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

Victim's Father Protests Prisoner Transfer

Victim's advocate John Harmon (and father of fallen officer Casey Harmon) has recently made it into the media -again- by second-guessing MDOC officials and publicly protesting the transfer of prisoner Steven Farris from the Mississippi State Penitentiary to Wilkinson County Correctional Facility. Mr. Harmon's main concern was that WCCF was too "modern" for the likes of Steven Farris, and that Farris should still be housed somewhere on the grounds of the MSP at Parchman. >In the process of preparing to close Unit 32 at Parchman, about 70 prisoners were transferred to WCCF over a period of weeks. The WCCF houses prisoners of all security custody levels, including those with similar or worse charges than Farris, as well as at least two former death row prisoners, and has the same maximum security level as Unit 32. Contrary to what Mr. Harmon would like the public to believe, this transfer wasn't out of the norm.

If you'd like to read Steven's response to Mr. Harmon's protest and grandstanding, click here. The family and friends of Steven Farris manage this blog and help him make this more than a one-sided affair by typing and publishing his handwritten posts.

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.

Rules & Restrictio​ns for Mail (WCCF specific)

The rules and restrictions for sending mail to prisoners in Wilkinson County Correctional Facility differ slightly from the rules and restrictions for sending mail to prisoners at the Mississippi State Penitentiary. I will address the differences here, but suggest you read both. To read MSP's mail rules click here.

One of the major differences I've seen that I find encouraging is how the mailroom handles returning "non-allowable items" a prisoner might be sent by mistake. Instead of just returning whole letters because someone sent a prisoner a laminated bookmark or some such, the mail inspectors will remove the item and send the letter on to the prisoner. The prisoner must sign a form stating what he chooses to be done with the item. He can have it mailed back to the sender, sent to a different address, or have it destroyed. The prisoner also has the choice to appeal the decision. That's professional. That is the way it's supposed to be done.

Here are the differences in the rules:

• A prisoner can still receive (2) two pages with printed material from the Internet -front and back on each if you choose- but WCCF is more lenient on this arbitrary rule.

• Only (10) ten pictures per envelope, and the pictures are to be no larger than 3 in. x 5 in. A prisoner can only have ten pictures in his personal property at WCCF, anyway.

• No more than (6) newspaper clippings per envelope. >Prisoners at WCCF are allowed to recieve up to (4) four paperback books per package. Click the link for more on sending books.

• Prisoners at WCCF are only only allowed a subscription to (1) one adult/pornographic magazine. No magazine depicting penetration is allowed.

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 State Penitentiary - Rules and Restrictions for Mail

Corresponding with someone in prison can be slightly frustrating at times, due to all the rules and restrictions placed on incoming and outgoing mail. Is there a possibility that some random guard will read your letter that you sent to your friend or loved one in prison? If the prisoner has already received it and it's in their cell, then yes it's a possibility. But between the time you mail it and when it's placed in your loved one's hands, then no- the chances are small.

MSP has their own Postal Inspection Department, headed by Postal Supervisor Linda Weeks. This department is tasked with sorting all the mail coming into the penitentiary, checking it for contraband or items that are "contrary to regulations," and then making sure it's forwarded on to the prisoners. They go through a similar process with the outgoing mail. Not an easy job, for certain.

For the most part, these inspectors do not read incoming letters in their entirety. They will scan through the letter and see if they spot anything suspicious. If they do see something that looks to be a violation, the letter is then forwarded to the Corrections Investigation Division (CID) headed by Mr. John Rogers, the former Deputy Warden of Unit 32. And if CID gets your letter it will be read and it will be copied. So, between when you mail a letter to a prisoner and when they receive it, the most likely people to read your mail are those from the Postal Inspection Department and CID.

Helpful Tip: If you're thinking about writing something to a prisoner that might get you or them in trouble -DON'T. I'm speaking from experience here.

