Consider this situation concerning showers in prison: in American prisons, staff must provide a number of rights to inmates. Let me be crystal clear; inmates still retain most rights under the United States Constitution, and any prison officer or staff member who says otherwise is a liar.
Tell them to stop feeding prisoners for one day, and see what happens…
Prisons are forbidden – by law – from abusing prisoners; they have a responsibility to treat every person under their custody with humane respect. But we know this is often not the case. Hundreds of incidents in our country from jails and prisons are based on malicious acts by staff. Persecution, torment, torture and rape are common in all prisons, and USP Tucson is no exception.
Today’s topic: showers. Every prison MUST allow for prisoners to take showers. Normally this isn’t an issue, but today’s topic is based on protocol during an institutional lockdown. During such a time, there was to be no inmate movement except for highly unusual circumstances, or when showers are allowed, usually every 2-3 days.
Here at USP Tucson, on a lockdown, we have a “shower day”, usually Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The dorms each have ten small single-shower cells: a gated door to enter, and three tiled walls, with a button to press for water from a short nozzle at the back wall. On shower days, each inmate is brought out of their cell to go to the shower for a 10–15-minute shower. With each dorm having 110-120 inmates, each shower cell is used about 10 times per shower day.
Are you following me? OK, here’s a scenario based on what happened here on November 18th, 2022.
On this day, we were put on lockdown (don’t ask why, I’ve documented it in my other essays) for 30 days. Yes, possibly excessive, but I can’t go into that here; too much to add. For the time being, let’s just stick to the showers.
On Monday, November 21st, they took us out for showers. Each inmate in the dorm took a shower, so, at the end of the shower run, each of the shower cells were used about 10 times. So, from Sunday, November 18th, to Monday the 21st, the showers were not cleaned.
On November 25th, a FRIDAY (remember, showers can be 2-3 days apart) we have another shower, same procedure. We were taken out of the cell for another shower. After the second shower run, the average number of times each shower cell had been used was 20 times. And yet, not once was any attempt made to provide sanitary showers.
A reasonable person can catch on to what I’m building. How often do you take a shower before you clean it? Maybe once or twice? Let’s just say five times. In that period of time, soap scum, hair, broken skin and the like can accumulate in your shower. Now, let’s color this grotesque. In prison showers, there can be tissue paper, soap pieces, hair, urine, blood, snot and other trash from anyone who has been in that shower.
After only 10 uses, it becomes a hazard.
So, after 20 uses, and no attempt to clean the showers, it really becomes a health issue. It’s not enough for a prison to provide showers to prisoners. The spirit of the law demands that staff ensure SANITARY showers for prisoners, for it is inhumane to force a prisoner to have a grossly unsanitary shower. Who can truly be clean under such deplorable conditions?
USP Tucson was quite aware that they MUST provide opportunity for prisoners to take showers. On this, no prison can argue successfully, because it is a constitutional right. To refute inmates a shower is a violation of the Eighth Amendment which is against Cruel and Unusual Punishment. It has equal standing with the right to eat.
Yet USP Tucson cleverly disguises the protocol by leaving the public to ASSUME that inmates had sanitary showers. If the prison fed inmates off the dirty floor, technically they can declare that they fed the inmates, right?
But the letter of the law does not make the act valid. The spirit of the law demands a universal and ethical protocol be followed. It is not enough to simply feed inmates; they must be fed HUMANELY and with sanitation. No different with showers. USP Tucson does not simply have a responsibility to allow us showers, they must allow us SANITARY showers. We have a right to be clean, or reasonably clean showers, which, after two shower runs, we clearly did not have.
And let us be clear, this is not an oversight. Staff knew in absolute that we had to have showers, and each officer that took an inmate to the shower was fully aware that the showers had yet to be cleaned and were filthy. I personally send a not to staff informing him of the issue. He refused to acknowledge it. I had even had an essay, on this very subject, published in a prisoner support newspaper out of Chicago. But no one seemed to care.
On Monday, November 28th, the third round of showers occurred. I keep records of this, knowing I intended to write about it later. Now, each shower has been used 30 times, and not one drop of chemical has been used in them. November 30th, a Wednesday, and the fourth shower run. Now each unsanitary shower cell has been used 40+ times. Staff simply ignores all requests to have it cleaned, making it a toxic environment. December 2nd, the fifth shower run, which increases the average use of each shower to FIFTY!
Now, about this point, I’d wager a staff member reading this will object to my essay, claiming, “We adhere to all policies concerning sanitation, as per
BOP program statement”, and the old, “You can’t trust an inmate,” line. Why can’t an inmate be right? He’s still human and has a right to say what he experiences and sees. We have just as much ability to speak as an officer or staff member. What do WE have to hide? Much less than officers who abuse inmates.
Prison officials could use one of a few excuses to attempt to counter my claim: One, that I cannot PROVE that there was such an extensive lockdown, and two, that under an institutional lockdown, there is to be NO inmate movement out of the cell except for rare situations such as emergencies, and the “constitutionally protected” right to showers.
I’d like to challenge that, as we continue this discussion in the second half of this essay. Stay tuned.
