Civil Disobedience in Support of Hunger Strikers

A few important issues that have fallen between the cracks while I was away at conferences: Citizens engaged in civil disobedience actions in support of the Pelican Bay hunger strikers at the CDCR headquartersin Sacramento and at the State Building in Los Angeles. Larry Everest kindly emailed and reported:

*******

A little past 8:00 am, on Friday morning, October 14, three of us – all supporters of the courageous hunger strike by California prisoners – walked up to the main entrance of the headquarters of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the Sacramento, California – the state capitol. Then we chained ourselves to the front doors, sat down, and began a non-violent action of civil disobedience;We did so to support the just struggle and demands of the hunger strikers and to condemn the assaults of the CDCR and Gov. Jerry Brown on the prisoners.

With me was Gregory “Joey” Johnson, a revolutionary communist activist, whose bold action in the 1980s of burning an American flag led to a rare Supreme Court victory for the people (Texas v. Johnson), and Maryann, a relative of a California prisoner and a World Can’t Wait activist.

We felt it was imperative to take bold to underscore the urgency of the situation faced by prisoners and to make clear our support for all the prisoners who have been on hunger strike – or who are continuing their hunger strike.   And we felt that everyone has a moral obligation to step up their support for the hunger strikers and their just demands in whatever ways they possibly can.  Anything less is unconscionable.

We made clear to the activists and bloggers who joined us at CDCR headquarters that we were demanding:

* Gov. Jerry Brown and CDCR fully meet all the prisoners demands!

* No mistreatment, punishment, disciplinary retaliation, or denial of medical care, to prisoners who have been on, or are continuing their hunger strike!

* Prisoners are Human Beings – They Must Treated As Such!

Outrageously, we were all arrested and each slapped with 5 different misdemeanor charges. As we were being dragged off, we all shouted our support for the prisoners, the demands of the hunger strikers, and our opposition to retaliation and ongoing torture.  And we denounced the fact that we were arrested and dragged off to jail in order to ensure that the CDCR and the State of California could continue carrying on “torture as usual.”

The charges against us are outrageous and we’ll be mounting a legal and political battle for all of them to be dropped.  And, these charges are certainly not going to stop us from doing everything in our power to continue fighting for the rights – and humanity – of the prisoners!

Hunger Strikers’ Condition Worsens

The solidarity website reports:

“Men are collapsing in their cells because they haven’t eaten in two weeks,” says a family member of a striker at Calipatria state prison, “I have been told that guards refuse to respond when called. This is clearly a medical emergency.” In an effort to isolate prisoners perceived by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to be leaders, some prisoners at Pelican Bay have been removed from the Security Housing Unit (SHU) to Administrative Segregation (Ad-Seg). The Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity coalition has received reports that prison officials have been attempting to freeze out strikers held in the Ad-Seg Unit at Pelican Bay, using the air conditioning system in conjunction with cold weather conditions where the prison is located. Last week a hunger striker in Pelican Bay was taken to a hospital in Oregon after he suffered a heart attack. Prisoners have also been denied medications, including prescriptions for high blood pressure.

Prison Hunger Strikers’ Numbers Increase

(reposted from https://prisonerhungerstrikesolidarity.wordpress.com)

12,000 Prisoners Resume Hunger Strike in California

Outrageous Retaliation by Prison Officials

by Larry Everest and Bay Area Revolution Writers Group

A very just, very significant and courageous battle is rapidly spreading in California’s state prisons—and beyond. On September 26, prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison in the Security Housing Unit (SHU) resumed their hunger strike—in the face of vicious lies and attacks and retaliation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and other state officials, including Governor Jerry Brown. They had been on a hunger strike from July 1-July 20, demanding an end to the horrifically inhuman conditions they face. On September 29, the CDCR admitted that 4,252 inmates in eight state prisons had missed nine consecutive meals since Monday, September 26, and that state prisons at Calipatria, Centinela, Ironwood, Pelican Bay, San Quentin, and Salinas Valley, as well as the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and state prison at Corcoran, had all reported inmates on hunger strike. (The CDCR won’t count a prisoner as being on hunger strike until he or she has refused nine straight meals.)

These officials figures, it turns out, underestimated the number of prisoner hunger strikers. On October 1, Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity’s website reported, “Numbers released by the federal receiver’s office show that on September 28, nearly 12,000 prisoners were on hunger strike, including California prisoners who are housed in out-of-state prisons in Arizona, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.” (The website adds, “Representatives of the hunger strikers have previously stated that this will be a rolling strike, allowing prisoners to come off strike to regain strength. Because of this, numbers will likely fluctuate throughout the duration of the strike.”)

