Call to action: March 14 - Stand with Monica Jones.

Monica Jones should not have to go to court to fight wrongful charges resulting from a discriminatory and arbitrary arrest stemming from a department in which she studies.

 Sign the petition 

to have the charges against Monica dropped.

In case she does go to court, though, we plan to stand with her. 

Her trial begins March 14, 2014 at 8:30 in courtroom 607. 

 Meet outside the Phoenix Municipal Courthouse at 7:45am if you can.

300 W Washington St, Phoenix, AZ 85003

 

If you want a T-shirt, need a ride, or have a question, feel free to contact Peggy at arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com or 480-580-6807

 

this is MOnica Jones

JOIN MONICA JONES ON MARCH 14: TAKE ACTION FOR THE RIGHTS OF TRANS PEOPLE AND SEX WORKERS

March 4th, 2014

The Best Practices Policy Project, the Desiree Alliance and Global Action for Trans* Equality are calling for US-wide and international action on March 14, 2014 to support Monica Jones’ campaign for the rights of transgender people and sex workers.

Monica Jones, a human rights defender in Arizona and an advocate for the rights of transgender people and sex workers, was profiled and wrongfully arrested for “manifestation of prostitution” by a police sting operation and anti-prostitution diversion program known as “Project ROSE”. Ms Jones had been a speaker at a rally protesting Project ROSE—which is run by Phoenix police and Arizona State University’s School of Social Work—the day before. At the time of her arrest, she was not engaging in sex work, but was in fact walking down her street to the local bar.

On March 14 at 8.30 am (US Mountain Standard Time) Monica’s case will go to trial at Phoenix Municipal Court. She will plead not guilty and an action is planned outside the court to show the City of Phoenix Prosecutor that we won’t tolerate the systematic profiling and criminalization of transgender people of color and sex workers. Simultaneously on March 14, two sex worker rights advocates will be at the United Nations in Geneva to bring international attention to Monica’s trial and the ongoing human rights violations occurring in Phoenix and across the United States.

We call on people and organizations across the United States, in the region and internationally to show your support for Monica Jones and the issues she cares about. We encourage individuals, organizations, and communities to acknowledge the day in whatever way they feel safe in doing to raise awareness, to learn and share about the issues (it could be by viewing online coverage from the United Nations, it could be through social media action, by sharing a meal, organizing a public action, writing a letter to the press, through art and so on).

Please email us at bestpracticespolicyproject @ gmail.com and director@desireealliance.org to tell us about the action you plan and if you would like us to highlight your action on our websites. If you wish to add your organization’s name to this call, email us and we would be happy to do so.

More information about the case, Monica’s trial and the UN action can be found at:

https://www.facebook.com/events/477216822384806/

http://www.bestpracticespolicy.org/2014/01/10/phoenix-calling-the-united-nations-new-iccpr-report/

http://www.swopphoenix.org/monica/

The hashtags #standwithMonica and #notyourrescueproject are being used for social media.

Update on ongoing harassment of Monica: Since refusing to plead guilty to the charges she is innocent of, Ms. Jones has been targeted four additional times by police officers while walking around her neighborhood carrying out everyday activities such as bringing groceries home or heading to her local bar. Each time, the police use insulting and transphobic language and threaten her with arrest, despite the fact that she is doing nothing more than simply walking outdoors. Across the U.S. and in Phoenix, transgender people of color are routinely targeted for harassment and hate-motivated violence, by both police and the public, and are frequently profiled as sex workers by police. Transgender people are also targeted for cruel treatment in prisons, including by guards.

Ms. Jones states, “I believe I was profiled as a sex worker because I am a transgender woman of color, and an activist. I am a student at ASU, and fear that these wrongful charges will affect my educational path. I am also afraid that if am sentenced, I will be placed in a men’s jail as a transgender woman, which would be very unsafe for me. Prison is an unsafe place for everyone, and especially trans people.”

Monica Jones should not have to go to court to fight wrongful charges resulting from a discriminatory and arbitrary arrest stemming from a department in which she studies. Sign the petition to have the charges against Monica dropped.

Copwatching Arpaio: Judge Snow appoints monitor, sets limits.

Thanks to all the people inthe community who came together to stop Arpaio's racial profiling. He never did get indicted by the feds, but at least someone will be paying closer attention to his deputies' traffic stops from now on.

 Phoenix Veteran's Day Parade, November 2012

---------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Oct. 2, 2013

CONTACT:
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 492-8540 or skilar@acluaz.org
Isabel Alegria, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, (415) 343-0785, (646) 438-4146 or media@aclu.org
Amelia Hansen, Covington & Burling, (415) 955-6831 or ashansen@cov.com
Larry Gonzalez, The Raben Group (MALDEF), (202) 466-0879 or lgonzalez@rabengroup.com

Court Places Limits on Sheriff Arpaio to Prevent Future Racial Profiling of Latinos

Order includes appointment of a monitor and community advisory board, recording of all vehicle stops and extensive data collection

PHOENIX – A federal judge today set down far-reaching requirements to prevent continued racial profiling by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow’s order follows his ruling in May that Arpaio’s office relied on racial profiling and illegal detentions to target Latinos.

