FSP M/M HUNGER STRIKE
Day Nine
Monday, February 09, 2004

Rules of M/M:  It's supposed to be TEMPORARY

"According to the Maximum Management rules prisoners are allowed outside one time in 30 days. My son has been in that cell since Dec. 23rd and has not been taken outside. He never hears back from them so he figures the grievances are tossed away. I wrote to the Inspector General's office this morning and told them that the maximum management rules are cruel and unusual punishment. Anybody would go insane after awhile. This is supposed to be a temporary stay, but one inmate has been on MM for 18 months and some longer than that! Something really should be done about this situation. These people are human beings!"

DoC'S RULES ON M/M

33-601.820 Maximum Management. (1) General. Maximum Management is a temporary status for an inmate who, through a recent incident or a series of recent incidents, has been identified as being an extreme security risk to the Department and requires an immediate level of control beyond that available in close management or death row.

In Section (1) General M/M, it is stated specifically that this is a temporary status for an inmate who through a recent incident or a series of recent incidents and has been identified as being an extreme security risk to the department requiring an immediate level of control beyond that available in CM or Death Row.

The participants in the hunger strike are protesting the confinement to Maximum Management, which has been applied without justification. Records of inmates will reveal that M/M is not being used as a temporary status and will also reveal that the inmates are being left under initial placement not for days or weeks but months and even years. These inmates are examples of how DOC interprets "temporary" and "recent".

SOLUTIONS:

• A directive for a release to be added to Chapter 33-601.820 Maximum Management, which is noticeably absent from the directive, and that is how the administration is able to manipulate this rule and use it as a continuous form of punitive isolation.

From: Jillian O'Brine

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 11:54 PM
To: Jeb Bush
Subject: URGENT - Hunger Strike at Florida State Prison
 

Dear Governor Bush:

 

I am urgently requesting your assistance and intervention to please assist inmates at Federal State Prison in Raiford, Florida.  There is evidence of violations of both their First and Eighth Constitutional Amendments.

 

Even though I don’t reside in the state in which you represent, please accept my letter as a voice for inmates housed in “Maximum Management” at Florida State Prison.

 

As I’m sure you are aware, several inmates in “Maximum Management”, the disciplinary wing at Florida State Prison have begun a hunger strike over basic human needs which are being deprived of them, such as recreation, access to books, newspapers and magazines, adequate food and visitation.

 

Maximum Management, which is Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Chapter 33-601.820 is being used in a punitive and vindictive manner totally unbecoming to the dignity and honor of prison officials’ professions.

 

In 2000, this code was changed and turned unconstitutional.  Inmates are now denied magazines, newspapers, books and even dictionaries!  A Bible or religious testament is all that inmates are allowed on Q-Wing.  According to Pembroke v. Wood County, Texas (5^th Cir, 1993) (restriction of reading material to one Bible is unconstitutional); Kincaid v. Rusk (7^th Cir, 1982) (ban on pictorial magazines, newspapers and hard-cover books violated the First Amendment), and Spellman v. Hopper (M.D. Ala, 1999). Constitutional Law 90.01; inmates have a First Amendment right to receive magazines and newspapers through the mail.  This is proof of a First Amendment Constitutional violation.

 

Inmates in Maximum Management receive Recreation once every 30 days, at best.  Inmates are confined to a 9x7 foot cell…63 square feet…24 hours a day…7 days a week.  Bathing is limited to three 5-minute showers a week.  In Kennan v. Hall (1996), the Court found that deprivation of outdoor exercise violates the Eighth Amendment Rights of inmates confined to continuous and long-term segregation.  There is substantial agreement among the cases in this area that some form of regular outdoor exercise is extremely important to the psychological and physical well-being of inmates.  Davenport v. DeRobertis (7^th Cir. 1988) Criminal Law 1213.10(4).  The District Court’s conclusion that the Eighth Amendment required that any prisoner who has been confined in segregation for 90 or more days be allowed at least 5 hours of out-of-cell exercise per week was not completely erroneous, USCA Const. Amend. 8.  Also out of Davenport, there was testimony, both lay and medical, including testimony by the Medical Director of the Illinois Dept. of Corrections, Dr. Shansky, that 4-7 hours of exercise outside the cell and 3 showers are the weekly minimum necessary to prevent serious adverse effects on the physical and mental health of inmates.  Still out of Davenport, a knowledgeable witness testified that he knows of no other prison in the United States, including the Federal Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, (the nation's highest security prison,) that allows inmates of its segregation unit so little time for out-of-cell exercise. Davenport was given one hour a week outdoor recreation. Gump! v. Seiter, (S.D. Ohio, 1987) found that 2 hours a week out-of-cell would violate the Eighth Amendment. So there's clear proof in these cases of an Eighth Amendment violation.