The strike has also reportedly spread to at least one county jail. The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reported that 50 prisoners in the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, east of Los Angeles, are refusing to eat in support of the hunger strike in the prisons. (September 27, 2011)

More than 6,500 prisoners joined the three-week hunger strike in July. Prisoners at Pelican Bay suspended the strike on July 20 after prison officials promised they would meet some of the prisoners’ demands and address the main issues prisoners were raising. Then in September, prisoners wrote a statement saying these promises had not been kept: “We remain in SHU indefinitely, deprived of our basic human rights—based on illegal policies and practices, that amount to torture; torture of us, as well as our family members and loved ones on the outside. CDCR remains in denial, and continues to propagate the lies re: ‘worst-of-the-worst’ 3000 gang generals, etc.—in order to dehumanize/demonize us, so as to maintain the status quo… CDCR’s intent is to break us down, and coerce us into becoming state informants! A violation of international treaty law, period! This is not acceptable!” (Go to revcom.us/s/pelicanbay-hungerstrike-en.html for extensive coverage of the July hunger strike.)

These prisoners are now putting their lives on the line again, demanding to be treated as human beings—demanding that the CDCR end the barbaric, inhumane conditions of imprisonment throughout California prisons, particularly in the “Security Housing Units” or SHUs. There, thousands of prisoners are locked in solitary confinement in windowless cells, 7.6 feet by 11.6 feet, for 22 hours or more a day for years, denied human contact. There are 1,111 inmates confined to the SHU at Pelican Bay alone, where the average length of confinement is 6.8 years. More than 500 prisoners have been in the Pelican Bay SHU for more than 10 years; 78 have been in the SHU for more than 20 years!

The prisoners’ demands include an end to group punishment, abolishing the CDCR’s gang status and “debriefing” policies, ending long-term solitary confinement, providing adequate food and expanding constructive programming and privileges. (See “Prisoners at Pelican Bay SHU Announce Hunger Strike, Revolution #237, June 26, 2011, for the prisoners’ five demands.)

Vicious Retaliation Against Hunger Strikers

Prison officials were deeply shaken by the breadth and strength of the July 1-20 hunger strike. This courageous action brought to light the horrific conditions of solitary confinement—amounting to torture—and there was broad support for the prisoners’ just demands.

After prisoners announced the strike would be resumed, prison authorities issued two memos to 165,000 prisoners—warning them against going on strike, claiming they were making changes. Disciplinary warnings were issued to thousands of hunger strikers. Supporters of the strikers report that a number of prisoners lost their jobs as punishment for supporting the strike in July, that some received punitive disciplinary write-ups, and some prisoner negotiators were being singled out and threatened with transfers and subjected to cell searches.

A September 29 press release from the CDCR said it “will not condone organized inmate disturbances” and warned: “Participation in mass hunger strikes and other disturbances will result in CDCR taking the following action: Participation in a mass disturbance is a violation of state law, and any participating inmates will receive disciplinary action in accordance with the California Code of Regulations; and Inmates identified as leading the disturbance will be subject to removal from the general population and be placed in an Administrative Segregation Unit.”

Matthew Cate, Secretary of CDCR, interviewed by Berkeley’s KPFA radio on September 27, threatened prisoners: “If they still want to be on a hunger strike then there will be some consequences to that, because you can’t shut down prison operations with no consequences.” Cate repeatedly described the hunger strike as a “mass disturbance” and compared it to a riot. Attempting to justify why the media are not allowed access to the prisoners on strike—who are risking their lives to demand an end to inhumane conditions—Cates said it was “the same reason that we don’t allow media to have access to Charles Manson.”

On July 29 the CDCR released a revision to its Medical Services Program Policy and Procedures regarding a mass organized hunger strike—including criteria for when the force-feeding of inmates will take place. This could mean the CDCR plans to force-feed prisoners to break the hunger strike. The American Civil Liberties Union has written that “force-feeding contravenes U.S. domestic and international law and is universally considered to be a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” (Press Release: ACLU Calls For End To Inhumane Force-Feeding Of Guantánamo Prisoners, January 9, 2009)

In July, the CDCR repeatedly lied, saying the strike was organized by gangs. Governor Jerry Brown, who never said anything about the hunger strike in July, has now publicly attacked hunger strikers and given full backing to the CDCR’s policies and attacks on the prisoners, saying, “We have individuals who are dedicated to their gang membership who order people to be killed, who order crimes to be committed on the outside… My recommendation is to deal effectively with gangs in prisons.” (California Prison Officials Warn Inmates On Hunger Strike,” CBS San Francisco News, September 30, 2011)

Family members of prisoners participating in the hunger strike are having their visits cancelled. And the Prisoner Hunger Strike Coalition reports that Carol Strickman and Marilyn McMahon, both attorneys who have served on the hunger strike mediation team and have coordinated legal visits for prisoners in the SHU, have both been banned from prisoner visits by the CDCR. This is a further effort to isolate the prisoners and prevent the truth of their situation from being known outside prison walls. (“CDCR Bans Lawyers: TAKE ACTION NOW!” Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity, September 30, 2011)

Think about what the draconian actions of the CDCR reveal: Who is defending crimes against humanity? Who is lying and justifying criminal violence against human beings? What does all this show about the utter illegitimacy of the prison system—and brutal nature of mass incarceration in the USA? For prisoners subjected to the most isolating conditions, sitting in their cells and refusing to eat is labeled a “mass disturbance.” Their demands simply to be treated as human beings are met with lies and threats of even more violence against them. This is completely outrageous and intolerable!