"Judge Snow recognized that Sheriff Arpaio's years of discriminatory practices and unconstitutional policies required major change—including appointment of a federal monitor, data collection and video recording for every vehicle stop,” said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the ACLU of Arizona. “Working with the Latino community, the ACLU will seek to ensure that the MCSO’s abuses end."

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the lead law firm, Covington & Burling LLP, represented a class of Latino residents and a Latino community organization, Somos America, in the lawsuit, Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio.

“Thanks to the brave souls who came forward to tell their stories, the MCSO is being held accountable,” said Lydia Guzman of Somos America. “It’s not a crime to be brown and now we have the necessary tools to make sure that Sheriff Arpaio doesn’t forget that.”

In addition to the appointment of a monitor to keep tabs on the MCSO’s behavior, the court insisted upon audio and video recording of all traffic stops, increased training for and monitoring of sheriff’s office employees and the implementation of comprehensive record keeping. Officers will also be required to radio in the basis for each traffic stop before making contact with the people in the vehicle.

Recognizing the need to repair the MCSO’s relationship with the public, Judge Snow also mandated the creation of a Community Advisory Board, the appointment of a Community Liaison Officer and the implementation of a community outreach program.

The order’s requirements must remain in place for no less than three years, Judge Snow said.

"Under the measures put in place by the court, Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies will no longer be able to run roughshod over people’s basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “MCSO can no longer balk at reform.  Every person in Maricopa County deserves better than a sheriff’s department that commits pervasive civil rights violations at the expense of public safety. The court’s order will make sure the agency actually enforces the law and will no longer go on wild goose chases based on racial stereotypes.”

Judge Snow’s May decision found the policies and practices of Arpaio and his office are discriminatory, and violate the Arizona Constitution, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That ruling stemmed from a three-week trial in July and August of 2012, during which the civil rights organizations provided evidence to the court that the MCSO was illegally pursuing Latinos. The plaintiffs proved—through the MCSO’s internal correspondence and public statements, and statistical analyses—that the MCSO had the intent to discriminate. Evidence also showed that the discrimination had harmful effects, including higher traffic stop rates and longer stop times for Latinos.

“The monitoring, training, recordkeeping and other provisions in the court’s order today should go a long way toward reforming the MCSO,” said Stan Young, a partner with Covington & Burling. “This reform will help prevent future racial profiling of the kind that Sheriff Arpaio’s past policies encouraged. These remedies were necessary to restore public trust and the principle of equal treatment under law.”

The MCSO's widespread racial profiling created a culture of fear in Maricopa County, making Latinos anxious that getting in a car could lead to an interrogation by armed officers or incarceration at the county jail.

"The Latino community has waited a long time for the court-mandated reforms that will provide accountability and transparency to the sheriff's office and prevent the abuse of authority that has been so prevalent,” said MALDEF Western Regional Counsel Nancy Ramirez. “We are hopeful that these long-awaited reforms will bring much needed change to the sheriff's office.”

The civil rights organizations will continue to fight if Arpaio appeals, and will closely monitor the MCSO’s activities as the court’s order goes into effect.

Click here for a copy of the ruling.

Click here for more information on the case.

AZ DOC Protective Custody Battles: Surviving the fight.

Cross-post from the Jailhouse Lawyer's Auxiliary Guild blog...

"SOS from Arizona's Other Death Row"

40-foot community mural in chalk, from rooftop

Firehouse Gallery, Phoenix (July 2012) 

This blog post goes out to those of you trying to help a prisoner in Arizona’s Department of Corrections get into protective custody, or otherwise “safe” housing. I put that in quotation marks because prisons are inherently unsafe as heteropatriarchal state institutions of control, designed to brutalize people without leaving marks on their skin, and need to be eradicated, not merely reformed. The movement to do so will not succeed without the participation of today’s prisoners, though, which means they need to be able to survive their incarceration relatively intact in order to lend their voice and critique to the collective struggle for liberation.

Towards that end, I recently updated the letter I send to all the state prisoners who write asking for help seeking protective custody, which I will soon also post as a blog. At the bottom of this note is a set of links to that letter and the other documents I send out when a prisoner tells me that he or she is in danger (the letter is written to both the men and the transgender women in men's prisons because that's where all the 805 requests come to me from, not because those at the women’s prison don’t experience violence). 

If you are able to do so, please print and send these materials to your loved ones yourselves, allowing me to use my resources for prisoners who have no one else to help them. It'll probably cost about $5 to print and send everything first class. Then send me an email letting me know you used these resources, and why, so I can keep track of the issues arising in the prisons and get back to you if needed. Your feedback on what's useful and what's confusing - and corrections where I've been mistaken or something has changed - are really helpful, too. Find me at arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com.