(Part Two)
Continuing from part one, with staff’s likely arguments to my claim: their counters are incorrect, and please be aware, if staff is only spouting policy, they are hiding the truth. This is a common ploy in prisons, when questioned about serious offenses. To the first counter, we can prove the length of the lockdown, even though staff has refused to give the prison population a memo of why we were on a lockdown. Dozens of cameras all over USP Tucson will clearly document the lack of inmate movement. Second, any check of phone usage will without a doubt show that no phone calls had been made since Sunday, November 18th and for several weeks thereafter.
As for the second excuse, this is also incorrect. USP Tucson claims no movement, yet the last three weeks they have forced inmate kitchen workers to work from 4:30 am to 5:30 pm every day. These poor souls are working over 90 hours a week! USP Tucson could try to claim, “essential personnel”, but this is not true.
There is no such thing as “essential inmate personnel”, because it is staff’s SOLE responsibility to carry out all important duties during an institutional lockdown…this includes the cafeteria as well as laundry, and sanitary showers. To release a person to work in the kitchen, is to admit that staff is too lazy or incompetent to do the job, and it implies that kitchen workers are less guilty than the rest of the general population – who equally did no wrong to be mass punished.
If indeed kitchen workers are “essential”, how much more are dorm orderlies, to ensure that the showers are safe for all inmates – to include those same inmate kitchen workers. They’re walking into a toxic shower cell, then going back to work around the food we have to eat. USP Tucson’s staff from the Warden to the Captain to the Associate Wardens, all knew this but apparently could care less.
December 5th, the 6th round of showers, now each shower cell has been used at least 60 times each. Staff had the nerve to slink out, ignoring the filthy showers, and pass out memos of the cell sanitation points that the prison expects us to go by. We’re taking showers in deplorable shower cells, and she’s worried about a stupid cell inspection. Like telling a hog to be clean while it’s in the mud hole.
There is a case law, Hernandez v. Delaware County, from January 20th, 2023, that points out some of the issues that are presented to court about unsanitary shower c0nditions. These conditions may result in a Fourteenth Amendment violation (Cruel and Unusual Punishment), which means it is against the law for prisons to do. In this case, a person argued about the conditions of his confinement, to include unsanitary showers.
While I think it may be “cut and dry”, often the court does not see it that way, and we turn into “word play”. What is odd, the case law sets the table of what is Cruel and Unusual Punishment: “to establish a basis for a Fourteenth Amendment violation, a prison must allege that his conditions of confinement amount to punishment. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1979 in a case (Beli), and further, it states, “only conditions of confinement that ‘cause inmates to endure such genuine privations and hardship over an extended period of time’ violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
We’re setting the stage here, and based on what you read from my essay about our showers, surely this would qualify, right? Not necessarily. Courts use a very fine-toothed comb to determine the validity of an argument, and I have to say, sometimes it gets ridiculous.
In the Hernandez case, the court felt that the inmate wasn’t “suffering enough”, to qualify for Cruel and Unusual Punishment, despite the groundwork I just shared. It seems at first that they were siding with him by saying, “A court must determine whether the conditions complained of were imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is merely incidental to a legitimate government objective.”
It defined it more by saying, “unconstitutional punishment typically includes both objective and subjective components.” The definitions here merely say that the objective side had to be serious (unsanitary showers) and the subjective had to be intentional (Hernandez suffered this for at least a week.)
Yet, the court turns on the inmate by stating, “Hernandez’s claims about the conditions of his confinement fail as pled because, as noted above, he has not tied any Defendant’s specific conduct to the alleged constitutional violations. The claims also fail because they are VAGUE and FACTUALLY UNDEVELOPED. Hernandez alleges that he was placed in an “overcrowded, unsanitary and unsafe intake cell for about a week, where he was subjected to ‘extreme cold temperatures’ and denied ‘a mattress’, cleaning products, showers and a clean toilet. Mr. Hernandez has not alleged any facts about what it was that made the intake cell unsanitary, unsafe or overcrowded. These conclusory allegations with more, fail to raise an inference that the conditions were intended as punishment” (emphasis mine).
In short, the court didn’t believe the inmate was suffering “enough” to raise a valid argument. What then is enough to determine what is unsanitary? Turning back to USP Tucson, it is clear that the lack of clean showers for over three weeks was intentional, which should satisfy the subjective part. The fact that unsanitary showers is a clear health hazard would satisfy the objective part…surely, we have a Fourteenth Amendment violation, right?
But courts might find loopholes…USP Tucson did.
December 7th, a shower Wednesday. We had, at this time, 7 shower runs. At about 7:30am, one CO attempted to spritz the top showers, spraying them with the pink watered-down chemicals, as if that would sanitize and clean the showers after three weeks use. A few days earlier, we had an officer come in hacking and coughing, and went to the bottom right shower, and SPAT in it.
By the time this lockdown is over, we would have used the showers at least two more times, making it an average of 90 times per shower that it has been used. That is immoral, unethical, inhumane, and surely, illegal.
But, who listens to an inmate?
No Comments