote in his undated letter,

“the officers and staff of the PA DOC
have systematically repressed my
grievances
and
fabricated
misconduct reports against me for
seeking help.” Eric Rambert wrote to
HRC about Abdus-Shahid Ali on
7/16/09 with concerns about Ali,
who was placed in administrative
custody (AC) on prehearing status
based on a falsified misconduct
report that was dismissed for failure
to comply with established policy. A
new misconduct was not issued for
three days, and Mr. Ali was kept in
AC during that period despite staff
having no reason for keeping him
there. “Mr. Ali was in the process of
making parole, now he’s in the RHU
for 90 days with a possible criminal
charge over his head.”
Anthony Singleton (CW-8923) noted
on 3/4/09 that inmates are left with
few options when abused.
In a
letter to Governor Rendell, he wrote,
“As such, we are left with no means
of recourse that is anywhere near
meaningful. I can only hope that in
my documenting this behavior, you
will take some action to [put] justice
back in the system rather than
allowing injustice
during your
governorship.”
The
systematic
bias
against
prisoners extends to such things as
mandated
programs,
work
opportunities, and education, all
things that have been proven to
reduce recidivism and create a safer
prison environment for everyone.
Alex
Melendez
(EX-5417),
on
9/10/09, wrote of the due process
denied to
many “warehoused”
inmates:

52

“They are warehousing us,
there’s not enough job for
those who want to work, the
school system is also over
crowded often. Big waiting list
for people to do their parole
prescribed programs. I think
the average tax payer will be
mad to know that their money
is going [to] warehousing
instead of rehabilitating and
facilitating inmates with the
tools to be productive in
society
once
they
are
released.”
Seeking Accountability: SCI Dallas,
Prior
Notice
and
Official
Indifference
In early July 2009 a letter was sent
to every member of the PA General
Assembly’s House and Senate
Judiciary Committees, the General
Assembly Black Caucus, Governor
Rendell, and PA DOC Secretary
Beard.
This
communication
demonstrated inconsistencies in PA
DOC testimony during a recent
meeting in front of the PA House
Judiciary Committee, and included
documentation of reported human
rights violations from SCI Dallas.
The letter reiterated demands made
by HRC in March:
We are again formally requesting
a series of public hearings in
front
of
the
Pennsylvania
Legislature to investigate the
policies and practices of the PA
DOC. This review will include
unresolved inmate grievances,
testimony
by
incarcerated
individuals and their families,

and an inquiry into the use,
implementation and effects of
solitary
confinement.
These
hearings will be the initial step in
a process aimed at the creation,
passing
and
adherence
to
comprehensive legislation based
on international human rights
agreements.40

Despite submitting documentation
of a pattern of human rights
violations at SCI Dallas, no action
was taken. In fact, each recipient
completely
ignored
the
documentation and the modest
request for hearings.
Throughout the summer and into
the fall HRC/Fed Up! and supporters
sent several letters and made
repeated phone calls to SCI Dallas
and PA DOC officials regarding
particular complaints we received,
often emphasizing that individual
reports of human rights violations
were part of a systemic pattern. No
letters were ever responded to by
Superintendent Michael Klopotoski,
Secretary Beard, or Office of
Professional Responsibility (OPR)
Director Barnacle. Prisoner reports
of severe human rights violations,
amounting to torture in many
instances, continued to reach us
almost everyday.
On September 15, 2009 a letter
requesting accountability via the
mechanism of transparent and
legitimate investigations was sent to
Governor Rendell, Attorney General
Corbett, Secretary Beard, Director
40

Human Rights Coalition-Accountability
Council, letter of July 3, 2009, on file.

53

Barnacle, Superintendent Klopotoski,
and several members of the General
Assembly. The package contained
summary documentation of more
than 100 reports of human rights
violations and the letter noted the
dominant patterns therein:
•

•

•

•

•

•
•

frequent usage of racist slurs,
threats of violence, verbal and
physical abuse by guards;
retaliation against prisoners
exercising their constitutional
rights to file grievances, criminal
complaints, and civil suits
regarding conditions of
confinement and guard
misconduct/crimes. This
practice commonly takes the
form of the issuance of
fabricated misconducts and
subsequent placement in solitary
confinement, as well as the
seizure and destruction of legal
property;
failure to provide adequate, or at
times any, physical or mental
health care;
brown drinking and bathing
water, filthy cells, exposure to
infectious diseases, and
generally substandard
environmental conditions;
encouragement of prisoner-onprisoner violence, including
incitement to murder and sexual
violence;
incitement to and
encouragement of suicide;
a defective inmate grievance
system that is systematically
biased against prisoner claims of
staff misconduct and
substandard conditions,
commonly refusing to permit
prisoners to present witnesses or
security camera evidence in
support of their claims, and thus
violating their right to due

process. This practice conforms
to inmate grievance procedures
throughout the PA DOC (see
enclosed official inmate
grievance statistics, wherein less
than 2% of prisoner grievances
were upheld between January
2008 and May 31);

The letter emphasized that “[a]
crime is still a crime, whether or not
it is perpetrated by employees or
officials of the government.” It went
on to outline what the basic
requirements for conducting a
transparent
and
legitimate
investigation consist of:
•

•

•

•

•

Conducting a comprehensive
investigation into each and every
incident described herein;
Interviewing all parties named
herein—both prisoners and DOC
personnel—along with additional
witnesses discovered in the
course of investigation. These
interviews should be extensive,
provide the basis for reviewing
the documentary and security
camera record, and seek as much
detail about general patterns and
practices as possible;
Obtaining signed witness
statements and audio recordings
from those willing to cooperate
with either mode of evidencegathering;
Reviewing all security camera
footage relevant to the claims
herein and permitting prisoners
to view this evidence;
Releasing the contents of the
investigation, including
dispositions for each incident
herein and others uncovered
during the process, witness
statements, audio transcripts,
and security camera footage into
the public domain;

54

•

Providing for the safety of
prisoner victims and witnesses to
be free of retaliation by securing
necessary transfers, suspension
of staff alleged to be serial
abusers pending investigation
results, and rotating guards as
appropriate;

HRC/Fed Up! informed recipients
that this communication was being
sent to create evidence that state
officials at the highest levels were
given prior notice of conditions of
confinement at SCI Dallas and that
failure to act would be recognized as
deliberate indifference. If this came
to pass we informed recipients that
a formal criminal complaint would
be submitted to the Civil Rights
Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice.41
On November 2, 2009 HRC/Fed Up!
received a copy of a letter sent by
Robert A. Mulle, Chief Deputy
Attorney General of the Legal Review
Section, to Suzanne N. Hueston,
Chief Counsel for the PA DOC. The
three-sentence letter reads, in part:
“Based on my review of the
correspondence, it appears that your
office would be best able to
respond.” Given that the
correspondence in question,
partially excerpted above, explicitly
stated that the PA DOC has
maintained a “posture of official
denial, evasion, and secrecy at every
level of the . . . chain of command,”
and that prisoners have no effective,
legitimate recourse to remedy
grievances within the institutional
41

HRC/Fed Up! letter to PA DOC and state
officials, September 15, 2009, on file.

operation of the prison, it is difficult
to fathom how Robert Mulle can
claim he reviewed the
correspondence.42
The silence of the Governor, the
General Assembly, and the routine
evasion of responsibility by the
Attorney General’s office43 only
reinforce a reality that should be
painfully obvious when reading the
contents of this report: the PA DOC
is a law unto itself.
As a result of the failure to act in
accordance with the rule of law and
protect constitutional and human
rights on the part of PA state
officials, HRC/Fed Up! submitted a
42

“Referral of Citizen Mail Received From the
Human Rights Coalition,” From: Robert A.
Mulle, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Legal
Review Section, To: Suzanne N. Hueston, Chief
Counsel, Department of Corrections, October
29, 2009, on file.
43
A number of other formal criminal complaints
and informal requests have been either ignored
or returned, in the latter case claiming that the
County District Attorney’s office has proper
jurisdiction. That the state of Pennsylvania’s
Attorney General Office has the power and
responsibility to enforce the rule of law
anywhere within the state of Pennsylvania,
especially in state institutions such as prisons, is
not only obvious on its face but is explicitly
articulated in the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.
The relevant passage reads: Ҥ 732-205.
Criminal prosecutions
(a ) Prosecutions.--The Attorney General shall
have the power to prosecute in any county
criminal court the following cases: (1)
Criminal charges against State officials or
employees affecting the performance of their
public duties or the maintenance of the public
trust and criminal charges against persons
attempting to influence such State officials or
employees or benefit from such influence or
attempt to influence.”

55

formal criminal complaint against
Secretary Beard, Superintendent
Klopotoski, and a number of other
PA DOC personnel employed at SCI
Dallas to the U.S. District Attorney
for the Middle District of PA.
Appended to the two-page
complaint were more than 100
pages of summary documentation,
affidavits, criminal complaints,
institutional paperwork, and other
relevant documentation.

courts via the seizure and
destruction of legal and other
property; deprivation of
mandated one hour of recreation
outside of cell via staff refusal to
comply and the intimidation of
inmates so that they refuse to
leave their cells out of fear of
assault. Correspondences with
families repeat the exact same
chain of events and current
conditions. Actions taken to
further Conspiracy Against
Rights of Citizens and
Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law are in violation of
18 U.S.C., Sections 241 and 242
respectively.

The complaint read, in part:
The offenses committed by the
accused were Conspiracy Against
Rights of Citizens and
Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law, enabled by Patterns
and Practices prevalent within
SCI-Dallas. The offenses
committed include assisted
suicide; the confinement of men
in the Restricted Housing Unit in
retaliation for their pursuit of
remedial action against the DOC
via the constitutionally protected
activities of filing grievances
against staff and attempting to
engage in civil litigation, and
subjecting these men to
conditions of repeated physical
assault; psychological terror of a
racist nature constituting hate
crimes; mail tampering and
destruction of legal documents;
deprivation of adequate water;
inadequate and/or non-existent
medical treatment, especially
psychological and psychiatric
care for inmates with severe
mental health needs; issuance of
fabricated misconduct charges
and denial of due process within
institutional grievance and
misconduct procedures;
obstruction/denial of access to

The complaint requested that
criminal charges be brought,
meaning that Secretary Beard and the
rest should be arrested.44
HRC/Fed Up! received notice from a
deputy U.S. District Attorney for the
Middle District of PA that the
complaint had been received. The
organization was thanked for
bringing the matter to his attention
and notified that the complaint had
been forwarded to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.45 We are unaware as
to whether or not an investigation
has been or will be initiated.
Reports of medical neglect, food
tampering, assault, deprivation of
food, and the rest continue to arrive
in the mail and over the phone each
week.
44

U.S. versus Beard, Klopotoski, Walsh, et. Al,
criminal complaint filed November 2009, on
file.
45
Correspondence from James T. Clancy,
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, November 24, 2009, on file.