If your imprisoned friend or loved one is LGBTQ, whatever their current situation in prison, ask them to please write to me (sorry, all - I'm taking care of my own family now..you need to take care of eachother, now). We’re building a small network of support in the community in hopes of engaging attorneys and other queer activists in the struggle of our people behind bars in this state; unless they ask me not to, I will share their stories with these allies. Their voices are needed to help others out here understand their experience and how best to intervene in the prison industrial complex. Tell them that I identify as queer myself, and am in correspondence with about 30 LGBTQ prisoners in AZ right now, many over issues related to being safely housed. If there’s anything I can do to help them, I will.

Also, if you have a loved one currently going through the 805 process, make sure to provide them with as much emotional support, validation, and mental stimulation as possible. While they're in the hole wondering if they're going to live to see you all again, be sure to send plenty of letters, get the kids to draw pictures, send them articles they might be interested in, reminding them of the best parts of who they are. Encourage them to read, write, draw, or to somehow keep their mind creatively engaged as much as possible.

If you grow concerned about their risk for suicide for some reason, be very careful about telling the DOC that they may be in danger of harming themselves - there will be consequences that may keep them from trusting you with their feelings again, and this ordeal will likely not end soon. The cell they get placed in “for their safety” will probably be cold and completely bare, they may be stripped to their shorts - or even to nothing - by guards who mock them if they cry, the walls or floor may still be smeared in blood or feces from the last guy, and they lose all ability to communicate with the rest of us until their mental health "improves". They may even be shot up involuntarily with mind-altering drugs, or strapped down in 4-point restraints (during which time some have also been abused by the staff attending them).

See, suicide watch at the DOC is designed expressly to cover the state's ass in the heat of the moment by physically preventing someone from self-destruction, while the experience for the prisoner can be even more traumatizing than that which they are trying to escape. To alleviate this whole new level of suffering, prisoners are then compelled to assure the doctor he won't be liable if they do kill themselves  - and some then simply make damn sure they don't fail in their next attempt, so they never have to endure being “saved” like that again. In fact, the protocol for suicide watch at the AZ DOC is a large piece of the class action lawsuit against the AZ DOC regarding health care for prisoners (Parsons v Ryan). If you think you absolutely have to tell someone at the prison to intervene to protect them from themselves, then do so. I can’t make that call from here, and you are the one who will have to live with it, however things turn out.

Now, I'm no mental health expert, so bear that in mind. I've just spent a lot of time learning to be present with people in their grief and fear. Whenever I'm concerned about the risk of prisoner suicide, I try to summon the survivor they have deep within, and call on them to become the superheroes of their own lives - no one else can be. They really do need superhuman strength to face the fear of what may still lie ahead for them in prison, and whatever you can do to help them visualize that, to convince them they can endure this period in their lives and perhaps even turn it to good use for others, will help them far more than the prison shrink and the subtherapeutic dose of drugs he might offer.

Know that what the captive human being experiences at times is terror and the desire to flee beyond anything the free person can conceive, and they have to navigate very complex dynamics from a place where they have been systematically stripped of their identity while being demonized, dehumanized, devalued, and literally enslaved. Make sure they know that the people who love them need them to survive this crisis, and if for some reason they can't trust you with their fear, help them connect with someone they can trust. Maybe there's an old friend who could write to them and ask if they're okay, while reaffirming that they have not already ceased to exist to the rest of the world.

Do whatever you can think of to keep them connected to you and others they love, and make them promise you they won't bail out, because those detention cells take a lot of lives. Make them promise often, and tell them you need to trust them to live up to it, to not abandon you. You must help them fight despair and hopelessness with as much vigor as you put into the fight with the state. More prisoners die from suicide than homicide every year, and many do so out of isolation and fear, right where your loved one is now.

Reassure them that they can still maintain meaningful relationships with people out here - many do with me, and have for several years -  while developing more compassion and maturity as human beings. They can choose to spend their time making amends to humanity for whatever harm they may have done (if any, keeping in mind that not all crimes have victims, and not all of the convicted are guilty) by helping those around them whenever they get a chance - the prisons are full of the disabled, sick, and dying. The DOC won't facilitate that kind of personal growth, though - they are their primary abusers behind bars, instead. Anything your loved one does to become a better human being will be all to their own credit, not the DOC's.

The prison administration will try to intimidate both prisoners and their families into silence by reinforcing your social isolation with shame, and your feelings of vulnerability with their authoritative denials of the danger your loved ones are in. They will trivialize your concerns, chastise you, blame you or the prisoner for their endangerment or your extortion, and appease and/or condescend to you in an effort to get you to surrender to their assertions that their judgement is unassailable, as are their intentions to protect all prisoners from harm, and back off.

While lying to the legislature and the public about conditions in the prisons today and assuring us all that he's doing a swell job, the AZ DOC director’s most static message to prisoners under this administration has been that they have no right to expect to be safe or get medical attention when needed, or to protest the conditions of their confinement - some are retaliated against ruthlessly when they do.

