New services (coming soon)

One thing I have wanted to do with the blogs since their inception is to vet products and services for those of you who have friends and loved ones in the DOC system. Next year will be my 16th consecutive year as a prisoner of MDOC, so I have an idea of what guys want and what they might need to help them do their time more easily.

I would like to see your feedback on this particular topic. We are thinking about starting out by doing book reviews with links to purchase a copy of the book that meets the requirements of prison mailrooms (paperback, not spiral-bound, no CD inclusions, etc.). So many folks are overwhelmed by trying to do something for their incarcerated loved one because of the numerous and often arbitrary restrictions that they don't even know where to begin. I hope that we can make the process a bit easier.

Once we see how this works out, we will consider adding other services. Keep in mind that these blogs are maintained for me by my loved ones who volunteer their time and energy. They have gone through -and are still going through- what you are going through right now. You aren't alone in all this. There are people who understand and who care. I want to see these blogs spark a community of those affected by the prison industrial complex, who support one another.

A quick reminder... Holidays are one of the most difficult times for prisoners and those who love them. Try to make allowances because it's a stressful period for almost everyone. Love and light to you all.

Print Page

Prison Glossary- Mississippi Department of Corrections Hierarchy

The Department of Corrections (DOC) hierarchy can seem a bit confusing, but here are the basic positions, from top down:

Commissioner of MDOC- a politically appointed position, the Commissioner has the final say in the running of the Department and is its prime mouthpiece.
Deputy Commissioner- there are three of these positions: Institutions (DCI), Community Corrections (DCC) and Administration and Finance (DAF). They are a step down from the Commissioner and more involved in running the DOC, especially the DCI.
Superintendent- there are three State facilities (MSP, CMCF, SMCI) with one Superintendent each. They are responsible for the operation of their respective facility and answer to the DCI and the Commissioner.
Warden- appointed by the Superintendent, the Warden is responsible for their Area or Unit. They approve any in-house rules and such, but it is still basically a political position. Prisoners rarely speak or interact with a Warden.
Deputy Warden- usually one or two per Area or Unit, they are picked by the Warden and approved by the Superintendent. They are responsible for security plans and things like programs, and you see them more often than the Warden.
Assistant Warden- usually one or two per Area or Unit, they are picked by the Warden and approved by the Superintendent. More of the grunt work is delegated to them and they are seemingly on the same level as Majors and Captains.

The correctional officers are the ones that prisoners are in contact with every day and are the ones who truly have to implement any decisions that filter down from the top, and suffer any consequences that come from it. Their ranks from highest to lowest are:

• Major- almost on the level of an administrative position, you don't see them often.
• Captain- more visible than Majors, but seen only when they make their rounds.
• Lieutenant- part of the staff you see daily, they are more hands-on.
• Sargeant- usually work right along with your C.O.s, they are visible on a daily basis.
• C.O.- technically every guard is a C.O., but the lowest ranks are referred to as C.O.s and are your grunt workers who get their hands dirty dealing with the prisoners.

Print Page

Prison Glossary - RVR

RVR is an abbreviation that stands for Rule Violation Report. A RVR is a form that is filled out by a prison employee who has witnessed or has become aware that a prisoner has violated one of the MDOC rules. The employee, once aware that a violation has occured, must author the report and it must be issued to the prisoner within 24 hours. The RVR is to state the prisoner's name/DOC #/housing unit, date/time, rule alleged to have been violated, the circumstances and details, any witnesses the prisoner intends to call, who authored the report and who delivered it, and if the accused waves their right to a hearing. 

Categories of violations (with respective punishments):

Category A (Minor Violations) - for such as possession of any item or quantities not on the allowable items list, faking illness or injury, failure to abide by any institutional schedule or documented rules, or not following dress codes or grooming standards. Punishment ranges from a warning or reprimand, to loss of all privileges up to one month, excluding exercise periods.