56

Human Rights Violations throughout the PA DOC
During the last two years HRC/Fed
Up! has reviewed thousands upon
thousands of pages of prisoner
letters/reports, civil actions,
institutional paperwork, affidavits,
criminal complaints, and additional
documentation detailing patterns of
widespread, systemic, deliberate
human rights violations throughout
the PA DOC. The thrust of this
documentation has been
corroborated via countless hours of
conversation and interviews with
current and former prisoners and
their families conducted by HRC
members, allies, supporters, and
others working directly and
indirectly with HRC, in both their
personal and professional capacity.
In this context, the reports from SCI
Dallas summarized in section II
represent a minor, albeit illustrative,
fraction of the human rights
violations perpetrated by the PA
DOC on a daily basis.
The patterns of violations gravitate
around the solitary confinement
units, which are the core of control
throughout the state just as in SCI
Dallas. According to PA DOC official
statistics for the month of October
2009, there were 2,846 prisoners in
some form of solitary confinement.46
46

These numbers do not identify prisoners in the
Special Management Unit (SMU) or Death Row
prisoners, and appear to be incomplete in
identifying those confined in a series of Secure
Special Needs Units (SSNU) around the state
such as those at SCI Pittsburgh, SCI Retreat, and
others. Whether these prisoners are included in

Unlike many other states, where
high-security prisoners are confined
in one or two supermaximumsecurity prisons, the PA DOC has a
decentralized system of highsecurity solitary confinement/control
units (known as Restricted Housing
Units, or RHUs) in each of the 26
prisons it operates.47 Fifteen of
these control units confine over 100
prisoners, with SCIs Graterford
(250), Greene (241), Camp Hill
(218), Fayette (197), Huntingdon
(141), Forest (134), and Dallas (119)
possessing the largest. The two
women’s prisons, SCIs Cambridge
Springs (13) and Muncy (117)
accounted for 130 of the solitary
confinement population at the end
of October.48
While many of those in the RHU
serve a 30-60 day sentence in
solitary for an alleged disciplinary
infraction, a number of others have
been subjected to long-term
isolation with no means for
improving their confinement status.
Several of these prisoners have been
confined for 5 years and longer,
even more than 25 years in a few
instances. As at SCI Dallas, those
most heavily targeted for indefinite
lockdown are jailhouse lawyers,
the total for RHU classifications or elsewhere, or
not included, is not clear.
47
The PA DOC actually operates 27 facilities
when the Quehanna Boot Camp is included.
The boot camp does not have a RHU.
48
Figures taken from the PA DOC Monthly
Population Report for October 2009,
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/portal/lib/portal/mont
hly_population.pdf.

57

political activists, the mentally ill,
and blacks and Latinos.
The effect of the regime of solitary
confinement on the rest of the
prisoner population is predictable
and undoubtedly intentional: to
terrorize prisoners into total
submission to the arbitrary power of
prison staff and officials regardless

of whether that power is being
exercised in accordance with policy
and law.
The subsequent capsule
descriptions of major human rights
violations in the PA DOC situates the
conditions at SCI Dallas in a broader
context and hence renders them
more comprehensible.

Summary Report on Human Rights Violations in the PA DOC
Assault/physical abuse
PA DOC policy stipulates that “When
force is used, the least amount of
force, reasonably necessary to
achieve the authorized purpose is to
be used and the use of force will
stop once control is achieved.”
There is also a prohibition on the
use of force “as a means of
punishment or revenge.”49 These
policy mandates are routinely
subordinated when prison personnel
find it in their interest to terrorize
specific individuals and the rest of
the prisoner population by making
an example of someone.
Assaults, physical abuse, and threats
of violence from guards occur with
systematic frequency, establishing a
baseline of terror throughout the
prisoner population. Those who file
grievances or pursue other avenues
for redress such as civil litigation or
reporting to outside authorities are
regularly targeted for verbal and
49

PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 201-1, Use of
Force, section V(B)(D),
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/standards/lib/standard
s/DC-ADM_201_Use_of_Force.pdf.

physical harassment. General
population prisoners who are
subject to provocation and assault
by staff are virtually always issued
fabricated misconduct charges for
assaulting staff and sentenced to a
term in solitary confinement. Once
in solitary these prisoners are often
deprived food, personal property,
writing materials and grievance
forms, access to medical treatment,
and otherwise subjected to
deprivations and punitive measures
designed to reinforce the total
helplessness of prisoners and their
absolute dependency on staff for
their very survival. Prisoners held in
solitary confinement who insist on
exercising their rights to file
grievances and lawsuits, or who
otherwise develop an antagonistic
relationship with staff are even more
vulnerable to physical abuse since
they are not permitted to leave their
cells without being handcuffed and
often shackled. Reports of guards
throwing handcuffed prisoners
against walls, yanking their
handcuffed arms through the tray
slot in the door, and punching and
kicking defenseless victims are not
uncommon. The threat and reality
58

of arbitrary and excessive bodily
violence is both the psychological
and physical lynchpin of control.
Such acts violate, inter alia50, article
V of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) prohibiting
torture and other ill-treatment, and
the UN Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.51
Mental Health and the
Psychological Impact of Solitary
Confinement
A vastly higher prevalence of
psychological instability and
disorder exists amongst the
prisoner population than within the
population at large.52 The rate of
mental illness becomes higher yet
amongst those confined in control
units. Responses to questionnaires
sent to large numbers of prisoners
led the U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics to claim in a September
2006 report that as many as 56% of
state prisoners likely suffer from a
mental health problem,53 based on
the presence of a recent history or

50

a legal term meaning “amongst other things.”
Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds., Basic
Documents on Human Rights, Fifth Edition, p.
25 and 405-416 respectively.
52
Terry Kupers, Prison Madness: The Mental
Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We Must
Do About It. Dr. Kupers writes that “The
prevalence of mental disorders among prisoners
is quite high, at least five times the prevalence
rates in the general population,” p. 11.
53
“Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail
Inmates,” Doris J. James and Lauren E. Glaze,
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report,
September 2006.
51

symptoms of mental health
problems.
The Vienna, Virginia-based
corporation MHM Correctional
Services, Inc. (MHM) signed a new
contract with the PA DOC towards
the end of 2008 for the provision of
mental health care services between
January 1, 2009 and August 31,
2013. The contract is worth
$91,000,000.54
While MHM claims that it is
“successful” in meeting the “unique
challenge” posed by prisoners with
mental illness55, reports of severe
psychological deterioration and
inadequate, often non-existent, and
sometimes abusive treatment are
commonplace. Those held in solitary
confinement are treated to cursory
visits from psych staff and forced to
speak with them at their cell door,
which has an inhibiting effect on
one’s willingness to discuss his
symptoms for fear of being
overheard by guards and other
prisoners. Prisoners prescribed
medication to counter suicidal
depression have had these
prescriptions discontinued with
devastating consequences, none
more so than the case of Matthew
Bullock. In other instances
excessive medication is substituted
for mental health care.
54

Service Purchase Contract between
Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections and
MHM Correctional Services, Inc.,
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/MHM_C
orrectional_Services_Inc._SP_1181000376.pdf.
55
http://www.mhmservices.com/services/correctional-mentalhealth.html

59

The regime of solitary confinement
both exacerbates and generates
psychological instability,
abnormality, and disorder, therefore
perpetuating an escalating cycle of
mental illness and suffering inside
and outside the prisons. The
scientific consensus deduced from
copious research on the
psychological impact of solitary
confinement is that the experience
generates considerable and
sometimes permanent mental
suffering. One of the foremost
experts on the subject, Dr. Stuart
Grassian, reveals that “even a few
days of solitary confinement will
predictably shift the
electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern
toward an abnormal pattern
characteristic of stupor and
delirium,” and outlines the following
seven symptoms as being
characteristic of an “organic brain
delirium” associated with solitary
confinement:
a) hyperresponsivity to external
stimuli;
b) perceptual distortions, illusions,
hallucinations;
c) panic attacks;
d) difficulties with thinking,
concentration, and memory;
e) intrusive obsessional thoughts:
emergence of primitive aggressive
ruminations;
f) overt paranoia;
g) problems with impulse control.56
Questionnaires submitted by
HRC/Fed Up! to over 75 prisoners in

SCI Dallas and throughout the state
confirm the presence of these same
symptomatic patterns amongst a
disturbingly large number of the
solitary confinement population.
Incidents of self-harm, including
suicide attempts, occur regularly
and are certainly under-reported.
Prisoners have reported setting their
cells on fire, self-mutilation, and
attempts to hang themselves. The
common response from prison staff
in these circumstances is to send
guards in riot gear into the cell to
“extract” the prisoner, often
attacking him with pepper spray
first, and then forcibly transporting
the cuffed and shackled inmate to a
psychiatric observation cell where he
is subjected to even more intensive
isolation. Several prisoners have
reported being kept in such cells
without bedding, a mattress,
running water, or clothes for days at
a time. This brutality exacerbates
and multiplies the incidence of
mental health problems inside
prisons where “a large subgroup
develop[] the disturbances that
make their lives more miserable only
after being incarcerated.”57
Other rights to adequate mental
health care are violated by structural
and procedural deficiencies,
including lack of funding, staffing,
privacy, inpatient treatment
programs, and negligent and
abusive practices.
HRC/Fed Up! finds the predictable
psychological consequences of these
57

56

Stuart Grassian, “Psychiatric Effects of
Solitary Confinement,”

Terry Kupers, Prison Madness: The Mental
Health Crisis Behind Bars and What We Must
Do About It, p. 38.

60

conditions is of such an egregious
and apparent nature that it cannot
be credibly understood as anything
other than the deliberate intention
of the PA DOC to inflict severe
mental pain on prisoners targeted
for prolonged solitary confinement.
While the utilization of solitary
confinement as a retaliatory
measure represents an obvious
human rights violation, the
application of these techniques of
control is invalid—and illegal—if
there is no identifiable rehabilitative
or penological consequence as well.
Simply put, there is no legitimate
rehabilitative pretext that can justify
subjecting those found guilty of
violating prison rules and
regulations to conditions of isolation
so extreme as to constitute torture.
The proliferation of solitary
confinement units represents the
ascendance of a purely punitive
approach to incarceration. While the
dominant discourse on questions of
crime and incarceration validate the
debate between a punitive or
rehabilitative approach to
incarceration, black-letter
international law is unambiguous on
this matter. The role of solitary
confinement in perpetuating an
ever-escalating cycle of incarceration
in PA and throughout the U.S.
subverts article 10(3) of the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which mandates that
“The penitentiary system shall
comprise treatment of prisoners the
essential aim of which shall be their
reformation and social

rehabilitation.”58 “Tough on crime”
punitive approaches that fail to
address root social causes of crime
and neglect to provide adequate
educational, vocational, therapeutic,
and counseling services to people
sentenced to prison are not only
responsible for propagating the
cycle of violence and social
deterioration—and therefore
decidedly not “tough” on crime—but
are also in violation of international
law.
These conditions also violate, inter
alia, article V of the UDHR and the
Convention against Torture59. By
exacerbating and generating a
greater incidence of mental illness
and denying adequate treatment the
PA DOC is also violating the United
Nations’ Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners rule
22(1), which states that: “The
medical services should be
organized in close relationship to
the general health administration of
the community or nation. They shall
include a psychiatric service for the
diagnosis and, in proper cases, the
treatment of states of mental
abnormality”.
Malign Neglect: Profit over
Prisoners
In 1988 the United Nations General
Assembly passed Resolution
43/173, the Body of Principles for
the Protection of All Persons Under

58

Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds., Basic
Documents on Human Rights, Fifth Edition, p.
362
59
Brownlie, p. 25 and 405-416 respectively.