The implication is that once convicted by a system that pretends to be just, Arizona’s prisoners are considered to be worthless, disposable human beings, whatever the reason they are in prison. That’s reinforced from the governor of this state on down.  Do not succumb to the relentless messaging you may get from media or politicians that they are right and the criminal is never to be trusted. If a prisoner tells you they are in danger or have been hurt, give them the benefit of the doubt, and recognize that the state itself is the main perpetrator of violence against them, not a well-meaning co-parent some mothers like to think it is - do not even communicate with people at the prison without understanding that fundamental dynamic first.

Some individual staff may be more compassionate and pleasant to speak to than others - and alliances where your loved one is housed or receives health care are important to build. Just remember that the AZ DOC cares only for its own survival, not for the comfort, safety or welfare of its prisoners. No matter how much you appeal to the notions of mercy or justice as you fight (not plead) for the life of your loved one, you must show (not simply threaten) the state you can hurt it badly if your loved one isn’t properly cared for. Ultimately this may mean both engaging reluctant legislators in your fight, and helping prisoners go ahead and file their own Section 1983 civil rights suit. Otherwise, the DOC will continue to prioritize the needs of the few criminals who still have money and power, and ignore you until you give up and go away. You’d be surprised at how many people do just that. Don’t be one of them.

The more concrete instructions for how to navigate the 805 process are embedded below. Feel free to call me (Peggy Plews) with questions, too, at 480-580-6807, or email me at arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com. If the prisoner is already denied thier appeal and wants to file their Section 1983 suits, there are resources in the side column of the Jailhouse Lawyers' Auxiliary Guild - AZ blog to help them.

AZ Prison Watch REVISED letter re: 805 

does not substitute for following policy) 

AZ DOC DO 805: Protective Custody

Columbia JLM CH 24: Right to Be Free From Assault

AZ DOC DO 902 Attachments A&B

 

ACLU: The Prison Litigation Reform Act (short)

Overview of Section 1983 Civil Suits

List of attorneys known for suing the AZ DOC

ACLU-AZ Complaint form *

AZ Prison Watch Newsletter: Valentine’s Day 2013

AZ DOC DO 803 Disciplinary Procedure 

(fight those RTH tickets)

additional resources, depending on special needs:

CH 29: Special Issues for Prisoners with Mental Illness

CH 30: Special Information for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender prisoners

The National Lawyers Guild Complete Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook 

(big PDF to print but worth it. helpful for filing section 1983 claims)

* Even if they can’t help in your individual case, the ACLU needs to know what’s happening as far as the violence in the prisons and the classification issues go. When sending in complaints, prisoners should also ask the ACLU for a copy of the Parsons v Ryan case about their health care.

Wexford Arizona: Deliberate Indifference Kills (UPDATED).

UPDATED 10/05/12 at bottom of post)

Wexford Health Sources

1850 N. Central Ave. Phoenix

October 3, 2012

Families: this is evidence for your loved one's civil rights suits if they've been suffering as a result of medical neglect at the AZ DOC and still can't get relief. Print and mail it to them. They MUST follow the grievance process, and not just file more HNR's on the same issues. Take this to an attorney if you can afford one, and get the following material/resources to loved ones inside so they know how to protect themselves from this predatory corporation:

ACLU: Know your rights: The PLRA (READ FIRST!!!)

Columbia University: Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (read chapter 1 to familiarize yourself, then download and print what chapters they need)

National Lawyer's Guild Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook (more compact than the one above: download here or send the NLG  $2 and the prisoner's contact info, and they'll send them a bound copy) - every prisoner needs one of these for the rest of their incarceration.

AZ Department of Corrections Policies: Inmate Grievance Procedures

AZ DOC Policies: Inmate Access to Health Care

AZ DOC Policies: Inmate Mental Health Care

AZ DOC Policies: Inmate Health Records

"Parsons v Ryan" Class action suit over medical neglect and abuse of the mentally ill before Wexford  even came - they aren't the only culprits here. Anyone potentially suing the DOC for medical issues needs to have a copy.

Instructions for Prisoners filing civil rights suits in AZ - they need to know this is what their grievances lead to -mwhet they need to prepare for - if they don't get adminstrative relief from the DOC or Wexford- but they can get hurt if they don't file it right. Contact Middle Ground Prison Reform early in the grievance process for info about options for legal representation or professional criminal justice consultation services.

Report medical and conditions of confinement complaints to the ACLU-AZ

Contact Mary Lou Brncik at David's Hope to organize around mental illness in the criminal justice system.

Contact me (Peggy Plews: 480-580-6807/arizonaprisonwatch@gmail.com) to organize with other families and former prisoners who want to make a difference for all. 

And have prisoners write to me directly at AZ Prison Watch PO Box 20494 Phoenix, AZ 85036, for packets of info about their rights...I will send them out as long as I am able to. They must be persistent if they don't hear back from me in a week, and keep me posted about changes in their status if we're working on something.