Category B (Serious Violations) - for things such as improper or unauthorized use of state equipment or materials, refusing or failing to obey an order by staff, tattooing/piercing yourself or others, vulgar language, horseplay, gambling, stealing, possession of serious contraband (money, gang material, drug paraphernalia), giving or receiving anything of value to or from another. Punishment ranges from loss of all privileges for up to two months, disciplinary segregation up to 20 days for each offence, loss of up to 30 days earned time for each offence.

Category C (Major Violations) - has a shorter list of violations, but for a reason. Violations in this category are such as destroying state property valued at $100 or more, destroying or tampering with locking or security equipment, using mail to obtain things by fraud, escape, possession of major contraband (firearms, knife or sharpened instrument, tools, explosives/ammunition, illegal drugs, electronic devices or parts, stolen property valued at more than $100), assaultive action resulting in serious injury, murder, hostage taking, or inciting a riot. Punishment ranges from requirement of restitution, to custody review, disciplinary segregation, loss of all privileges up to two months, loss of all earned time and referral to the District Attorney if warranted.

Print Page

Prison Glossary - Custody Status

Custody status is a status applied to a prisoner which determines how and where the prisoner is to be housed, what is to be made available and what restrictions will be placed on them.

Initial classification (Mississippi) 

When a prisoner is sentenced in Mississippi, they are transported to Central Mississippi Correctional Facility (CMCF) in Rankin County and turned over to MDOC, or picked up by bus from the county jail by MDOC. CMCF is where they are processed into the prison system and where they are initially classified.  There are custody statuses that the prisoner is classified into depending on how many points they score, determined by the Inmate Classification Score Sheet. 

List of custody statuses (from least restricted to most restricted):
A - minimum and medium out (0-4 points)
B - minimum and medium out (5-10 points)
C - open (11-18 points)
C - closed ((long term status) 18+ points)
Security Threat Group (special status)
High Risk Status (special status)
 

Classification Criteria:  

Classification criteria determine how many points a prisoner scores.

1) History of institutional violence (jail or prison, score most serious RVR within last 10 years)
2) Severity of current offence (score most serious offence if there are multiple convictions)
3) Severity of prior felony convictions (score most serious prior felony conviction within last 10 years)
4) Escape history (last 10 years)
5) Current age
6) Institutional disciplinary report (last 12 months)
7) Severity of most serious report
8) Performance in recommended work/treatment programs (during last 6 months)

Identification:

The prisoner's custody status is visibly identified by the pants they are issued to wear. 

A-custody wears pants with green and white horizontal stripes; 

B-custody wears pants with black and white horizontal stripes; 

open C-custody wears pants with red and white horizontal stripes; 

closed C-custody wears a yellow jumpsuit or yellow pants and shirt.

 



Print Page

Revised Administrative Remedy Program

This post isn't going to be a step-by-step guide to file a "grievance" through the Administrative Remedy Program, but will instead give a description of the program, what it is for, & how it has recently changed. I am, however, in the process of authoring some "how-to" guides, & the ARP will be thoroughly covered. In the meantime, if you're looking to give some info about the ARP to a loved one in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, you can tell them to start by requesting Policy 20.08 from the Inmate Legal Assistance Program wherever they are housed.


The Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) was certified by the U.S. District Court (Greenville Division) on February 15, 1994. On April 18, 1994, this formal administrative remedy instrument was installed by the Mississippi Department of Corrections in all its facilities for use by any inmate in the custody of the Department. The Prison Litigation Reform Act enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1996 requires a prisoner to exhaust all available administrative remedies before they can proceed with a suit in the courts. Informal resolutions can still be sought, but to ensure their right to use the formal procedure, a prisoner must file a request to the Legal Claims Adjudicator of the ARP within 30 days of when the incident occurred.


According to policy, the ARP is set up so a prisoner can seek a formal review of a complaint which relates to any aspect of their incarceration (policies, conditions, or events) that affect them personally. My personal experience with the program is that the respondents do not seek to remedy the matter or investigate, but use the process to deter & discourage a prisoner from seeking remedies to their legitimate complaints & delay them from pursuing the matter in court. Usually I do not bother filing an ARP request unless I am willing to carry the matter to court, & that is what I prepare for from the outset.