61

Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. Principle 24 states:

Commission on Correctional
Health Care, found that 20 to 26
percent of the U.S. population
living with HIV/AIDS, 29 to 32
percent of persons with Hepatitis
C, and 38 percent of those with
TB were released from a
correctional facility. Transmitted
through unprotected sex,
tattooing, sharing syringes, and
close living quarters, and
fostered by inadequate prison
health care, these diseases are
ravaging the prison population.
Public health experts are
beginning to ponder the
consequences of this health
crisis, as the large majority of
these prisoners will one day be
released back to society.62
[emphasis in original]

A proper medical examination
shall be offered to a detained or
imprisoned person as promptly
as possible after his admission to
the place of detention or
imprisonment, and thereafter
medical care and treatment shall
be provided whenever necessary.
This care and treatment shall be
provided free of charge.60

This provision affirming a right to
medical care corresponds with the
1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in
Estelle v. Gamble, which found that
deliberate indifferences to serious
medical needs of prisoners
constitutes a violation of 8th
amendment rights to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment.61
Summarizing data on infectious
diseases in prison populations, a
2007 report found that rates of
HIV/AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs),
tuberculosis (TB), and Hepatitis A, B,
and C amongst the incarcerated far
exceed occurrences amongst the
general public. The rate of HIV/AIDS
in prisons has been estimated at five
to seven times greater than in the
general population. The proportion
of prisoners with hepatitis falls
within the approximate range of 15
and 30 percent. TB cases in prisons
are five times the national average.
The report continues:

Another threat to public health is
the rapid spread throughout the
nation’s prisons and jails of the
“superbug”, methicillin resistant
staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA.
Determined to be the “cockroach of
bacteria” by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, MRSA
(pronounced mer-sa) “has the power
to disable, disfigure and kill the
people who come into contact with
it.” 19,000 out of the estimated
94,000 U.S. Americans with MRSA
died as a result of the “superbug” in
2005 alone. Pennsylvania is
amongst a handful of states with

62

An analysis conducted for the
U.S. Congress, by the National
60
61

Brownlie, p. 93.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

Violations of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of
all forms of Racial Discrimination in U.S.
Prisons: A Response to the Periodic Report of
the United States of America, Prison Working
Group, p. 20, October 2007.

62

particularly virulent outbreaks of
MRSA in detention facilities.63
Given that prisons are incubators of
disease and that over 90% of
prisoners will be released into our
communities someday, the
imperative for providing adequate
health care to the incarcerated
population is not only a legallymandated but pragmatic and
commonsense public health policy
as well. For this reason it is nothing
short of scandalous that the PA DOC
has privatized the provision of
medical services and contracted this
responsibility to Prison Health
Services, Inc. (PHS), a Tennesseebased for-profit corporation that has
left a trail of corpses and lawsuits in
its wake around the country.
In 2005 Paul von Zielbauer
published an expose of PHS in the
pages of the New York Times based
on extensive investigations of PHS
practices around the U.S.,
documenting widespread instances
of wrongful death, malpractice,
skeletal staffing, denial of
medications, and other neglectful
and abusive practices. Summarizing
his findings Zielbauer wrote, “A
yearlong examination of Prison
Health by The New York Times
reveals repeated instances of
medical care that has been flawed
and sometimes lethal. The
company’s performance around the
nation has provoked criticism from
judges and sheriffs, lawsuits from
inmates’ families and whistle63

“Deadly Staph Infection ‘Superbug’ Has a
Dangerous Foothold in U.S. Jails,” Silja J.A.
Talvi, Prison Legal News, May 2008.

blowers, and condemnation by
federal, state and local authorities.
The company has paid millions of
dollars in fines and settlements.”64
The PA DOC signed a five-year
contract with PHS for the provision
of medical care, excluding mental
health and pharmacy services, to all
facilities under their control that
initially went into effect on
September 1, 2003.65 The contract
was worth $308,254,642. In
February 2007 the contract was
extended from its initial expiration
date of August 31, 2008 to August,
31 2013.66
Incentives for denying care are
embedded in the contract, in
particular the section on the annual
aggregate cap, which reads in part:
PHS has budgeted an annual
aggregate cap of twenty million
five hundred thousand dollars
($20,5000,000) to cover outside
medical services in contract Year
One. Additionally, PHS proposes
a 50/50 sharing between PHS
64

Paul von Zielbauer, “Harsh Medicine: As
Health Care in Jails Goes Private, 10 Days Can
Be a Death Sentence,” New York Times,
February 27, 2005.
65
Medical Services Agreement Between
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Corrections and Prison Health Services, Inc.,
signed August 6, 2003,
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/phsSigne
dContract.pdf.
66
Contract Modification Agreement No. 3 to
Medical Services Agreement Between
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Corrections and Prison Health Services, Inc.,
signed February 4, 2007,
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/PHSAttac
hment3.pdf.

63

and the DOC of any costs
incurred between $20,500,000
and $22,500,000. Costs that
exceed $22,500,00 in Year One
shall be the responsibility of the
DOC.67

Outside medical services include
“medical and psychiatric
hospitalization, off-site physicians’
and specialists’ fees, emergency
room fees, ambulance
transportation expenses, off-site and
mobile surgery services, and the
cost of any dialysis treatment
provided off-site as well as on-site
dialysis services at SCI Graterford
and SCI Muncy.”68
By entrusting the health and lives of
PA prisoners to the likes of PHS it is
no surprise that reports of medical
neglect and abuse are rampant.
Examples of poor practices and
inadequate treatment include
withholding of medications; refusal
of outpatient services and necessary
surgeries; denial of prisoner
requests to view their medical
records; failure to follow policy and
document injuries when these might
indicate staff liability for injuries (i.e.
after guards beat or abuse a
prisoner); the absence of any
mechanisms other than civil
litigation for prisoners to seek
remedy, which—in the rare cases
where claims are upheld—provide
redress for wrongs virtually always
after the damage has been done.
67

Medical Services Agreement Between
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Corrections and Prison Health Services, Inc.,
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/boa/lib/boa/phsSigne
dContract.pdf.
68
ibid.

Skin conditions, hernias, and
cataracts have been ignored or given
cursory attention. Prisoners
concerned about their exposure to
infectious diseases, especially those
in solitary units who have been
placed in cells with blood and bodily
waste, have been denied diagnostic
tests or had the documented results
withheld.
HRC/Fed Up! has accumulated
ample testimony to conclude that
the business practices detailed in
the 2005 New York Times expose of
PHS have not been amended in any
substantive manner and persist to
this day.
White Supremacist Racism
The U.S. criminal legal system is
saturated with white supremacist
racism at every level, from policing
priorities to arrests, convictions to
sentencing.
In April 2007, a group of human
rights workers concerned with the
U.S. prison system issued a shadow
report to the United States periodic
report to the United Nations
regarding compliance with the
International Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of Racial
Discrimination. The shadow report,
in which the normalized racism of
the prison system is summarized,
states the matter with blunt clarity:
“Conditions in prisons and jails in
the US are horrific. The notion of
rehabilitation in most facilities has
been forgotten and prisons/jails
have become warehouses for many

64

of the marginalized segments of
American society.”69
In reviewing the U.S. report the UN
Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination (CERD) noted
that the “stark racial disparities in
the administration and functioning
of the criminal justice system,
including the disproportionate
number of persons belonging to
racial, ethnic and national minorities
in the prison population, may be
regarded as factual indicators of
racial discrimination,” and
subsequently recommended that “all
necessary steps to guarantee the
right of everyone to equal treatment
before tribunals and all other organs
of administering justice” be taken
and advocated “the implementation
of national strategies or plans of
action aimed at the elimination of
structural racial discrimination.”70
The concerns articulated by the
CERD acknowledge, however
modestly, that the criminal legal
system operates according to the
logic of white supremacy. While this
structure of domination functions
within a complex variety of social
69

Violations of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the
International Convention on the Elimination of
all forms of Racial Discrimination in U.S.
Prisons: A Response to the Periodic Report of
the United States of America, Prison Working
Group, October 2007.
70
Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD), “Consideration of
Reports Submitted by State Parties Under
Article 9 of the Convention, Concluding
observations of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination, United
States of America,” CERD/C/USA/CO/6, May
8, 2008.

institutions and at varying degrees
of psychological awareness, white
supremacy is and always has been a
reality of life in the United States.
Illustrating some markers of this
reality, the Pew Center on the States
issued a report in 2009 revealing
that “Black adults are four times as
likely as whites and nearly 2.5 times
as likely as Hispanics to be under
correctional control. One in 11 black
adults—9.2 percent—was under
correctional supervision at year end
2007.” 71
Perhaps even more illuminating is
the fact that black males are
incarcerated at a rate of 4,919 per
100,000 in the U.S. today, while
apartheid South Africa, by
comparison, incarcerated black
males at a rate of 851 per 100,000
in 1993.72
These same patterns are apparent in
Pennsylvania as well, where blacks
account for 48.8% of the total state
prison population despite only
representing 10.8% of the state
population. Similarly, while persons
of Hispanic or Latino origin
represent but 4.8% of the state
population they account for 10.8% of
the state prison total.73 That all but
71

“One in 31: The Long Reach of American
Corrections,” The Pew Center on the States,
2006.
72
Figures on incarceration rates taken from
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/articles/not_equal_
opportunity.pdf.
73
State prison population figures taken from the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Monthly Institutional Profile, October 31, 2009,
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/portal/lib/portal/mont
hly_profile.pdf. State population percentages

65

one of Pennsylvania’s state prisons
are situated in locales with a
predominant—often over 90%-white/euro-American population has
helped fuel the racial discrimination
and brutality that are defining
characteristics of the state prison
system. Of the 24 locales in which
the PA DOC’s 27 institutions are
found—including the two women’s
prisons, the boot camp, and a
facility for juvenile offenders—15 of
these possess a white population in
excess of 95%. 17 out of 24 have
an over 90% white population, while
a full 22 of 24 have white
populations above 80%.74
These patterns correspond to
national trends to push prison
expansion on economically
depressed white rural communities
as a means of job creation, which
generates an incentive for working
class whites and political
representatives from those
communities to develop a vested
interest in the warehousing of vast
numbers of poor people from
communities of color.
While such statistical indicators of
racial discrimination can be
multiplied at considerable length75
can be found at the U.S. Census Bureau website,
State and County QuickFacts,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.ht
ml.
74
Figures taken from the U.S. Census Bureau
website,
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html
?_lang=en
75
See Race to Incarcerate, Marc Mauer, for
information and analysis on racial disparities in
policing practices, arrest rates, sentencing
practices, and drug enforcement; for evidence on

numbers can never begin to
adequately depict the human impact
of structural racism. The reports
received by HRC/Fed Up! testify to
the reality of widespread racism on
the part of prison personnel. We
have received a number of reports
about flagrantly racist guards, some
even boasting of their membership
in white nationalist organizations
such as the Ku Klux Klan. The use
of racist slurs to intimidate,
humiliate, and terrorize prisoners
are commonplace in the control
units, which have a higher
proportion of people of color than
the general population. While there
have been reports of guards
threatening to lynch prisoners and
racist pictures and graffiti being left
for intended targets, much of the
racism occurs in the context of daily
operations. For example, the
issuance of fabricated misconducts
and placement in solitary
confinement, or verbal abuse of a
racist type directed at those who file
grievances. Other examples of
racism include reports from several
Latino prisoners that they are being
held in solitary confinement on the
basis of confidential evidence
alleging gang affiliation, and black
Muslims being denied Nation of
Islam and other related literature.
Structural racism and the
manifestations thereof detailed in
this report violate Article 2 of the
racial disparities in life sentences see The
Sentencing Project’s July 2009 report No Exit:
The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in
America; and see Punishment and Prejudice:
Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs, Human
Rights Watch, May 2000.