---from Middle Ground Prison Reform-----

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:13 AM, DONNA LEONE HAMM <middlegroundprisonreform@msn.com> wrote:

Mr. Charles Ryan, Director
Arizona Department of Corrections
1601 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona  85007

Dear Mr. Ryan:

 

Yesterday, Oct. 1, I received a telephone call from Dr. Lawrence D'Antonio, who works for a contractor who provides professional healthcare workers to Wexford.  As you know, Wexford, in turn, provides all medical care for prisoners within the Arizona Department of Corrections.  D'Antonio currently works at the Eyman Complex/Rynning.  He was originally supposed to work at Meadows, but now only works at Rynning. He says the Meadows Unit is a "lost cause."   If I understood him correctly, he believes there is no doctor currently assigned to Meadows Unit and that the Clinical Center there is essentially inoperative.  He has been a doctor (D.O.) for 27 years.  He has worked for the contractor who provides doctors to Wexford since about July 2012.

D'Antionio says that Dr. Tom Bell is the Statewide Medical Director employed by Wexford.  The Regional M.D. for Wexford is Dr. Hector F. Garcia.  He is Dr. Bell's boss.  Karen Grant is the Director of Nursing for Wexford.  D'Antonio refuses to converse with or take orders from Grant.  Grant was abusive, used obscenities with him, and was unprofessional during their initial conversation.  He believes that it is ironic that only current physican at the Eyman/Rynning Unit (D'Antonio) has no communication  with the Director of Nursing.  He has advised his own employer that either Wexford needs to obtain someone other than Grant for him to communicate with or he will not work there at all.

He says "personnel (medical) are leaving in droves."  Grant was ordering him to do things outside his training and outside of his expertise.  She was ordering him to see patients who needed specialists; he is not a specialist.  He says that Dr Bell ordered  that certain medications are to be stopped for some inmates.  When asked why the medications were to be stopped, Bell stated, "Because they are prisoners."  He asked Bell, "Is this your own medical decison-making?"  Bell replied, "This comes from Wexford."

Karen Grant has ordered D'Antonio to write prescriptions en masse for patients whom he has not seen.  He refused to do so, stating that in most cases he needs to see each patient individually before he can prescribe a medication.  He says Wexford is sabotaging everything by doing such things as excessive questioning of the doctor ("for more information") when he prescribes a medication.  When he makes a referral for a patient to have a procedure, obtain a specialist's opinion, have additional testing, etc., Wexford has a procedure which they call a "collegial" conference call.  Their staff get on a conference call and the vast majority of the time, they delay the additional procedure by requesting "additional information" from the referring doctor.  This goes on and on, back and forth, so that the procedure itself never gets done or is so delayed as to be meaningless (or dangerous) for the patient.

He says that he was told that all prior referrals (for specialists, tests, etc.) made by DOC healthcare workers prior to July 1, when Wexford took over, are cancelled, and will not be honored.  Instead, the inmate is required to go through the referral process all over again, thus further delaying what might be life-saving diagnostic testing.  D'Antonio says that many of the referrals are "shelved" and continuously cycled through the "get more information" process over and over.

D'Antionio refers to the mistakes and unethical conduct going on by Wexford employees as "staggering" and "criminal."  He says that while he does not consider himself to be soft on crime or criminals, "they are human beings and deserving of basic medical care."  He has restricted his exposure to liability for the type of care being provided to inmates by limiting the days he will work, the hours he works, and the units at which he will work.  He says what is happening at the Meadows Unit and throughout the Florence prisons is a "disgrace."

The doctor says that there are such people as what doctors refer to as "hatchet" doctors or "administrative" doctors -- they work for a corporation and have given up their ethics (and oath) to 'do no harm' by accepting a huge paycheck just to go along with corporate policies and directions.  D'Antonio says there are doctors (or nurses) such as this that work for Wexford.

He says that each time he sees a patient, he must fill out a progress note.  This is a form.  When he orders lab work, an x-ray or a prescription, each requires a separate form.  At the Meadows Unit, it was nearly impossible to find the forms needed, thus delaying and complicating the already dysfunctional process.  He says chart work is ignored and there is no review process.  He was originally hired just to do induction physical exams for incoming (new) prisoners, but that he has ended up doing everything from emergency care, chronic care, diagnostics, etc. and that they are so back-logged in reviewing charts that there is no reasonable way that each patient's chart can be reviewed in a timely manner.

He states that he has been told by Wexford employees that, "We are forbidden from talking about what happens here. . ." and that he has been advised, "Prisoners have died at the Meadows Unit due to lack of care since Wexford took over . . . ." (He was unable to provide me any names or DOC #'s of inmates who have allegedly died at Meadows Unit due to lack of medical care since Wexford took over on July 1, 2012).

He says that the Wexford formulary for approved medication is "archaic." He gave an example of the medication that Wexford has approved for hay fever.  (I can't spell it).  He says this was a medication that was being phased out in the 1980's (it was a medication that he would have taken as a child)  -- and that the standard of care in today's world for allergies is an antihistamine and/or a nasal steroid spray.  He says Wexford approves a salt water/ocean spray which is so outdated, it is laughable.  So, when he writes a prescription for a timely/updated drug (a "non-formulary" drug), Wexford can't fill it (won't fill it) because it isn't in their formulary.  So, there is a huge delay for the patient in obtaining non-formulary medication, and the formulary list itself is actually responsible for delay after delay after delay for patients to obtain a prescribed medication, including for serious medical problems.  He states that Wexford would likely claim that their formulary medications are "great" and "adequate," but many of their medications are simply not used anymore in today's real world of medicine in the USA.