As of August 19, 2010, the ARP was amended from a three step to a two step appeal process, supposedly because the third step was not needed & may have impeded or slowed inmate access to court. I don't understand how it could have slowed access to court because it STILL HAS A 90 DAY TIME LIMIT from initiation to completion. At least a prisoner doesn't have to deal with the extra paperwork of the unnecessary third step now.



Once the prisoner has filed their complaint with the Legal Claims Adjudicator of the ARP within 30 days of the incident, the request is screened by the Adjudicator & the prisoner is notified if their request is being rejected & the reason for the rejection. The ARP is supposed to notify the prisoner when their request is accepted, but they don't. From the day the request is accepted for processing, the First Step Respondent has 40 days to reply.



After receiving the first step response, a prisoner can proceed to the second step within 5 days if they are not satisfied by indicating such & the reasons why on the response form & forwarding it to the Legal Claims Adjudicator. The Second Step Respondent has 45 days to respond. When the prisoner receives the second step response, they have exhausted the administrative remedies &, if not satisfied, can proceed on to court.

Understanding the Limitations of the Consent Decree

Wading through the mire that is legalese isn't an easy task. I hope that I am able to shine some light on the framework that the courts must work within when dealing with correcting unconstitutional prison conditions. I'll try to not veer off the topic.

I always recommend reading the laws and cases for yourself. The restrictions I speak of now can be found in United States Code Annotated, Title 18- Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part II- Criminal Procedure, Chapter 229- Postsentence Administration, Subchapter C- Imprisonment, 18 U.S.C.A. §3626, which has been effective since November 26, 1997.

§3626 is no joke, and it begins setting limits with its first lines:

Appropriate remedies with respect to prison conditions
  (a) Requirements for Relief.--
      (1) Prospective relief.--

          (A) Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison

          conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the

          violation of the Federal right of particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.

          The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

          the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no

          further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal

          right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the

          violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial

          weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation

          of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.

The courts are being told to grant the least amount of relief possible; just enough to correct the problem. And if the possible changes might be too costly or might effect public safety (as with releasing prisoners due to overcrowding), it's possible the courts won't grant relief at all.

A rash of prisoner lawsuits, many of which were frivolous, precede the laws and decisions that severely limited suits brought by prisoners. The Prison Litigation Reform Act set the stage and was followed by 18 U.S.C.A. §3626. Since then, more and more hurdles have been set up to obstruct prisoner litigation.

As I mentioned in the post titled, MDOC To Be Released From Presley v. Epps Agreement, one of the things that is limited is how long court ordered or enforced relief can last. The relevant subsection of §3626 reads:

(b) Termination of Relief.--
    (1) Termination of prospective relief.--
        (A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which
        prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon
        to motion of any party or intervener--
            (i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the
            prospective relief;
            (ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying
            termination of prospective relief under this paragraph; or
            (iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of
            enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years after
            such date of enactment.

This is why, two years after the final modification of the consent decree, it had to be dismissed without prejudice. And now that Unit 32 has been closed down, the conditions there are a moot point. It was agreed upon between the plaintiffs and defendants in the Presley v. Epps suit that the standards for the Presley class would follow the class members wherever they were moved in the process of closing Unit 32.

Wilkinson County Correctional Facility

In the process of emptying Unit 32 of prisoners, I was transferred to Wilkinson County Correctional Facility in Woodville, Mississippi. A trip of approximately 200 miles, lasting between 4 and 5 hours, sandwiched in with 9 other inmates, one of which was just doused in pepper spray.

Any change from the environment of Unit 32 was welcome. The Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman has an oppressive air about it -so much so that every time I've left the grounds of that prison, it has felt like a literal weight was lifted from my shoulders.