Now to get into specifics of what can and cannot be sent and received, as well as some more tips. . .

• Make sure that your complete return address (first and last name, street/P.O. box, city, state, zip) is legible and plainly visible on the outside of the envelope. Send a postcard and the same applies. Those writing from international locales usually write the return address on the back, and I've even seen those letters forwarded to the Dead Letter Branch because of this. 
• Do not send multiple copies of the same photo in whatever form, or they will return them to you. If the prisoner really needs multiple copies of the same photo, there's a fix for this. Mail a copy, wait a day, mail another, etc. I've not seen a limit on how many photos a prisoner can receive at once, but there's a limit on how many they can keep, so be reasonable. Don't send 200 pictures or such all at once. 
• Do not send any Polaroid photos or any instant photos (the kind that the camera spits out and you can watch develop). 
• Do not send "photos that depict subjects contrary to regulation." :-P That's bureaucrat-ese for: no nudity or explicit stuff; don't send pictures of guns, dope, folks/people throwing gang signs or participating in gang activity; no pics of nubile females running around scantily clad unless they are 1) at the beach, 2) in or beside a pool. But hey, if you want to send something to your boo to let them know you're thinking of them, be creative. You might get lucky. 
• Do not send stamps, stamped or prepaid envelopes, pens, pencils, blank paper or envelopes, those musical greeting cards or blank greeting cards. They want the prisoner to buy everything from the prison commissary. Which brings us to. . . 
• Do not send money in any form directly to a prisoner. If you want to send funds to a prisoner, click here for instructions. Also, do not send money order receipts or copies of receipts. 
• Do not send more than two (2) sheets of paper per envelope that contain printed information from the Internet. However, both sheets can be printed on, front and back. Also, do not include more than 5 or 6 clippings from the newspaper per envelope. 
• Do not send books, publications or periodicals directly to a prisoner. These must be sent from a vendor or publisher. For instructions on how to send books, magazines or other periodicals to a prisoner, click here. 
• Do not send a copy of a marriage license or birth certificate directly to a prisoner. Marriage licenses must be sent to Chaplain Jim Whisnant, P.O. Box 40, Parchman, MS 38738. Chaplain Whisnant can be reached at (662) 745-6611 ext. 4026 if you have any questions. Birth certificates are to be mailed to Visitors Program, P.O. Box 190, Parchman, MS 38738.
• Do not send a correspondence course directly to a prisoner or have one sent to a prisoner without making sure the prisoner has first gotten it approved.
• (UPDATE) Do not send photos of other inmates (As of 7/23/2010).  If the prisoner depicted in the photo is immediate family of the intended recipient, I suggest contacting the Postal Supervisor. 

Print Page

How To Send Books And Publications To A Prisoner (MSP Specific)

Having been incarcerated since I was 16 years old, my formal education ended in 9th grade. I'm glad to have made it that far, but my education was -and is- sorely lacking. During the intervening years I've used books to educate myself. Every sort of book or magazine I could get my hands on, I would read. So, if you have a friend or family member in prison, show some love and help them educate theirself and have a positive source of entertainment. Books have helped me keep what sanity I do have. Here are the guidelines. . .

• No hardback books or spiral bound books are allowed.

• Paperback or softcover books only. No more than three (3) books per package/order can be sent to the prisoner at one time.

• All books, publications, and periodicals must come from a publisher, vendor, bookstore, ministry, etc. You can't just mail this stuff to a prisoner yourself, because it's considered a "security risk."

• If you're ordering a pornographic magazine for a prisoner, make sure that the magazine title is one that doesn't show penetration. Only non-penetration mags will be allowed. Tattoo magazines are also often rejected, as are magazines about guns, knives and martial arts.

• Use common sense. If it's anything that would instruct in criminal activity, don't send it.

• Make sure that nothing else is included with the books or magazines. For example, sometimes CDs are included with books or mags. Prisoners can't have these, and often the whole order is sent back if one is included.

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