 

Maximum Management is an indefinite period of punitive isolation for the conditions of 33601.820. Maximum Management exceeds those of disciplinary confinement. So here's another Eighth Amendment violation. In Hutto v. Finny, (1978),the Court found that confinement in a prison or in an isolation cell is a form of punishment subject to scrutiny under Eighth Amendment standards. Still out of Hutto, the Court adds that the policy of sentencing inmates to indeterminate periods of confinement in a punitive isolation is unreasonable and unconstitutional.

 

The next case, still dealing with the issue Parker v. Cook, (1979) and (1981), is also listed under annotations of Chapter 33-602.101 Care of Inmates' Constitutionality. Prisoners placed in administrative confinement were subject to conditions which constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment where there was no difference in treatment of those placed in administrative segregation from treatment of those placed in punitive segregation at institutions. General physical conditions at the segregation unit were poor, and an undetermined length of segregation could have had harmful effects on prisoners’ mental state. That was out of Parker, also listed in FAC, under the annotations. Also out of Parker, 4. Criminal Law 1213, the fact that conditions of segregation were categorized as administrative rather than punitive would not remove segregation from the Eighth Amendment consideration. US.C.A. Const. Amend 8. Still out of Parker, the Supreme Court in Hutto recognized that the length of confinement cannot be ignored in deciding whether the confinement meets constitutional standards. The Court stated that the conditions of confinement cannot be judged in a vacuum but must be examined in light of the circumstances, one of which is the length of the period of segregation. Parker still. Moreover, those placed in punitive segregation know their release date, whereas the inmate placed in administrative confinement for an indefinite period, such as for investigation, do not know the date of their release. Wilson v. Seiter" ,(1991). The Eighth Amendment's ban on inflicting cruel and unusual punishment made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, proscribes more than physical barbarous punishments. It prohibits penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the offense, and Maximum Management records will show a list of inmates that are grossly overpunished for the infraction they are being held for.

I respectfully urge you to please personally visit the Maximum Management area at Florida State Prison and see for yourself what is going on in this prison, and intervene to help your fellow citizens.

Most respectfully,
Jillian O’Brine

From: Jeb Bush [jeb@jeb.org]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:25 AM
To: Crosby.James@mail.dc.state.fl.us ; Alan.Levine@myflorida.com
Subject: FW: URGENT - Hunger Strike at Florida State Prison

 

From: Levine, Alan

To: 'jilliano

Cc: Crosby, James ; Hanna, Mike

Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 9:29 AM

Subject: URGENT - Hunger Strike at Florida State Prison

Thank you for emailing Governor Bush regarding the hunger strike. 

The Governor has confidence in the Secretary of the Department of Corrections, and understands the necessity for separating these inmates to the Q Wing.  Their conduct while in prison has been poor, and in fact, they have either attempted escape or other violent acts upon other inmates or guards.  This is unacceptable, and the Governor will not act in any way to increase the risk for our brave guards and prison workers who are at risk every day.  Sometimes, it is important for people to understand that actions have consequences. 

 

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns.  I have passed them along to Secretary Crosby.

Alan Levine
Deputy Chief of Staff
Office of Governor Jeb Bush
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
(850) 488-5603
(850) 922-4292 - fax
www.myflorida.com

Statement from Florida Death Row Advocacy Group (FDRAG)

Florida Death Row Advocacy Group is asking the DOC to correct what is not in compliance with their own rules, and to review the classification status for the inmates who have spent more time in Maximum Management than any reasonable person can possibly call "for a recent incident" or as a "temporary" solution.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION OF MAXIMUM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. http://www.petitiononline.com/hst1/petition.html