Wilkinson County Correctional Facility is operated by the Corrections Corporation of America, and has contracted with the MDOC since last year to start housing prisoners on longterm-segregation status. Normally they wouldn't have wanted to house prisoners that are on longterm-seg because it costs more, but with the downturn of the economy in recent years, the corporation reevaluated its policy.

Understandably, WCCF wasn't prepared to house the prisoners shipped in from Parchman. They were not accustomed to dealing with this many prisoners in lockdown. They are still adjusting, but I have to say, they are making progress. I will write about conditions in a future post. I do want to give some basic info here.

The main administration is composed of Warden Jacquelyn Banks, Assistant Warden Vines, and Assistant Warden Walker. From what I've seen, they aren't about micromanaging. They appoint individuals to positions and allow them to do their jobs. That makes for a better atmosphere than that of Unit 32, where the style of administration was exactly the opposite.

WCCF's physical address is 2999 U.S. Highway 61 North, and it's located two miles north on Highway 61/junction 563.

The mailing address is:

Wilkinson County Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 1079
Woodville, MS 39669-1079

And they can be reached by calling- (601) 888-3199

Print Page

Unit 32 Consent Decree Voluntarily Dismissed

Years of litigation was effectively brought to an end with the planned termination of the Presley V. Epps Consent Decree on August 2, 2010.  Magistrate Judge Jerry Davis, who presided over the Fairness Hearing, was well pleased with the outcome and all the progress that had been made.

Judge Davis was effusive in his praise of all parties involved, but especially so of Commissioner Christopher Epps and Deputy Commissioner of Institutions E.L. Sparkman.  And rightly so, since they'd put their careers on the line in the gamble to change the conditions at Unit 32 instead of deciding on a prolonged legal battle through the courts.

Also present at the hearing: Leonard Vincent and Jim Norris, counsel for the Mississippi Department of Corrections; DCI E.L. Sparkman; Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the National Prison Project of the ACLU, and Stephen Hanlon of Holland & Knight LLP, counsel for the Plaintiffs.  Present via closed-circuit camera at the Mississippi State Penitentiary's "mock court": Jeff Davis and Richard Jordan, both death row prisoners; Roy Harper and Steven Farris, state prisoners housed at Unit 32; and Angelo Bullerd, housed at Unit 29.

There was an informal feel to the proceedings as Mr. Sparkman took the stand, was sworn in, and Ms. Winter questioned him about issues the Presley class members had raised.  The main concerns were whether or not the rights secured in the Consent Decree would continue, and whether they would follow the class members wherever they were moved as Unit 32 is closed.  The prisoner feared the Consent Decree would be dismissed and it would just start the whole process and struggle over from the beginning.  These fears were allayed and they were assured the rights secured would continue.  For more on this and the reasons for closing Unit 32, click here.

Things look promising, so far.  Only time will tell though, and I will keep you updated if at all possible.
Print Page

Update On Chandrina Perry . . .

After receiving a comment on the last post stating that there were reports that Perry had previously been arrested in late 2009 and charged with (5) five counts of introducing contraband, my family investigated further. According to the Sunflower County Court - which is also where the Sheriff's Office is - Chandrina Perry, was NOT arrested prior to February 2010. The clerk that was spoken to said that the info about an arrest in late 2009 was false.

As an aside, I'd like to point out the irony of the situation. A prisoner helping to clear the name of a former CID Investigator and Alderman.

Print Page

The News from Unit 32. . .

There has been another setback for the Mississippi State Penitentiary's tentatively scheduled closing of its maximum security unit. Out of 5 buildings in Unit 32, only B-building remains open. After moving the rest of the prisoners out of E-building in Unit 32 and closing the building on Thursday, July 1st, more prisoners were moved into the unit the following day. Approximately 13 to 17 prisoners were transferred to the Mississippi State Penitentiary from the Greenwood facility after rival gangs there fought eachother. I'll report more on this as I find out. A freeze was also placed on the reassignment and transfer of guards working at Unit 32.