66

UDHR76 and, articles II and V of the
International Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of Racial
Discrimination. The severe
obstacles for prisoners who seek
protection and remedy in instances
of racial discrimination (see the
section on the Denial of Due
Process) violate Article VI of the
ICERD, which stipulates that “State
Parties shall assure to everyone
within their jurisdiction effective
protection and remedies, through
the competent national tribunals
and other State institutions, against
any acts of racial discrimination . .
.”77
Conditions in PA prisons and SCI
Dallas in particular also fit the
definition of the crime of apartheid
as defined in Article II(a)(ii) of the
International Convention On the
Suppression and Punishment of the
Crime of Apartheid. The relevant
sections stipulate that apartheid is
present when there is a “Denial to a
member or members of a racial
group or groups of the right to life
and liberty of person” via “the
infliction upon the members of a
racial group or groups of serious
bodily or mental harm, by the
infringement of their freedom or
dignity, or by subjecting them to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or
punishment.”78
Denial of Due Process: Grievances,
Misconducts, and Access to the
Courts
Any analysis of the factors that
generate, enable, and sustain
human rights violations in U.S.
prisons has to take into account the
role of the courts in monitoring
conditions, adjudicating disputes,
and enforcing rulings in particular
instances. Prisoners’ rights in this
respect are enshrined in articles VI
and VII of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which respectively
proclaim that “All are equal before
the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of
the law”, and that “Everyone has the
right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for
acts violating the fundamental rights
granted him by the constitution or
by law”.79 Affirming the same
principles of due process and equal
protection, Amendment XIV of the
U.S. Constitution, proclaims that no
state shall “deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws”.
Prison Litigation Reform Act

76

Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds., Basic
Documents on Human Rights, Fifth Edition, p.
24. Article II of the UDHR states “Everyone is
entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration without distinction of any kind,
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status.”
77
Ibid. p. 340

The rights of prisoners to access the
courts have been severely restricted
as a consequence of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), passed
into law by the U.S. Congress in
78
79

Ibid. p. 383
Ibid. p. 25

67

1996. Barriers to the exercise of
this fundamental constitutional and
human right erected by the PLRA
relevant to this report include:
1) the exhaustion of remedies
requirement: Prior to filing a
lawsuit prisoners are required
to exhaust the prison’s
administrative grievance
procedure;
2) the physical injury
requirement: mental or
emotional injury is insufficient
to substantiate a claim that
one’s right were violated
unless it can be demonstrated
that there was a prior physical
injury;
3) restrictions on court oversight
of prison conditions: the
power of federal courts to
enforce orders that provide
correctives to unlawful
conditions has been hindered;
4) limitations on attorney fees:
the amount of money
attorneys are able to collect
from successful cases brought
on behalf of prisoners whose
rights have been violated has
been limited by the PLRA.80
Proponents of the legislation alleged
that prisoners were prone to filing
excessive and frivolous lawsuits, and
that the PLRA would eliminate abuse
of the courts and weed out unworthy
claims. Contrary to these
assertions, prisoner lawsuits were
about as common as lawsuits
brought by non-prisoners, and these

often involved non-frivolous claims
similar to the violations detailed in
this report.81 Furthermore, if the
actual intent of the legislation were
to discourage and hinder the filing
of unworthy lawsuits then it follows
that prisoners should have begun to
win a higher percentage of cases
subsequent to the passage of the
PLRA. But the PLRA has had
precisely the opposite effect as
prisoners have filed less lawsuits
and won an even smaller proportion
of these cases.82
In May 2009, Human Rights Watch
(HRW) released a report on the
effects and constitutionality of the
PLRA, finding that “The effect . . . on
prisoners’ access to the courts was
swift. Between 1995 and 1997,
federal civil rights filings by
prisoners fell by 33 percent, despite
the fact that the number of
incarcerated persons had grown by
10 percent in the same period. By
2001 prisoner filings were down 43
percent from their 1995 level,
despite a 23 percent increase in the
incarcerated population. By 2006
the number of prisoner lawsuits filed
per thousand prisoners had fallen
60 percent since 1995.”83 The report
also found that “the number of
states with less than 10 percent of
their prison populations under court
supervision more than doubled,
from 12 to 28.”84
As a consequence of the PLRA’s
restrictions on prisoners’ rights to
81

80

No Equal Justice: The Prison Litigation
Reform Act in the United States, Human Rights
Watch, May 2009; p. 2

ibid. p. 9
ibid. p. 3
83
ibid. p. 3
84
ibid. p. 35
82

68

access the courts and its erosion of
judicial power to regulate conditions
by court order HRW concluded that
the PLRA is “fundamentally at odds”
with the requirements of
international law, specifically article
14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which
stipulates that “All persons shall be
equal before the courts and
tribunals”.85 The UN Committee
Against Torture also found that the
PLRA violated fundamental human
rights, noting that the physical
injury requirement is a
contravention of article 14 of the
Convention Against Torture, which
requires redress for victims. The
Committee accordingly
recommended that “The State party
should not limit the right of victims
to bring civil actions and amend the
Prison Litigation Reform Act
accordingly”.86
It is in this context of an expanding
prison population that possesses
increasingly diminished access to
the courts that the routine reports of
anti-prisoner bias in the
administration of grievance and
misconduct processes are to be
understood.
Misconducts

85 85

Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, eds., Basic
Documents on Human Rights, Fifth Edition, p.
362
86
Committee Against Torture (CAT),
“Consideration of Reports Submitted by State
Parties under Article 19 of the Convention,
Conclusions and Recommendations of the
Committee against Torture, United States of
America,” CAT/C/USA/CO/2, May 18, 2006.

Prisoners alleged to have violated
prison rules and regulations are to
be issued a misconduct report
stating the “facts upon which the
charges are based” as written by the
staff member making the charges, a
contractor employee with personal
knowledge of the violation, or by
another staff member who has been
instructed to do so at the request of
a person with personal knowledge of
the incident in question.87 Aside
from lesser offenses, which might
be subject to informal resolution, in
which no hearing takes place,
prisoners charged with a misconduct
are granted an appearance before
the institution’s hearing examiner.
While policy stipulates that prisoners
are permitted to call witnesses to
testify to their knowledge of the
events in question, this aspect of
due process is frequently subverted
on the grounds that such witnesses
are not needed to determine guilt or
innocence. Prisoner requests for the
presentation of security camera
footage regarding the incident at
hand are virtually always denied as
well.
Such a rationale does make for a
consistent kind of logic, as the
primary factor in determining guilt
or innocence in misconduct cases is
apparently not evidence, but rather
the fact that one is a prisoner
typically determines that he or she is
guilty as well. Once found guilty a
stint in solitary confinement follows.
These can last from 30 days to
87

PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 801, Inmate
Discipline, Section 1(B),
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/standards/lib/standard
s/801_Inmate_Discipline.pdf.

69

longer, and can of course be
extended without restraint given the
rubber-stamp quality of misconduct
procedures.
Reports of guards abusing the
misconduct system to “bury”
somebody in solitary are received
from all over the state each week.
Most reports of this kind usually
begin with a description of how a
prisoner felt compelled to file a
grievance against an abusive staff
member and was subsequently
issued a misconduct for an
infraction that they did not commit.
If the prisoner still feels aggrieved
and unwilling to acquiesce silently to
the arbitrary machinations of prison
staff misconducts can be issued
endlessly with little concern that
supervisory staff will disapprove let
alone discipline staff who abuse
their authority in such a manner.
Along with SCI Dallas, the prisons at
Camp Hill, Fayette, Greene, and
other control units have made this a
normalized tactic in silencing
grievances and intimidating those
who file lawsuits.
Grievances
Prisoners in the PA DOC have the
option of filing grievances regarding
staff misconduct and/or inadequate
conditions of confinement. The
initial grievance is handled by an
institutional grievance officer,
appeals go to the Superintendent,
and the third and final level of
appeal is DOC Central Office in
Camp Hill.88 While the formal
88

PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 804, Inmate
Grievance System,

purpose of the grievance system is
to provide an avenue for prisoners
to resolve problems within the
institutional framework of the PA
DOC, the operative reality of the
grievance system is that it functions
to repress claims of abuse and
substandard conditions and obstruct
access to the courts.
Official PA DOC grievance statistics
for the period between January 1,
2008 and April 29, 2009 obtained
through a Right-To-Know request
reveal the systematic anti-prisoner
bias in the system with stark clarity.
During this sixteen-month period
less than 2% of prisoner grievances
were decided in favor of the inmate.
For the years 2008 and the first four
months of 2009 respectively,
approximately 20% and 18% of
grievances were unilaterally resolved
by the prison administration, which
does not mean the inmate is
satisfied. The remainder are denied
or dismissed on their merits or
because of failure on the part of the
prisoner to adhere to procedural
requirements. To put it another
way, over 98% of prisoner grievances
are not resolved in a manner that is
satisfactory to the inmate.89
The systematic refusal to address
prisoner grievances in an honest and
constructive way discourages many
from using the system at all. Those
who do learn quickly not to expect
fairness. Several prisoners have
reported being told explicitly that
http://www.cor.state.pa.us/standards/lib/standard
s/DC-ADM_804_Inmate_Grievances.pdf.
89
PA DOC Inmate Grievance Tracking System
Summary Totals, on file.