Carol Strickman put it like this: “We’re saying they are torturing the prisoners and we want them to stop the torture. The prisoners are so concerned about it that they are going to stop eating. If the response is to increase the torture, then they are just proving who they are and what their values are. This is a human rights issue and they are proving that they don’t see the prisoners as human.”

There is an urgent need for those on the outside to expose and oppose all these attacks on the hunger strikers and their supporters.

Strickman also told Revolution that there are other ramifications if prison officials declare the hunger strike a “mass disturbance”: “They could do lockdowns. That would prevent family visits. That means everybody in the prison can’t have visits. That would be another example of group punishment, and abolishing group punishment is one of the prisoners’ demands. So what they would be doing in response to the prisoners’ demands is to crank up group punishment—the behavior that is being protested. It means people can’t go to the law library, people can’t get medical visits, can’t do classes and programming. In women’s facilities they can’t go do their laundry. You can’t go to canteen. There are a lot of things that flow from a lockdown. That is a serious threat.”

CDCR Medical Policy Regarding Hunger Strikers

More on the health concerns regarding the strike: Policy 4.22.2 of Prison Health Care Services, updated on September 29, 2011, details how inmates are to be treated during a hunger strike. Upon the beginning of a strike, participants’ baseline weight and height are to be established, and a follow-up spreadsheet is created. Prison authorities are to follow up on participants’ health and weight. The regulations emphasize respect for participants’ autonomy regarding their health (feeding plans are to be offered, not coerced), and allow force-feeding in two cases only: An emergency situation or an inability to provide informed consent.

According to prison visitors, clinicians are monitoring inmates to keep an eye for any who may begin to show signs of starvation, but so far there have been no concerns. As of Sept. 30, 3,376 inmates in six prisons are on a hunger strike. They have missed nine or more consecutive meals since Monday, Sept. 26.

Institutions with hunger strike participants are:

  • Calipatria State Prison
  • Centinela State Prison
  • California State Prison-Corcoran
  • Ironwood State Prison
  • Pelican Bay State Prison
  • Salinas Valley State Prison

May the State Force Feed Hunger Strikers?

The CDCR memos did not provide a clear answer as to whether the authorities will seek a court order to force-feed striking inmates should the strike last long enough to jeopardize their health. During the July strike

I got to think about this a bit this week when I got a phone call from a reporter from the Examiner, resulting in this story. The man in question is not taking part in the Pelican Bay solidarity hunger strike, and apparently this is the last in a long series of hunger strikes he has undetaken individually. I am unclear on the extent to which hospital personnel felt comfortable force-feeding him, but apparently the sheriff is seeking a court order to do so.

Apparently, there is no clear answer as to whether, legally, hospital personnel may force-feed a hunger-striking inmate, and under which conditions. This has come up in the context of a large-scale hunger strike in Ireland in 1981, and later in the context of Guantanamo in 2005. A 2007 note by Tracey Ohm provides a concise summary of the law in the matter. In the early 1980s, the courts had ruled that the state had no right to intervene with a hunger-striking inmate, and it could allow him/her to starve him/herself to death; however, just a few years later the court tried to draw a distinction between a strike aimed at death and a strike aimed at a manipulation of the correctional system, with a right to intervene in the latter. Ohm suggests that correctional institutions adopt a four-part standardized test, based on the principles in Turner v. Safley (1987):

  1. A “valid, rational connection” between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it;
  2. the existence of “alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates”;
  3. the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally; and
  4. the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a prison regulation. 

Cases decided after the publication of Ohm’s note, such as this Connecticut decision, this Illinois decision, and this Pennsylvania decision (also see this summary) have tended to allow prison authorities to force-feed inmates when there was imminent danger to their health or life. All decisions emphasize the need to grant a court order on a case-by-case basis. There doesn’t seem to be any California case law on the matter. This case may be the first time such an issue is tackled by California courts, and it’s worth following up not only because of the fate of the individual defendant, but because of the possible implications for Pelican Bay strikers and their supporters in other institutions.