Timothy Morris, head warden of the maximum security unit, has been out on "major medical" leave since June 24th following knee surgery. Deputy Warden George Davenport is the acting warden until Mr. Morris returns.

From all sources I've spoken to, I have been told that the Death Row prisoners, the prisoners on the High Risk Incentive Program and others still in Unit 32 lockdown are to be moved to J-building of Unit 29. However, J-building will have to undergo some serious modifications before it is suitable to house Death Row or the other members of the Presley class. No work has begun on J-building as of yet.

The previous unit that housed Death Row, Unit 17 (also known as MSU), has been undergoing some work. So far there is only speculation as to the reasons for the renovations. Right now there are 57 prisoners on Death Row at the Mississippi State Penitentiary. The scheduled execution of Joseph D. Burns, MDOC #42963, is July 21, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. More executions are possibly forthcoming in Mississippi this year. Unit 17 holds 56 prisoners. Do the math.

Print Page

Former MDOC Officer Sentenced For Smuggling

On June 21, former investigator Chandrina Perry, began to learn firsthand what serving time is like. After cutting a deal with the prosecutors, Chandrina Perry was sentenced to 60 days in the Sunflower County jail by Judge Margaret Carey-McCray.

Perry was an investigator for the Correctional Investigation Division at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman. The Bolivar Commercial had initially interviewed Sheriff James Haywood about the circumstances after Perry's arrest.

Earlier in June, Chandrina Perry had resigned her position as an alderman in Shaw. She had served on the board for less than a year. Although no reason was cited for Perry's resignation, the cause became apparent later that month with her subsequent plea and sentence.

Print Page

Mississippi Department of Corrections - How to Send Money To A Prisoner

Effective February 1, 2009 the Mississippi Department of Corrections will no longer accept money orders for inmate deposits. Any money orders postmarked after January 31st will be returned to sender.

In the interest of efficiency and security, the Department now offers these simple and convenient payment options from CYBERSUITE Correctional Services, a division of Keefe Commissary Network.

Previously, the only option for sending money to a loved one at the Department of Corrections was to send in a money order. In addition to the aggravation of actually getting the money orders, they could also take as long as a week to post to the residents' account. In an effort to make the process easier and improve the efficiency and security regarding resident deposits, the following payment options are now offered for family and friends:

3 FAST AND SECURE WAYS TO DEPOSIT FUNDS

Toll Free Phone Deposits – 866-345-1884
Bi-Lingual Call Center Staff
Accepts MasterCard and Visa credit and debit cards
Fees as low as $4.95
Deposits allowed up to $300

Internet Deposits – www.inmatedeposits.com
24/7 Availability
Accepts MasterCard and Visa credit and debit cards
Fees as low as $3.95
Deposits allowed up to $300
In order to make a deposit using our secure website, you will need to create a profile on your first visit and have an active email address. Once you are registered, your deposit history and inmate recipient list will be saved for your convenience.

Walk-In Cash Payment Deposits – Western Union Quick Collect™
Over 45,000 Western Union locations
Call 800-325-6000 or visit www.westernunion.com for locations near you
Fees as low as $5.95
Cash deposits allowed up to $5,000
In order to make a Walk-In Cash Payment please follow these simple instructions:
1. Go to a participating Western Union location
2. Fill out the blue Quick Collect form and include the following:
-Quick Collect Pay To: MDOC
-Code City, State: MDOC, MS
-Account Number*: Inmate's ID# and last name
-Attention: Inmate's first and last name
-Posting Time: 1 business day
3. Turn in the completed form with your cash (including fee) to the Agent clerk.

Print Page

MDOC Plans To Close Unit 32 At Mississippi's State Penitentiary

At the April 12, 2010 hearing held at Aberdeen's Federal Courthouse, the Mississippi Department Of Corrections announced its intention to close Unit 32 over the next year or so, subject approval by the State Legislature.