70

the testimony of guards will be
believed no matter the truth of the
matter. Refusal to permit prisoners
to call witnesses or present security
camera footage in support of their
claims is as prevalent in the
grievance system as it is in the
misconduct process. The
frustration, demoralization, and
anger engendered by these practices
is predictable and of no apparent
concern to DOC administrators and
personnel.
As evidenced in the preceding
pages, prisoners who file grievances
almost invariably arouse the ire of
staff and consequently find
themselves targeted by retaliatory
actions. HRC/Fed Up! has received
countless reports from people
subjected to long-term solitary
confinement on the basis of
fraudulent misconducts that were
issued after the inmate attempted to
utilize the grievance system.
Given the conditions of solitary
confinement outlined above and the
brutality, filth, racism, and
psychological disorientation
accompanying such conditions, the
issuance of fabricated misconducts
for retaliatory purposes should be
understood as a violation of the
Convention Against Torture. The UN
Committee Against Torture, in its
consideration of a U.S. report
regarding its compliance with the
convention, noted in regard to
conditions in U.S. prisons that “The
Committee is concerned about the
prolonged isolation periods
detainees are subjected to, the
effect such treatment has on their

mental health and that its purpose
may be retribution, in which case it
would constitute cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment
(art. 16).”90
Prisoners in solitary confinement are
hindered from utilizing the
grievance system in other ways as
well, including the confiscation and
destruction of necessary paperwork
for filing grievances and appeals in a
timely manner, denial of grievance
forms and writing tools, and
administrative refusal to respond to
claims in a timely manner. These
actions not only deter the possibility
of prisoners obtaining a fair and
satisfactory resolution of their
grievances within the prison system,
which is not a serious possibility in
any event, but serve to frustrate
potential legal action as well.
Failure to conform to the procedural
requirements of the grievance
system means that any lawsuit
brought regarding the grievance in
question has a higher probability of
being thrown out on the technical
grounds that the inmate did not
exhaust administrative remedies as
required by the PLRA.
For those who seek justice the PLRA
and its requirement that
administrative remedies be
exhausted prior to bringing a
lawsuit necessitate that prisoners
continue to file grievances. Despite
90

Committee Against Torture (CAT),
“Consideration of Reports Submitted by State
Parties under Article 19 of the Convention,
Conclusions and Recommendations of the
Committee against Torture, United States of
America,” CAT/C/USA/CO/2, May 18, 2006.

71

the all but total improbability of a
grievance being resolved and the
threat and reality of being subjected
to control unit torture, perhaps
indefinitely, countless members of
PA’s incarcerated population
continue to file grievances so that
their claims will not be dismissed on
technical/procedural grounds.
Survivors of torture and others
struggling against the dehumanizing
violations of their rights inside the
PA DOC need dedicated and
organized support from those of us
on the outside if their grievances are
to be addressed, their rights and
lives respected, and those guilty of
perpetrating criminal acts against
them held accountable. The
concluding section of this report
summarizes a series of
recommendations to be pursued by
a broad coalition of current and
former prisoners, their families and
support people, human rights
defenders, and civil society
organizations.

72

Recommendations—Human Rights and
Accountability: Organizing to Enforce the Law
The contents of this report describe
an unsustainable and appalling
culture of criminal conduct within
the PA DOC. To date, no effective
action has been taken by those in
positions of power to address the
human rights crisis inside the prison
system. The inaction and
indifference from DOC and state
officials when presented with
substantial documentation of crimes
of the state can only be understood
as tacit approval at worst or a
decision of political expedience at
best.
Rather than address our concluding
remarks to agents and institutions
of a criminal state we offer the
following recommendations to our
allies in civil society as a framework
for sustained, principled, committed
political struggle. These
recommendations are in no way
comprehensive and demand further
elaboration and integration into a
broader movement for the
enforcement of human rights law
and a corresponding restructuring of
the political, economic, and social
relationships and institutions that
govern our communities and shape
our collective future.

power the opportunity to do the
right thing, but imperative to
prepare for the possibility that they
will not. For this task we need a
mass movement.
As an organization comprised of
prisoners, their families and support
people, and human rights
defenders, we expect these
constituents to be most receptive to
the following recommendations.
From this basis of understanding it
is necessary to build a movement
throughout communities targeted by
twin policies of mass
impoverishment and mass
incarceration, reaching out to build
principled alliances with other
sectors of society concerned with
the rule of law, human rights, and
social justice.

Legislators, law enforcement
personnel, state employees, and
other government officials and
employees are encouraged to review
and adopt this framework as well.
HRC/Fed Up! believes that it is
correct to give those in positions of

73

Recommendations
1. Investigate and prosecute
crimes of torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

question of power, thus helping
generate the necessary
preconditions for widespread social
transformation.

On the basis of the elements and
guidelines of international law
discussed below, prisoners, support
people, and individual and
organizational human rights
defenders must make the
investigation and prosecution of the
crime of torture a non-negotiable
demand.

The Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
defines the crime of torture as
follows:
For the purposes of this
Convention, the term ‘torture’
means any act by which severe
pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person
for such purposes as obtaining
from him or a third person
information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a
third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed,
or intimidating or coercing him
or a third person, or for any
reason based on discrimination
of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in
an official capacity. It does not
include pain or suffering arising
only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.91

The filing of criminal complaints at
every jurisdictional level, especially
with the Civil Rights Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice, will
assist in compiling and preserving
evidence, exposing torture and
related human rights violations, and
building public and institutional
momentum for accountability. State
or federal investigative commissions
created by legislative acts expressly
for the purpose of investigating and
prosecuting torture and human
rights violations in PA prisons are
other potential avenues.
Even if the political realities that
dictate how the law is or is not
enforced are not significantly altered
soon and our efforts to seek justice
and accountability are denied for the
time being, the preservation of
evidence and exposure of conditions
inside PA prisons will assist in
creating awareness of human rights
law, crimes of the state, and the

State officials and employees who
organize, sanction, enable,
participate in, or otherwise fail to act
when presented with evidence of
control unit torture and human
91

Ibid. p. 406.

74

rights violations not amounting to
torture but rather constituting cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment
bear primary criminal responsibility
for the operation of the prison
system in the state of Pennsylvania
and demand to be investigated and
prosecuted.
Article 12 of the CAT mandates that
“Each State Party shall ensure that its
competent authorities proceed to a
prompt and impartial investigation,
wherever there is reasonable ground
to believe that an act of torture has
been committed in any territory
under its jurisdiction.” Article 13
enshrines the right of those
allegedly subjected to torture to a
prompt and impartial examination of
their claims and protection against
retaliation.92
The UN Principles on the Effective
Investigation and Documentation of
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
provides further instruction for
individuals and organizations
advocating for investigations and
prosecutions of torture and other illtreatment. Principle 1 articulates
the objective of the resolution:
1. The purposes of effective
investigation and documentation of
torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment . . .
include the following:

and State responsibility for
victims and their families;
(b) Identification of measures
needed to prevent recurrence;
(c) Facilitation of prosecution
and/or, as appropriate,
disciplinary sanctions for
those indicated by the
investigation as being
responsible and
demonstration of the need for
full reparation and redress
from the State, including fair
and adequate financial
compensation and provision of
the means for medical care
and rehabilitation.93

Aspects of legitimate investigations
identified in the document include
impartiality, promptness,
competence, authority to compel
witness testimony and obtain all
available evidence, necessary
budgetary and technical resources,
physical and psychological medical
examinations of alleged victims of
torture and other ill-treatment, and
the production of a public, written
report.94
Investigations conducted in
accordance with internationally
accepted standards serve to further
the principles articulated in the UN
Basic Principles and Guidelines on
the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Gross
Violations of International Human
93

(a) Clarification of the facts and
establishment and
acknowledgement of individual

92

Ibid. 409.

UN Resolution 55/89, see Annex: Principles
on the Effective Investigation and
Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/564/73/PDF/
N0056473.pdf?OpenElement
94
ibid.

75

Rights Law and Serious Violations of
International Law.95 These
guidelines specify three core
components of accountability
constituting the victims’ right to
remedies:
(1) Justice: Equal and effective
access to justice;
(2) Reparations: Adequate,
effective and prompt
reparation for harm
suffered; and
(3) Truth: Access to relevant
information concerning
violations and reparation
mechanisms.96
The guidelines provide further
insight into appropriate mechanisms
for actualizing the above three
components. From this framework
human rights defenders can create
and implement strategies to hold
the PA DOC accountable to the rule
of law and seek justice for victims of
severe human rights violations.
2. Restructure the criminal
legal system according to
international law.
In order to effectively prevent
torture and other human rights
violations inside PA prisons it is
necessary to restructure the entire
criminal legal system so as to ensure
that it conforms to international law.
While it is beyond the scope of this
report to engage in an extended
analysis of the issues involved, it is
sufficient to note that race and class
based policies and practices of
95
96

Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 275-282.
Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 279.

policing, prosecution, and
sentencing need to be abolished.
Toward that end community
oriented strategies involving the
expansion and proliferation of
educational and vocational
programs, along with access to
comprehensive and effective
substance abuse treatment,
counseling, and mental health
services need to be at the forefront
in the struggle to ensure safe
communities and public welfare (see
recommendation 6).
Further advocacy efforts relating to
conditions of confinement can be
found in the UN Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
(discussed below). Practical
measures that can be integrated into
the demands and development of a
mass movement for implementing
human rights standards throughout
the criminal legal and broader
social, political, and economic
systems include the following:
•

•

removal of arbitrary visitation
restrictions, especially the
limits in number of visits and
the policy of non-contact
visitation for those in solitary
confinement and on Death
Row;
all visits should permit contact
and prisoners should never be
handcuffed or shackled during
a visit; in exceptional
circumstances appropriate
alternative practices can be
adopted to ensure the health
and security of prisoners,
visitors, and prison personnel
while simultaneously

76

•

•

•

•

•

permitting contact and
prohibiting the use of
handcuffs and shackles;
permission for visitors to be
on more than one prisoners
list per institutions so as to
remove undue obstruction to
prisoners’ rights to maintain
contact with family and
support people and services;
expansion of the PA official
visitor status program,
currently mediated through
the PA Prison Society, so as to
permit all citizens, especially
human rights defenders, the
opportunity to visit any
prisoner willing to receive
them with full and unmediated legal authorization
and recognition of such status
as a basic human right;
geographic re-organization of
the prisoner population so as
to enable more frequent
visitation and continuing
interaction with a prisoner’s
family and community;
immediate moratorium on
prison construction and
diversion of funds to
vocational, educational,
counseling, substance abuse
treatment, and mental health
services and programs;
creation of associations of
human rights defenders inside
(see recommendation 4) and
outside the prison to monitor,
document, and publish
reports of alleged human
rights violations and
procedures being advocated
or enacted by prisoners, PA
DOC and state officials, and

•

citizens, acting on their own
or in coordination, to remedy
grievances and ensure the
realization of human rights
law in the operation of the
prison system;
establishment of an
independent monitoring
agency whose personnel,
methods of operation, tactics
and strategies for
implementing human rights
standards, and spokespeople
shall be accountable to
prisoners, their families, and
the populations most
impacted by mass
incarceration; such an agency
must have access to
constitutional and human
rights lawyers and be granted
legal authority to subpoena
witnesses and evidence and
file criminal complaints
requiring a mandatory
investigation and prosecution
when dictated by available
evidence.