Pelican Bay Strike, Day 6: CDCR Bans Lawyers and Mediators from Contacting Hunger Strikers

Press release from Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity:

With the hunger strike continuing to spread from Pelican Bay and Calipatria State Prisons to at least 6 other prisons, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has threatened to crack down on the at least 6,000 participants, including sending prisoners to solitary confinement. The CDCR also faxed expulsion orders to two mediation team lawyers, notifying them that they had been banned from all prisons pending an investigation into whether or not they had “jeopardized the safety and security of CDCR” institutions. Meanwhile, the prisoner-selected mediation team that has been trying to negotiate with the CDCR since the strike was initiated in July sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown, demanding a meeting and lodging their vehement objections to the actions of CDCR officials.

Pelican Bay Strike, Day 4: Strike Expands

The latest reports from family members, friends and supporters of inmates are that approximately 6,000 inmates in a variety of correctional institutions have joined the hunger strike. Also expressing solidarity are approximately 50 county inmates held in West Valley detention center, who are refusing jail food (but purchasing commissary food). I’m not sure whether the supporters, whose job assessing the size of the strike is admittedly difficult given the lack of data from CDCR, count county inmates among their striker numbers. If the figure is to be believed, the strike is approaching the previous strike in terms of number of participating inmates.

BREAKING NEWS: CDCR Sees Strike as Disturbance

Two memoranda sent out to all CDCR inmates by Scott Kernan, Deputy Director of Adult Operations, lay out CDCR’s approach to the strike.

The first of the two defines the strike as a “disturbance” and threatens serious consequences, including removal from general population and placed in the Administrative Segregation Unit. Moreover, the memo threatens “additional measures” including effective monitoring and management of “the participating inmates’ involvement and their food/nutrition intake, including the possible removal of canteen items from participating inmates.”
Kernan also raises the possibility that “day-to-day prison operations” may be impacted by the strike. By that he might mean visits, as it is mentioned that this might impact not only inmates, but their families.
The second memo includes a list of steps that CDCR has taken on behalf of the inmates. The “short-term items” include watch caps, wall calendars, exercise equipment, colored chalk, proctors for college examinations, and food services; the “mid-term action items” include a “comprehensive review of SHU policies”.
click to enlarge

click to enlarge
It remains to be seen what the ramifications of these memos might be in terms of CDCR’s actual response to the strike. During the July strike, CDCR decided not to force-feed inmates. 
As a reminder, the inmates’ core demands are:
1. Eliminate group punishment. Instead, practice individual accountability.


2. Stop forcing prisoners to confess to gang membership. Prisoners are being held in isolation until they “debrief” or give information on gang activity. Whenever torture is used to force confessions, it often produces false information and can endanger the lives of prisoners and their families.


3. Comply with the recommendations of the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in prisons and end long-term solitary confinement. In 2006, the commission said isolation conditions should only be used as a last resort.


4. Provide adequate food.


5. Expand and provide constructive programs and privileges for prisoners held in solitary.

We plan to address some of the issues pertaining to the hunger strike on our upcoming prison food panel on Food Day.

Pelican Bay Hunger Strike, Day 2: Parole, Snitch, or Die

Yesterday’s panel on the Pelican Bay hunger strike featured, among other speakers, the impressive and insightful Keramet Reiter, a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley whose dissertation examines the history and development of the supermax. Reiter’s piece Parole, Snitch, or Die, is a concise history and thorough analysis of California’s supermax prisons and their discontents. It makes for an excellent read and I can’t recommend it enough. Using a combination of quantitative data and interviews with CDCR officials, Reiter lays out the process against which the inmates are protesting: the little-studied process of paroling through “snitching” and debriefing.

While, initially, at inception the idea behind the supermax was to handle prison violence by removing gang leaders from general population, this design has gone wrong. There is no evidence of a decline in violence as a result of using supermax incarceration and/or SHU units. Moreover, the isolation was never intended to become indefinite. However, Reiter’s data suggests that “many supermax terms are indefinite, providing few ways out, and. . . the average term is longer than eighteen months at Pelican Bay.” While the maximum lengths of stay in the SHU have declined between 2005 and 2007, the average length has steadily increased.

From its inception, Pelican Bay raised concerns that it would be excessively used. Today, inmates with gang ties are indefinitely assigned to the SHU units. The definition of gang membership is loose and vague, and therefore “the validation process is rather discretionary; any documentation of potentially illegal group activity could lead to gang validation.” Disciplinary offenses, leading to definite terms at the SHU, can range from attempted murder to spitting on an officer.

Has lockup at the SHU reduced violence? Not necessarily, as the data suggests. In fact, comparing levels of violence in Pelican Bay and Corcoran with that of other high-security institutions without supermax units suggests that “the supermax units might actually be aggravating problems with violence.”

There’s a lot more in the piece and I recommend reading it in its entirety. We will continue reporting on the supermax, solitary confinement, and the strike, for the weeks to come.