Before April 12th, the MDOC had shown no interest in a settlement. However, at the April 14th session presided over by Magistrate Judge Jerry Davis, MDOC consented to work on a settlement agreement with the National Prison Project of the ACLU. At that time the agreement was to be in final form by June, whereby both parties would assent that the consent decree would be dismissed without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs (NPP and prisoners) will be allowed to bring a motion in February of 2011 to restore the case to the court's active calendar if the Defendants (MDOC) haven't made certain specified improvements by that time concerning medical and mental health care at Unit 32. If the Unit is closed before then, this will be a moot point.

Print Page

MDOC Internal Affairs Investigator Arrested for Alleged Smuggling

On February 22, Corrections Investigation Division Investigator, Chandrina Perry, was arrested at Mississippi's State Penitentiary at Parchman for allegedly smuggling two cellular phones onto prison grounds. The Shaw, MS woman was arrested by her fellow CID Investigators and charged with two counts of introducing contraband into a prison. Bond was set at $20,000.

Print Page

A Description of the Presley v. Epps Consent Decree

A consent decree as defined by Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law, is "a court order entered between a federal agency and a party accused of illegal conduct in the field regulated by the agency, resolving the case and typically including a promise by the party not to engage in certain activities in the future."

In this case the MDOC knew they were in a no-win situation. They could fight the lawsuit, drag it out in court for as long as possible -maybe years- and waste a lot of the taxpayers' money as they normally do. Or they could go ahead and agree to do what they would eventually have to do anyway. Commissioner Christopher Epps and Deputy Commissioner E. L. Sparkman did the smart thing. They also agreed to some things that they would not have had to do, had they chosen to battle it out in court.

The lawsuit was filed in June of 2005 by the National Prison Project of the ACLU and Holland & Knight, LLP, on behalf of four individual prisoners seeking relief for all prisoners confined in Unit 32 of the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, MS. Those four prisoners are Jeffery Presley, Dennis Brumfield, Steven Farris, and Marcus Williams.

MDOC, as the suit claimed, was subjecting those of us in Unit 32 to inhumane living conditions and excessive force, depriving us of medical and mental health treatment, and denying us procedural due process in housing us at Unit 32. We asked for an injunction guaranteeing improved conditions for all prisoners housed in Unit 32, and that the suit be recognized as a class action, so that any remedy we got would apply to all prisoners there.

The consent decree was drafted in February of 2006 and made official not long after. It requires MDOC to do the following:

(A) ensure that the cell to which a prisoner is moved is clean prior to the move and provide adequate cleaning supplies and equipment;

(B) From May through September, ensure that each cell throughout Unit 32 is equipped with a fan, and provide a 32-ounce cup of ice to each prisoner in Unit 32 three times a day;

(C) Ensure that each prisoner is allowed to take a shower every day, six days per week, year round;

(D) Implement an effective mosquito eradication and pest control program;

(E) Eradicate the problem of "ping-pong" toilets in every cell in Unit 32;

(F) Make sure that there is adequate lighting in every cell;

(G) Make sure that the medical services provider delivers adequate medical care for serious health needs;

(H) Ensure that medical service providers do not require prisoners to make unreasonable co-payments for services;

(I) Provide appropriate care for patients with chronic diseases;

(J) Provide appropriate off-site medical consultation, hospitalization, and specialty care for patients in need of those services;

(K) Provide adequate mental health care;

(L) Provide housing for prisoners with psychosis and severe mental health illnesses seperate and apart from all other prisoners that is appropriate in light of their special needs;

(M) Prevent excessive risk to prisoners of staph infection;

(N) Ensure that food trays are properly cleaned and sanitized prior to food service, that food portions are adequate, and that food is served at appropriate and safe temperatures;

(O) Allow prisoners out-of-cell exercise and complete the new exercise pens no later than July 1, 2006;

(P) Reasonably ensure that all incidents of major force by correctional staff against prisoners are thoroughly investigated and documented, and that the use of excessive force is not tolerated;

(Q) Provide all prisoners who are assigned to Unit 32, and not sentenced to death, with prior notice of the factual basis for the assignment to Unit 32, a hearing, an opportunity to appeal, and at least a semi-annual review with the same rights of notice, opportunity to be heard, and appeal;

(R) Formulate and implement a plan whereby all prisoners who are assigned to Unit 32 and not sentenced to death may, through good behavior and a step-down system, earn their way to less restrictive housing.
Print Page

MDOC To Be Released From Presley v. Epps Agreement?