Taken individually each of these
proposals serves to strengthen the
others. Taken collectively these
suggestions provide the basis for a
restructuring of the prison system
along rehabilitative lines and human
rights principles.
As noted in section 3 of this report,
article 10(3) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) mandates that “[t]he
penitentiary system shall comprise
treatment of prisoners the essential
aim of which shall be their

77

reformation.”97 The UN Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners (SMRTP) provides the
supporting framework for realization
of article 10(3) of the ICCPR.

•
•
•

Articles 58 and 59 of the SMRTP
articulate the common sense
underlying article 10(3) of the
ICCPR:
58. The purpose and
justification of a sentence
of imprisonment or a
similar measure
deprivative of liberty is
ultimately to protect
society against crime.
This end can only be
achieved if the period of
imprisonment is used to
ensure, so far as possible,
that upon his return to
society the offender is not
only willing but able to
lead a law-abiding and
self-supporting life.
59. To this end, the institution
should utilize all the
remedial, educational,
moral, spiritual and other
forces and forms of
assistance which are
appropriate and available,
and should seek to apply
them according to the
individual treatment needs
of the prisoners.
Some of the minimal standards
enumerated in the SMRTP include
those relating to:
•
97

clean living conditions;

Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, 362.

•
•

•

•
•

•

•

adequate access to natural
light and recreation;
healthy and filling food
portions;
medical services “organized
in close relationship to the
general health administration
of the community”;
impartial and fair disciplinary
and grievance procedures;
prohibitions on use of
handcuffs, chains, irons or
other instruments of
restraint as punishment;
prohibition on excessive
force or violence for the sake
of punishment;
access to educational and
religious materials;
respect, encouragement, and
facilitation of contact with
family and social service
agencies;
access to work and vocational
training and opportunities
that develop skills and
qualities of self-sufficiency
vital to social reintegration;
observation and treatment of
prisoners suffering from
mental health needs in
“specialized institutions
under medical
management.”98

Rule 55 stipulates that [T]here shall
be a regular inspection of penal
institutions and services by qualified
and experienced inspectors
appointed by a competent authority.
Their task shall be in particular to
ensure that these institutions are
administered in accordance with
98

Ibid. 29-44.

78

existing laws and regulations and
with a view to bringing about the
objectives of penal and correctional
services.”
3. Encourage prisoners to form
associations for the defense
of human rights.
The PA DOC currently recognizes
prisoners associating in any form
and for any reason as a disciplinary
infraction of sufficient cause to
justify indefinite/permanent
placement in solitary confinement.99
Such a policy prohibits prisoners
from exercising core rights and
needs of human personality, which
include the right and need to
interact and make collective
decisions in any given social setting.
By depriving prisoners of the ability
to adequately associate, rather than
say prohibiting organization for
harmful or illegal ends, the PA DOC
is sabotaging the most elemental
features of self-supportive, selfempowered, and socially responsible
behavior necessary for social
reintegration.
Building on the recommendations
above, another element that will
enhance these efforts is the creation
of associations for the defense of
human rights inside the prisons.
Based on the rights articulated in the
UN Declaration on Human Rights
Defenders (see Recommendation 5),
prisoners in correspondence with
human rights organizations and
advocates need to be provided a
99

PA DOC Policy DC-ADM 802,
Administrative Custody Procedures, section
1(B)(2)(e).

mechanism whereby they can pledge
to adhere to the principles outlined
in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders, and other
relevant aspects of human rights
principles, practices, and law.
Human rights defenders inside the
prison can further state their
intention to work for human rights
by exercising their constitutional
prerogative to file grievances and/or
lawsuits, document and
communicate violations to outside
agencies, or other peaceful means
of seeking resolution.
Such a declaration of intentions and
principles by prisoners supportive of
and adherent to the protection of
human rights and fundamental
freedoms contains many positive
attributes. Perhaps foremost among
these is that in working with
prisoners to collectively formulate
and develop human rights literature
and curricula those incarcerated and
non-incarcerated men and women
engaged in this process will be
encouraged to nurture recognition
of and respect for the human rights
of all. Prisoners who in the past
have engaged in acts of violence and
deceit against family and
community, prisoners and prison
personnel, will have a much greater
likelihood of avoiding such personal
and socially harmful behaviors in the
future.
The potential impact on recidivism is
significant and human rights
oriented educational and vocational
programs should become mandatory
aspects of a genuine rehabilitative

79

and preventive approach to crime.
These programs will not be
effective, or will be severely
diminished in potential, if prisoners
are not given a central role in
shaping the curricula and practices
so as to address their own individual
and collective needs and problems.
Prisoners’ rights to exercise all
necessary rehabilitative ends needs
to become another non-negotiable
demand that we can initiate
immediately. This requires building
mass social support for the
protection of human rights
defenders inside the prison so as to
prohibit retaliation and intimidation.
There is no need to wait for
permission from the state to
exercise our basic right to create
and implement educational
programs and strategies for the
defense of human rights in
partnership with prisoners.
4. Abolish solitary
confinement.
Solitary confinement as currently
instituted by the PA DOC constitutes
torture, cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment and is strictly
prohibited by international law.100
Ongoing investigations and
monitoring of conditions of
confinement by HRC/Fed Up!
provide an unassailable basis for the
conclusion that the solitary
100

see Rodley and Pollard, The Treatment of
Prisoners Under International Law, Third
Edition, (2009) chapter 2, for discussion of the
prohibition of torture as constituting a
’peremptory norm’ of international law binding
on all states in all circumstances.

confinement units in the PA DOC are
never operated in accordance with
policy and law. Rather, solitary
confinement units by design or
default generate severe human
rights violations against prisoners
and criminal conduct on the part of
PA DOC personnel. Physical abuse
and assault, sexual harassment and
violence, overt and malicious racism,
psychological torment, medical
deprivation, starvation, exposure to
dangerously un-hygienic conditions,
constant intimidation and
retaliation, and the subversion of
prisoners’ due process rights are
normative features of the regime of
solitary confinement operated by the
PA DOC.
If the PA DOC wants to honestly
address institutional security then
they are required not to implement
and enable policies and practices of
dehumanization that guarantee
future antagonisms and violence
between prisoners and prisoners,
prisoners and prison personnel, and
former prisoners and the public
once the former are released into
the community. Prisoners who
engage in disruptive and/or violent
behavior can be separated from the
general population while still being
permitted ample opportunity
everyday to engage in supervised
congregate activities and provided
access to educational and creative
stimulation. If an altercation ensues
that requires physical intervention
on the part of prison staff and the
isolation of an individual, the period
of segregation needs to be as
limited as possible and counseling
staff and access to mental

80

stimulation need to be provided to
the disturbed person as soon as
possible. Psychotically violent
prisoners need greater attention,
not severe isolation, primarily in the
form of intensive mental health
treatment conducted in a secure
mental-health institution.
There is no legitimate basis for the
state of Pennsylvania to be
operating a regime of control unit
torture under the color of law.
Those in positions of executive
authority in the state of
Pennsylvania and its Department of
Corrections are guilty of
perpetrating crimes against
humanity.
The abolition of solitary confinement
is a necessary prerequisite if the
state of Pennsylvania and the U.S.
are to adhere to the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhumane and Degrading Treatment
or Punishment.
5. Create a culture of human
rights defenders.
Human rights are not and never
have been the gift of benevolent
authorities, but have been won
through decades and centuries of
human struggle against cruelty,
exploitation, and oppression. For
this reason those of us concerned
with the rights and lives of prisoners
need to deepen our understanding
of and participation in movements
for social justice.
Any human rights movement has to
address the fundamental question of

power: who holds it, how it is
defined, to what ends it is used, how
are decisions made, who suffers the
consequences and who reaps the
benefits. Given the controlling
power of concentrated wealth and
the human rights violations that
always occur when too few people
hold too much power, we must
realize that the protection and
expansion of human rights depends
upon the power of the movement to
redistribute and redefine social,
economic, and political power.
Providing a basic framework for the
protection and expansion of a
human rights culture is the UN
Declaration on the Right and
Responsibility of Individuals, Groups
and Organs of Society to Promote
and Protect Universally Recognized
Human Rights and Freedoms.101
Also known as the Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders, this
document outlines the rights and
responsibilities of people in their
personal, vocational, and communal
roles toward the observance and
realization of human rights.
This document proclaims
“[e]veryone has the right,
individually and in association with
others to promote and to strive for
the protection and realization of
human rights and fundamental
freedoms at the national and
international levels.” Also enshrined
are the rights to peaceful assembly,
formation and participation in nongovernmental organizations
dedicated to the defense of human
101

Brownlie and Goodwin-Gill, p. 230-236.

81

rights, and the right to obtain and
disseminate information relating to
the rights and freedoms of people.102
Outlining responsibilities of States,
article 15 declares:
The State has the responsibility
to promote and facilitate the
teaching of human rights and
fundamental freedoms at all
levels of education and to ensure
that all those responsible for
training lawyers, law
enforcement officers, the
personnel of the armed forces
and public officials include
appropriate elements of human
rights teaching in their
programs.

Complementing these
responsibilities are those accorded
to non-state actors in article 16:
Individuals, non-governmental
organizations and relevant
institutions have an important
role to play in contributing to
making the public more aware of
questions relating to all human
rights and fundamental freedoms
through activities such as
education, training and research
in these areas to strengthen
further, inter alia,
understanding, tolerance, peace
and friendly relations among
nations and among racial and
religious groups, bearing in mind
the various backgrounds of the
societies and communities in
which they carry out their
activities.103

102
103

One practical application of this
document is for civil society
organizations, including human and
civil rights groups, communities of
faith, educational associations, legal
service providers, and others, to act
in accord with the role described in
article 16 in order to compel the
observance of article 15 by the State
at every level of jurisdiction.
Toward this end the formation and
strengthening of human rights
alliances, development of curricula
and training programs on human
rights, and the articulation and
implementation of organizational
methods for enforcing international
human rights law must become our
highest priority on individual,
community, social, national, and
international levels. Our success in
this endeavor depends wholly on the
degree to which popular political
education and organization
strengthens and expands a culture
based on the recognition and
defense of universal human rights
for all peoples.
6. Enforce the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
and Make Prisons Obsolete
Any set of policies and institutions
that generate greater and not less
incarceration are clear failures.
Existing economic structures
exacerbate inequality and force ever
larger numbers of the population to
engage in occupations—such as
prostitution, drug-dealing,
burglary—that have been
criminalized for their very survival.

Ibid. Articles 1,5, and 6.
Ibid. p. 235.

82

The solution to addressing profound
and deliberate inequalities in socioeconomic power relationships is to
organize mass political movements
to redistribute and redefine wealth
and power.
More extensive discussion and
analysis of the necessity of such a
movement is beyond the scope of
this document, though it is
sufficient to note that the basis for
education, organizing, and action in
this respect can be found in the
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) and related
conventions and documents of
international human rights law.104
The basis of human rights
conventions, customs, practices, and
ideology are embodied in articles 13 of the UDHR:

Article 3: Everyone has the right
to recognition everywhere as a
person before the law.