He says he works a 12-hour day with no breaks and he even eats lunch while charting.  He works the hours by choice in order to get in his weekly hours in as short a time as possible to get out of there as quickly as possible.  But the workload is so far behind, it would require a full team of doctors to get caught up and would take a year.

He is concerned because many of the inmates are complaining they are not getting enough food and the doctor is concerned about the weight loss he has actually observed.  His says he has heard comments from many people that the real reason for the recent riots/disturbances at Tucson and Rynning is because of an underlying tension or stress among the inmate population due to (1) not enough food; (2) being denied medical care.  The DOC explained the reason for the riots to the media as "racial disturbances."

Dr. D'Antonio has openly discussed with Dr. Bell his concern that Dr. Bell could have a work-related breakdown over his job.  He is deeply concerned about Dr. Bell's mental well-being and feels it is possible that Dr. Bell may become "overwhelmed" by his job duties as Medical Director.  D'Antonio believes the various relevant Arizona professional medical boards and nursing board should immediately become deeply involved and investigate what is happening.  The Hippocratic Oath:  Do no harm -- is being violated directly.   He says he is witnessing "outrageous" medical neglect and actions contributing to such neglect by staff.

When a patient is referred for an outside professional test, procedure or consultation, the referral goes to the Wexford "collegial board."  He has asked, "What happens if it (the referral) is denied?"  Dr. Bell told him, "Well, it goes back to the referring doctor."  D'Antonio said, "Well, what happens if I refer the same patient a second time for the same procedure because I obviously believe he needs it?"  Bell replied, "Well, then we fire you because you keep making referrals."

He says many doctors and nurses have quit.  About 9-10 doctors have quit between the Florence and Eyman Complexes.  Describing the situation as "under-manned" or "under-staffed" is a diversionary term by Wexford.  The doctors who quit need to come forward to explain the reasons why they quit.  The under-manned situation is a result of the very problematic things that are happening.

D'Antonio says that what is happening in the Department of Corrections with respect to inmate medical care is "nothing short of outrageous."

He will agree to an interview with the media or with the ADC Director, but will only do face-to-face.  He lives in Tucson.

Mr. Ryan, on September 5, 2012, I wrote you an email expressing my concerns about the care being afforded to inmates by Wexford, and wondered why the company did not seem to be attempting to especially impress the Department during the early stages of their multi-million dollar, multi-year state contract.  You did not respond to this email.  It now appears as though Wexford sees the ADC as a cash cow for corporate profits at the expense of the very care they supposedly are contractually, legally, morally, and medically committed to providing.  This cannot be permitted to continue, and corporate assurances of corrective action are fundamentally insufficient as a response to the level, nature, and depth of the issues that now are emerging as a result of the outsourcing of inmate medical care to Wexford.

Just prior to the Sept. 5th email, I had notified you of a Wexford nurse who had ordered a female inmate to lick a powdered prescription medication from her own hand after the nurse had poured it into the hand.  The inmate protested because of the unprofessional and unorthodox method of medication administration and ended up with a disciplinary sanction and movement to another yard.  It is unknown if the nurse was sanctioned or terminated, but you did advise me that Wexford had "retrained" their nurses in the proper method of distribution of medication.

Now, with the above serious information as provided to me, I have no choice but to contact the relevant Medical and Nursing Boards of the State of Arizona.  Human lives are at stake.

While we appreciate the recent well-written noncompliance letter from Joseph Profiri, that letter does not go far enough.  For example, there is no mention that families can't get in touch with or recieve call back response from Wexford about their loved one's medical care.  Families repeatedly complain to me that Wexford's "hot line" is completely non-responsive.

Sincerely,

Donna Leone Hamm, Judge (Ret.)
Executive Director
Middle Ground Prison Reform
(480) 966-8116
MIDDLE GROUND HAS BEEN ARIZONA'S PREMIER ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE INCARCERATED SINCE 1983

----------------EMAIL #2: OCTOBER 5, 2012----------------

October 5, 2012
 
Mr. Charles Ryan, Director

Arizona Department of Corrections

1601 West Jefferson

Phoenix, Arizona  85007

                                                 Re:  EMERGENCY ACTION NECESSARY

Dear Mr. Ryan:

It is my understanding, based on information coming directly from Dr. Lawrence D'Antonio, that Dr. D'Antonio was escorted off the Rynning Unit by the Deputy Warden of the Unit and a security officer, after my recent email to you had been (apparently) forwarded to Wexford.  This is apparently the procedure applied toward whistle-blowers by Wexford.

It is also my understanding that Karen (or Caryn) Grant, Director of Nursing, resigned very recently (since my email to you).  I don't know if her resignation is connected to the fact that when I filed a complaint against her with the Arizona Nursing Board, they advised me that there is no "Karen Grant" who is licensed to practice nursing in the State of Arizona at this time, but that a "Karen Grant" was licensed up until 1991.  I believe that impersonating a nurse is a felony in Arizona.
 