After two years of being bound by agreement enforceable in court, the Mississippi Department of Corrections has petitioned to be released from the Consent Decree reached in the Presley v. Epps case. The attorneys for the MDOC are telling the court and anyone else who will listen that the MDOC has not only met, but has exceeded everything set out in the Consent Decree that was to be done. That's not true. I agree that many things have improved, for awhile. However, the only thing consistent about MDOC is its inconsistency. Parchman in particular has a long history of needing the courts to force them to do what they are supposed to.

What I'd like you to think about for a moment is just why MDOC is so anxious to be released from this agreement. If everything is so great, if all the wrongs have been righted and so much more, why the rush? Do they wish to be out from under the scrutiny of the ACLU and the court because they want things at Unit 32 to return to the pre-agreement chaos?

I spoke of these things with Mr. Stephen Hanlon on January 13th, during his visit to the Mississippi State Penitentiary's Unit 32. Mr. Hanlon is an attorney working along with the National Prison Project of the ACLU in the Presley v. Epps case. One of the things Mr. Hanlon explained to me is that, following the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, consent decrees are only good for two years.  [click for more]  The courts find it difficult to justify going beyond the two year limit because of the standards that must be met. Conditions that are "shocking to the conscience" are part of it.

It must be said that conditions have greatly improved in Unit 32. If it weren't for Ms. Margaret Winter, the Associate Director of the National Prison Project, and Magistrate Judge Jerry Davis who presided over and mediated the case, these changes would not have been possible. They have the thanks and appreciation of all the people -prisoners and guards- who had to live and work in the inhumane conditions at Unit 32.

These same people now face the possible return to those inhumane conditions. Without the ACLU and the courts keeping close watch, MDOC's inherent state of entropy will take effect and all the improvements will vanish. Once again the prisoners will have to struggle to retain their most basic rights.

You can follow the events in the Presley v. Epps case by continuing to read this blog. If a settlement isn't made between the MDOC and the ACLU, a court hearing is scheduled for April 21st.

What are your thoughts? Should the Consent Decree be extended? Should MDOC be released from the agreement?
Print Page

Parchman Needs A Superintendent

The Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman needs a new Superintendent. Lawrence Kelly, the former Superintendent, recently retired and left the job up for grabs. Deputy Commissioner E. L. Sparkman, of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, is filling the position temporarily while he interviews potential candidates. Two people who have been interviewed thusfar are James Brewer and Timothy Morris, both longtime employees of the MDOC. Mr. Morris is currently Warden of Unit 32.

It would seem that Mr. Sparkman has yet to find anyone he feels is acceptable to hold the position of Superintendent at MSP. If his actions in recent years are any gauge, Mr. Sparkman will go outside the MDOC and the state to fill this position. The Deputy Commissioner has intimated that he could be at Parchman for awhile; maybe months.

One of the things Mr. Sparkman has done since his return is to make sure the situation with the kitchen improved. Prisoners in Unit 32 were being served their meals on dirty trays, the food was not prepared or handled correctly and was sometimes spoiled, and the food served was not meeting the minimum daily caloric intake required. Mr. Sparkman told Roy Harper, a prisoner at Unit 32, that the food company the MDOC had a contract with would soon change.

Should Deputy Commissioner Sparkman go outside the MDOC and this state in order to find someone to fill the position of Superintendent? Are there no qualified people in Mississippi to hold the position?
What are your thoughts on feeding prisoners?

Print Page