The remainder of the UDHR and
subsequent international treaties
and UN resolutions and declarations
articulate a body of principles that
constitute an international order of
legally binding rights and
responsibilities and guidelines for
their realization. Human rights and
responsibilities represent an
interdependent cluster of
conventions and customs universal
in their application. Amongst these
are the following categories of
human rights:
•

Article 1: All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity
and rights. They are endowed
with reason and conscience and
should act towards one another
in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2: Everyone is entitled to
all the rights and freedoms set
forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as
race colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.

104

Ibid. 23-28. See this source for other
resolutions, declarations, conventions, and other
documents that guide and structure basic
international human rights law.

•

Civil Rights – Equality before
the law and throughout
society is to be enforced by
strict observance of due
process rights, equal access to
impartial and transparent
court proceedings, and
prohibition on discrimination
on any basis, including race,
gender, sexual orientation,
religion, political affiliation or
opinion, and class.
Political Rights – These include
the right for all social groups
to equal access to and
participation in democratic
elections, freedom of speech
and assembly, along with the
institution of practices and
structures for ensuring
substantial and selfdetermining political power
for all peoples. Selfdetermination is the core of
international human rights
law, as it is a prerequisite for
developing liberated,
83

•

•

•

•

democratic, and sustainable
societies in which individuals
and communities have the
power to make decisions
accorded to the degree in
which those decisions impact
their lives and communities.
Social and Economic Rights –
One’s choice of labor and
right to equitable
compensation for their work,
the right to form unions,
along with rights to social
security, food, housing, health
care, and education constitute
fundamental social and
economic rights.
Cultural Rights – These
guarantee cultural integrity to
all peoples in the exercise of
their religious, linguistic, and
other customs and practices
integral to their identities and
way of life.
Environmental Rights – These
include the rights to clean and
ample water, freedom from
pollution, clean air, protection
against climate
destabilization, protection of
forests and marine life,
respect for the ecological
balance necessary to sustain
human and non-human life.
These rights in combination
with rights to equality and life
are violated whenever
communities – particularly
indigenous communities and
communities of color the
world over – are selected as
sites for toxic industrial
processes and deposits.
Sexual Rights – Another vital
component toward the

fulfillment of the right of selfdetermination can be found in
sexual rights, which include
the right to have or not have
children, the right to marry
and when, same-sex rights,
trans-gender rights, rights to
birth control and abortion, the
right to sexual pleasure, and
the right to define families.105
When interdependent communities
have won the power to organize
their own economic and political
institutions and activities in
harmony with the earth so that basic
rights to life, health care, education,
food, housing, sexual orientation
and practice, due process and equal
access to and equality before the
law, and an ecologically sustainable
environment are universally
recognized and realized by and for
everybody, prisons will be
unnecessary.
Immediate steps toward this end
involve the development and
implementation of de-carceration
strategies geared at localizing the
economy along ecological and
democratic bases. Alliances with
community organizations, smallscale producers, organic and
sustainable farmers, teachers, health
care workers, communities of faith
105

Special gratitude to our allies at New Voices
Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive
Justice for clarifying and strengthening our
conception and understanding of human rights.
Also, thank you to Sister Song: Women of Color
for Reproductive Justice for producing the 8
Categories of Human Rights worksheet that
provided some of the basis for the breakdown of
human rights in this section.

84

and other individuals and groups
supportive of basic human rights
suggest a way to link diverse
movements, social institutions and
agencies, and people.

peoples in liberated communities
inhabiting a livable planet.

Ultimately, and not too far in the
future, the question of power must
be effectively confronted by human
rights alliances at every
jurisdictional level, from community
to municipal to county to state to
national to international. The
human rights movement needs to
redefine power and shape the
structures that govern social and
economic activity so that the
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights can be fully realized by free

85

Appendices
Appendix I
Case Study: Anthony Singleton—“I have relapsed. Daily the thought of
killing myself is there.”
Anthony Singleton first contacted our office while at SCI Dallas. Since that time
he has been transferred to SCI Fayette, where years before he witnessed a
friend of his commit suicide by hanging.
Immediately upon his transfer to
Fayette guards began a campaign of harassment against him because of
complaints made by Mr. Singleton to the Governor and others about violations
of his rights at SCI Dallas. Other staff, remembering Mr. Singleton from his
prior time served at Fayette, already had a pre-existing antagonism toward him.
The reports presented below regarding the treatment of Mr. Singleton, which
has been corroborated by several other prisoners confined in the solitary units
at Fayette and Dallas, illustrates how patterns and practices of human rights
violations migrate throughout the state’s control units.
David F. Kelly Bey (HE-7413) wrote on 7/1/09,
“Anthony Singleton… is intentionally being harassed by the prison guards
here at Fayette SCI… on several occasions prison guards have come to
Mr. Singleton cell and asked him I quote “You can’t hang it up yet?” “Just
go and kill yourself” “If you need some help or a rope to put around your
neck, that would end all your problem nigger!” I spoke with Mr. Singleton
who has explained to me that he think about killing himself because he
cannot sleep…[the] noise is stressing him out and the fact that he was
housed on this block in the past and witness another inmate killed
himself and as a result it has caused him mental torment and
trauma…every time he falls the sleep he is haunted by the act of
witnessing this inmate physically kill himself on this very same unit…
These officials has made threats on several inmates lives that if they ran
their mouths they will not be able to tell shit again to no one.”
In a Declaration submitted to HRC/Fed Up!, Anthony Singleton wrote about
some of his experiences with control unit torture:
I, Anthony Singleton, swear or affirm according to the Law that the below is true
to the best of my knowledge.

86

You ask me for as complete and comprehensive as possible my time
spent in the LTSU [Long-Term Segregation Unit] at Fayette—as to the date I went
in the LTSU I can’t remember, perhaps memory loss.
I was at SCI Pittsburgh around 1998, in population, got in some trouble
and went to their RHU [Restricted Housing Unit]. They transferred me to Greene
County SMU. I was at Greene SMU . . . from 1999 to 2001, failed the SMU
[Special Management Unit], developing mental health problems [such as] not
being able to sleep due to the 24 hour banging of other inmates on the doors of
the desk over top of me, beside me. This would go on for days and nights, then
weeks at a time. Some staff member who disliked me would give inmates extra
food trays to harass me, threaten to kill me, throw shit on me in the showers
and yard. I was then transferred back to SCI Pittsburgh up on the roof where
they housed the LTSU inmates. This had to be like 2002.
As to dates and times I tried to kill myself, I couldn’t tell you the many
attempts. Some nights I’d have to be driven to the hospital. I once stood in
front of the nurse and an officer while waiting on medications, and broke my
finger in front of them. At some point we were transferred to SCI Fayette
because Pittsburgh was being closed down. The same type of treatment was
repeated daily. I had shit thrown on me, I had rocks placed in my food, I was
encouraged by staff to kill myself, which I tried again and again. Even the
Psychologist Dr. Saaverdra tried to get me to kill myself, which I attempted and
left a note as to his action toward me which would be a part of record as I filed a
grievance all the way to Camp Hill. I went through hell.
I had a friend whom I became very close to, Juda. He only had three
years left before it was time for him to go home. He was with me at Pittsburgh
LTSU and when we moved to Fayette’s LTSU. At Fayette I would watch and listen
to Juda ask Dr. Gary Gallucci, who is now the Head of the psych department, for
help. He would inform Dr. Gallucci that it was too much pressure on him and
that he couldn’t handle any more. He begged, pleaded with Dr. Saavadera, but
received no help, would be told “take it one day at a time.” Juda and I would
stay up late some nights trying to talk over the banging.
One morning they were passing out the meal and his sheet was covering
his door. I called over to him 6 or 7 times because if the door is covered you
can’t eat. I knew something was wrong. I told both officers that his sheet had
been up all night and to take it down and check on him. When they pulled it
down, Juda was standing partly bent. He didn’t look dead but he wouldn’t
move. Then I saw the string around his neck. Anyway, he was gone. That
pushed me over the edge. To this day I cannot sleep with any light completely
off. I scream in the dark.
While in Fayette’s LTSU I was denied yard, shower, food. The
medical/psych staff were paid for nothing. I started hearing Juda’s voice, seeing
him laying there. He would ask me to do as he did, encouraging me to get it
over. One night I broke the glass out my eyeglasses, and cut across my arm
and veins in an attempt to kill myself. I received 12 stitches across my arm.
I have been on psych meds for over 9 years. Upon returning to SCI
Fayette, which I should not [have], I informed pscyh Dr. Galluci and Dr.
Saavadera that I cannot go through this again. This same staff who antagonized
me, who showed such hostility towards me, harassed me, is now doing the
same and [they] have housed me on the same L-block where Juda killed himself
and I made many attempts to do likewise. It is now an SMU and I should not be

87

housed on the same unit/block with SMU inmates. I am daily reliving my past,
my meds were cut off at SCI Dallas by Dr. Jane Jesse because she lied and said
she didn’t have my records. However, now I’m receiving prozac and thorazine
but no voice meds which [are] much needed.
At night there is Juda sitting on the floor with the rope around his neck,
grinning, asking me why didn’t I get it over with when he did. When I try to
block him out he passes in front of me. Never once was I sent to a Mental
Health Unit nor was I sent to Waymart for an evaluation, nor the Secure Special
Needs Unit program. I’m being denied the right to go to my property to retrieve
whatever grievances, documents, I have of my time spent in the LTSU. I’m being
given false misconducts to prevent me from reaching population. I’m being
retaliated against for reporting violations done to me at SCI Dallas.
I have relapsed. Daily the thought of killing myself is there.
Here an exhibit of what the psych do to help, which is nothing but come
to your door to merely be seen on film as if they were helping you. Here a
prescriptive treatment program evaluation which is no more than a joke,
something that should have at least taken 30 days, was done in sessions of 1
hour each. It was simply the reading and answering questions from a book. It
just shows how little they cared and care. They are trying to force me to kill
myself. Now it is a known fact that I suffered from suicidal depression, caused
to me by the event at Fayette’s LTSU. I should not be exposed to these
conditions inside the now SMU at Fayette. Capt. Leggett, Lt. Lear have given
orders that I’m not to leave the RHU ever [while] here at SCI Fayette.
Anthony Singleton #CW8923
7/5/09106

HRC/Fed Up! sent urgent notices to the Superintendent of SCI Fayette, the
Director of the PA DOC’s Office of Professional Responsibility, James Barnacle,
DOC Secretary Jeffrey Beard, and Governor Edward Rendell regarding Mr.
Singleton’s suicidal condition and his need for immediate and intensive mental
health care. The plea was ignored by all. In the coming weeks Mr. Singleton
attempted suicide on two occasions: once by hanging in July, and on October 2,
2009 he set his cell and possibly himself on fire. He has consistently been held
in a hard cell,107 deprived property, given additional misconducts, been called
racist slurs, and encouraged to kill himself. His current and past conditions of
mental illness have been confirmed by visitors, family, and fellow prisoners. He
has also been taken off medications he has found helpful for his refusal to take
medications he finds detrimental. Despite repeated hunger strikes he is still
being denied mental health care.
The deterioration in Mr. Singleton’s circumstances is directly related to his
treatment by RHU staff and officials at SCI Dallas. As conditions at Dallas
worsened Anthony and his family and outside support pressed for the transfer
that led him back to Fayette. Recounting his experiences at Dallas, on 3/4/09,
106
107

Declaration of Anthony Singleton #CW8923, submitted to HRC/Fed Up!, July 2009, on file.
“Hard cell” refers to a barren cell with no property, linens, and sometimes without a mattress.