Meanwhile, I have learned some additional very disturbing information from Dr. D'Antionio which, if verified as correct, amounts to an EMERGENCY situation.  The following information cannot simply be passed along to the "appropriate personnel" as you advised about my previous email.  Each and every prisoner who is incarcerated in the state Department of Corrections is entrusted to your department's care and custody, and you and your Department are ultimately responsible for their care, welfare and safety, which -- of course -- includes providing the community standard of care for serious medical needs.
 

During the time he worked at the Rynning Unit, Dr. D'Antonio personally observed that some inmates are given incorrect medications.  He also observed that some inmates are receiving medications which are contraindicated for other conditions that they have (for example; no inmate who is a diabetic should take a beta-blocker, etc.).  Some combinations are drugs which have the potential for being lethal.   He also observed that some inmates are being given double doses of prescribed medication, each dosage from a different manufacturer with a different name.  Once again, in some cases, the double dose could be fatal or seriously debilitating.  He reported to me that he advised Dr. Tom Bell of his observations, and Bell essentially shrugged him off and did not seem to grasp the import of D'Antonio's concerns.  As Dr. Bell had previously stated, "They are just prisoners."

Because you now are in possession of the above information as related to me by a licensed doctor in the state of Arizona and based upon his own personal observation, I believe that you are obligated to order an immediate audit/investigation of ALL inmate medical files for inmates housed at the Rynning Unit.  The investigation must be conducted by an independent qualified doctor or doctors who are not connected to Wexford or to the Department of Corrections in any manner.  Wexford should pay for the audit/investigation.  Other units should be audited as well because there is no reason to believe that these egregious mistakes are isolated to the Rynning Unit only.

Again, it is insufficient to simply pass this message along to Wexford. This potentially dangerous and/or lethal information must be addressed at once and I expect to receive a report of the findings in a timely manner.  A report that addresses these issues would not have to reveal HIPPA protected information because a code number could be assigned to each case.  It is imperative, however, that any incorrect medications, double-dose medications or contraindicated medications must be identified at once; hopefully, prior to an emergency situation induced by deliberate indifference or by gross negligence.

Please advise.

Donna Leone Hamm, Judge (Ret.)
Criminal Justice Consultant
Executive Director
Middle Ground Prison Reform
(480) 966-8116 (or contact James Hamm at (602) 339-0176
MIDDLE GROUND HAS BEEN ARIZONA'S PREMIER ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE INCARCERATED SINCE 1983

AZ DOC: Sexual Harassment settlement.

As I was saying, the corrosion at the Department of Corrections is deep and damages not only prisoners but also staff. This is bigger than just Chuck Ryan - prisons poison the entire social framework; we'd be better off without them. Unfortunately, Arizona is planning on not only 2,000 new medium security private prison beds, but also 500 new maximum security beds at Lewis to accommodate the growing numbers of mentally ill prisoners the state wishes to torture.

Here's the link to the last big Az DOC sexual harassment settlement...

--------------------

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Justice Department Settles with Arizona Department of Corrections Resolving Sexual Harassment Allegations

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department announced today that it has entered into a consent decree with the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) that, if approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, will resolve allegations that the ADC discriminated against a female employee, based upon her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The department’s complaint, filed today along with the consent decree, alleges that Susan Peterson, a female correctional officer at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Tucson, Ariz., was regularly subjected to verbal and physical sexual harassment by several of her male supervisors and coworkers from early 2005 through November 2008.  That conduct included unwelcome grabbing, touching, hugging and kissing, as well as exposure to sexually explicit comments and pornography.  The complaint alleges that despite Peterson’s timely and repeated complaints to ADC management about the harassment over a nearly three year period, ADC did not investigate her complaints or take any corrective action until November 2008.  The department’s complaint was based on a charge of discrimination filed by Peterson with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that was forwarded to the department by the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office.

Under the terms of the consent decree, which must still be approved by the federal district court, ADC is required to review and revise its sexual harassment policies to protect its employees from sexual harassment and must provide training on equal employment opportunity law and its sexual harassment policies to all employees at its Tucson complex.  The consent decree also requires the ADC to pay Peterson a monetary award of $182,500.

“All Americans are guaranteed the right to work in an environment free from unlawful harassment and retaliation,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.  “The department is pleased that we were able to work cooperatively with the Arizona Department of Corrections to resolve this matter without the need for contested litigation.”

The enforcement of Title VII is a priority of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available at www.justice.gov/crt/ and www.justice.gov/crt/emp/.

SB1070 and the US Supreme Court

This is not a supreme court I have much confidence in, seeing as how they let Troy Davis get lynched, among other things...

-----------------from the New York Times-------------

Court to Weigh Arizona Statute on Immigration

By ADAM LIPTAK

NEW YORK TIMES

Published: December 12, 2011

WASHINGTON — In the space of a month, the Supreme Court has thrust itself into the center of American political life, agreeing to hear three major cases that could help determine which party controls the House of Representatives and whether President Obama wins a second term.