88

Singleton wrote:
“At any rate, I was never given these due process requirements and
instead I have been placed in the RHU where I am repeatedly taunted by
officers who smell strongly of alcohol, being called faggot, dick eater,
sodomite, etc. I have seen inmates and had my water turned off for days
where I couldn’t flush my toilet, couldn’t wash, or get water. I’ve had my
trays denied to me and seen it done to other inmates. I’ve had officers
threaten to run into my cell and beat me down and am aware that it has
been done during my time down here where an officer had an inmates’
door opened and entered his cell by himself in a L-5 housing unit to
assault another inmate. Staff destroy inmate’s property, leave the yard
door open during showers and while we are in our cells to freeze out
inmates in the hole. I have seen inmates put in cells with mental health
single cells inmates so that they fight each other while the officers make
bets. I have had officers tell me and another mental health inmate that
they would make me kill myself by grinding me up while knowing I have a
mental health history. I have filed grievances that are not responded to,
falsified, or outright fabricated in an effort to deny due process. The
officers threaten inmates with retaliation in the form of falsified
misconducts (usually threatening), or denial of food, water & showers.
They flood cells to soak our property and legal work etc. Allow officers
to sit in on disciplinary hearings and participate without being part of the
hearing tribunal, and destroy or ignore all appeals.”
Singleton later (4/12/09) noted that he is receiving politically motivated
treatment because of complaints he submitted to the governor and other
attempts to file grievances. Prisoners sometimes report that those who are
incarcerated at SCI Dallas are treated worse if they do not have outside support.
Singleton wrote, “where they see you have no OUT side support they turn up
their grind.”
Appendix II—What good is a jury? by Andre Jacobs
In November 2008 I acted as my own attorney in a civil action against the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (D.O.C.), which involved the unlawful
seizure and destruction of my legal materials by prison officials in retaliation
for exercising my First Amendment right under the United States Constitution
to seek redress of my grievances. On November 24, 2008, an eight (8) member
jury exonerated ten (10) D.O.C. employees after three days of deliberation and
entered verdicts in my favor against Carol A. Scire, Gregory Giddens, and
Thomas McConnell on claims of conspiracy, retaliation, obstruction of access to
courts, and defamation of my character. I was awarded $185,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages, property damage, and harm to my
reputation.

89

On September 21, 2009, on a post-verdict motion filed by Attorney Scott
A. Bradley, Federal District Court Judge Joy Flowers Conti ran afoul of my 7tlh
Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution to a trial by jury and overrode the
jury’s conclusion that defendants Scire, McConnell, and Giddens conspired to
violate my federal rights and that, despite clear evidence that defendants
seized and destroyed my legal property and fabricated official state documents
in an attempt to conceal it, no violation of my right to access the courts
occurred. This resulted in a $70,000 reduction on the jury’s award, stripping
me of my due process rights and a verdict won fair and square.
Although I am the first prisoner to win a verdict this big in the history of
litigation against the PA DOC, none of the newspapers are reporting to the
public these silent and catastrophic attacks on this verdict for all concerned
with prisoners’ rights and the jury’s right to not have their factual
determinations re-examined by any court. What good is a jury if a dissatisfied
judge can alter their decision and replace it with her own?
Within days of the verdict spreading like wildfire, prison guards began a
campaign of harassment against me and buried me in solitary confinement with
their false disciplinary reports against me. Then, by order of the Commissioner
of Corrections himself, Jeffrey A. Beard, I was officially placed on Restricted
Release, which means I’ll remain in solitary confinement until I’m released from
prison or I die. This decision was made with full awareness of the known
adverse side-effects of solitary confinement, my diagnoses of dystmia and post
traumatic stress disorder, and the August 24, 2009 suicide of Matthew Bullock
in SCI Dallas’ Solitary Confinement unit where I am also housed. Mr. Bullock
was mentally ill and was being subjected to psychological torture by corrupt
prison guards who are serial offenders but are never punished. These same
guards routinely starve me of food, have twice assaulted me on video and have
threatened me with more attacks and eventual death.
As recently as October 1, 2009, the same attorney I defeated at trial,
Scott A. Bradley, of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, has ridden on
the momentum of sabotaging my victory by asking that the Court reduce the
remaining $115,000 to as little as $500. If this perversion of justice and the
jury’s verdict is to continue, I call on every organization, attorney, and member
of society to assist me in educating the world in what goes on behind the jury’s
back in America.
“Though the heavens fall, let justice be done”
Appendix III—Seeking Accountability
Efforts to advocate on behalf of prisoners, expose reports of human rights

90

violations and torture to the public and state officials, and seek accountability
have been ongoing since the initiation of HRC/Fed Up!’s investigation into
conditions of confinement at SCI Dallas. These measures have built upon and
coincided with other ongoing efforts to generate exposure and demand
accountability for criminal violations of prisoners’ human rights throughout the
PA DOC. To date the PA DOC, Luzerne County DA Musto, PA Attorney General
Corbett, Governor Rendell, and the PA General Assembly have failed to launch
legitimate investigations.
The Other Inauguration Celebration
An April letter sent to each member of the PA legislature along with the
Governor requested the convening of public hearings that would serve as the
initiation of a process to investigate and overhaul a system rooted in brutality
and damaging to public security and welfare. The communication began with a
description of multiple assaults of a retaliatory and racist nature orchestrated
to coincide with the inauguration of Barack Obama:
On January 20, 2009, the same day that Barack Obama was being inaugurated
as the first Black President of the United States, white guards under the
command of Unit Manager Christopher Chambers engaged in a series of
beatings against six black men confined in the Special Management Unit in the
State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill (SCI Camp Hill). Under the pretext of
conducting cell searches Correctional Officers (C/O) Liddick, Brant, Zeigler,
Sergeant Maxwell, and Lieutenant Kuzar, along with others, removed Gary
Tucker, David Smith, Damont Hagan, Ronald Jackson, Willie Robinson, and Jamar
Perry from their cells, attacking them with mace and electro-shock weapons,
stripping them naked, and subsequently holding them in bare and filthy cells
without any property or clothing for 6 full days. Most of them remained covered
in mace, several were bleeding, and all were denied medical attention.
Over half a dozen witness Declarations signed pursuant to the penalty of
perjury, along with additional informational reports, testify to the grim details.
The reasons behind these assaults were best articulated by C/O Liddick when,
according to several eyewitnesses, he approached Gary Tucker’s cell prior to the
attack and stated, “Since this guy likes filing grievances [against staff], let’s
make an example out of him.” Lt. Kuzar provided further evidence of racist
motivations when he stated over the unit loudspeaker on January 20th, “He
[Obama] may have won, in my eyes he’s still a nigger. . . . There will be no
showers or yard today. We are going to show you niggers who run this SMU.”108

This was followed by a trip to the state capitol in Harrisburg by a coalition of 25
family members of PA’s incarcerated population and human rights defenders.
The offices of 100 representatives were visited and each was presented with
108

HRC-Accountability Council in Defense of Prisoners’ Rights and Lives, letter to PA General
Assembly, April 9, 2009, on file.

91

documentation of human rights violations, a letter outlining immediate steps
for addressing the crisis, information on solitary confinement, and information
to aid legislators and staff members in conducting tours of prisons and
interviews with prisoners.
Of the 253 representatives and senators in the PA General Assembly who
received the letter, and the 100 who received substantial additional information
when we went to their offices, only one notified us of their making an inquiry
into the matter. In a letter sent to PA DOC Secretary, Jeffrey Beard, Philadelphia
Representative Babette Josephs noted: “If [HRC’s reports of inhumane treatment
of inmates are] true, this alleged poisonous behavior amounts to human rights
violations that are more commonly identified in the prison systems of
authoritarian or totalitarian states, not to those in our nation.”109 She went on
to call on Beard to “provide assistance in investigating these matters fully.”
The only forthcoming action was initiated by House Judiciary Chairman Thomas
Caltigirone, who convened an “Informal Informational Roundtable” involving 9
of the 28 House Judiciary Committee members, a handful of other
representatives, senators, and aides, PA DOC Legislative Liaison John Coyne,
and James Barnacle, Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
for the PA DOC.110 The public, including HRC, was prohibited from attending.
According to the Roundtable meeting minutes, the discussion revolved around
descriptions of OPR’s procedures for investigating reports of prisoner abuse
and the incident on January 20th. Director Barnacle stated that reports of abuse
were investigated when in fact the prisoners subjected to the attacks have
consistently denied ever having been interviewed by OPR.111
In a notarized affidavit from June 15, 2009 submitted to HRC/Fed Up!, Gary
Tucker wrote: “Throughout the course of this ongoing investigation I was never
interviewed and to date I still haven’t been interviewed. Nor was a statement
taken from me or any of the other victims who were extracted on 1.20.09.” The
affidavit also notes that he sent letters regarding his claim of excessive force to
Secretary Beard, Regional Deputy Secretary Shirley Moore-Smeal, and OPR
Deputy Director David Novitsky. Mr. Tucker then claims that James Barnacle
wrote him on March 6, 2009, acknowledging receipt of his letter and informing
him that he would be notified of the results of the investigation upon its
completion.112
Not until six months after the incident, and subsequent to Director Barnacle’s
assertions at the Roundtable meeting, on July 22, 2009 was Gary Tucker
109

Letter to Secretary Jeffrey Beard from Representative Babette Josephs, April 28, 2009, on file.
The Office of Professional Responsibility is the internal investigative agency of the PA DOC.
111
PA General Assembly House Judiciary Committee Minutes, May 18, 2009, on file.
112
Affidavit of Gary Tucker, June 15, 2009, on file.
110

92

interviewed by OPR. Mr. Tucker says he was visited by Mr. Ellis, who had in his
possession the affidavit cited in the above paragraph, which had been sent to
approximately 70 state legislators at the beginning of July. On the same day he
was finally interviewed by OPR he received notification that his grievance in this
matter had already been denied three weeks earlier.113
How can James Barnacle discredit prisoner reports of abuse in front of the
House Judiciary without having interviewed those reporting the abuse and their
witnesses? Why would OPR bother to interview Mr. Tucker after a formal
decision regarding his grievance had been determined?
Investigations lack legitimacy when they fail to interview prisoners and their
witnesses, withhold security camera footage from prisoners, legislators, and
the public, and refuse to produce documentation as to the contents of the
alleged investigation for public scrutiny.

113

Correspondence from Gary Tucker, July 31, 2009, on file.

93