The court announced Monday that it would decide whether Arizona was entitled to impose tough anti-immigration measures over the Obama administration’s objections. The case joined a crowded docket that already included challenges to Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the 2010 health care overhaul law, and a momentous case on how Texas will conduct its elections.

The Texas case, which on Friday the court agreed to hear, could cause as many as four seats in the United States House of Representatives to change party control.

“It’s not just that these are big cases, but these are big cases that echo in the political arena,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor of law and political science at Columbia University. “There is now a judicial forum for airing these political disputes.”

Arizona enacted its immigration law last year, and the Obama administration promptly sued to block four parts of it, saying they could not be reconciled with federal laws and policies.

The challenged provisions include a requirement that state law enforcement officials determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if officials have reason to believe that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. That provision also requires that the immigration status of people who are arrested be determined before they are released.

The law also makes it a crime under state law for immigrants to fail to register under a federal law and for illegal immigrants to work or to try find work. In addition, it allows the police to arrest people without warrants if they have probable cause to believe that they have done things that would make them deportable under federal law.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, blocked all four provisions.

Applauding the Supreme Court’s decision to review that ruling, Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, was harshly critical of the administration.

“I was stunned at the audacity of the Obama administration to file suit against an individual state seeking to safeguard its people,” Ms. Brewer said in a statement. “That shock turned to outrage as the federal government proceeded to file suit against three more states — South Carolina, Alabama and now Utah — that followed Arizona’s lead.”

The health care and immigration decisions are likely to land in June, in the heat of the presidential campaign.

The court must act much faster in the Texas case, where its decision on Friday to stay the use of a set of election maps, created by federal judges, has thrown election planning there into disarray. Political observers believe that the new maps would increase the influence of Hispanic voters and thereby increase the number of Democrats in the House.

The court’s precedents point both ways in the health care case, and it is hard to say what the outcome will be. In the Arizona and Texas cases, recent decisions suggest that a majority of justices may look favorably on the positions of state officials, which would entail upholding the Arizona immigration law and rejecting at least a part of the court-drawn maps in Texas.

In May, the court upheld a different Arizona law, one that imposed harsh penalties on businesses that employed illegal immigrants. In a 2009 decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, expressed skepticism about the continuing vitality of a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the court in Texas relied on in substituting its own maps for ones drawn by the Legislature.

Legal scholars and court historians struggled to think of another recent Supreme Court term in a presidential election year with a similar pileup of cases with sharp political and societal consequences. The political impact of the term’s rulings may, moreover, be amplified by the court’s decision last year in Citizens United, which unleashed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Some experts pointed to 1992, which featured a major abortion ruling and other big decisions. But the current term may be most reminiscent of the showdown between the Supreme Court and President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, when the court struck down major pieces of New Deal legislation as well as a New York law establishing a minimum wage for women and children.

“There was a whole series of blockbuster cases, each with massive political implications and economic consequences for the country,” said Jeff Shesol, the author of “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court.” That description sounds rather like the current term.

There is a great deal of happenstance in the shaping of a Supreme Court docket, and the fact that several cases arrived at the court at once does not necessarily suggest an agenda. The last term was lackluster; this one is lively.

“In most of these cases, it’s a coincidence of timing,” said Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Texas.

The justices had little choice, for instance, in agreeing to hear a challenge to the health care law, as federal appeals courts were divided over its constitutionality and the Obama administration joined its opponents in urging the court to act quickly. But the Supreme Court did not have to signal that the case was a once-in-a-generation blockbuster by scheduling an extraordinary five and half hours of arguments.

The court had more options in deciding how to act on a request from officials in Texas in the redistricting dispute. The court could have stayed out of the matter, effectively endorsing the maps that favored Democrats, which were drawn by a special three-judge court in San Antonio that ignored a separate set of maps drawn by the Republican-dominated Legislature.

The Supreme Court could have sent the case back to the special court, directing it to give more deference to the Legislature’s maps. Or the justices could have jumped in feet first. They took the boldest route.

It was, similarly, not a sure thing that the justices would accept the Arizona case, which was one of several cases in the federal pipeline involving tough state anti-immigration laws. Lower courts had not issued a final ruling on the Arizona law, giving the justices plausible reasons to wait. Instead, they chose to weigh in on one of the most combustible issues in American politics.

Supreme Court decisions routinely have political consequences, of course, sometimes quite direct ones. In 2000, 11 years to the day before the court agreed to hear the Arizona case, the court effectively decided a presidential election, in Bush v. Gore.

Putting that case to one side (as the court has, never citing it), court watchers have to go back two decades, at least, to think of Supreme Court terms as politically consequential as the current one.

Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University, pointed to the term that ended in June 1992, which included major cases raising fundamental issues of abortion, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and school desegregation. The most important of those decisions was Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the core of the right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.

In the new crop of cases, too, the court may yet avoid creating political earthquakes.

“I would not be surprised at all if they are looking at Solomonic ways to avoid trouble in an election year,” Barry Friedman, a law professor at New York University, said of the justices.

Wrongfully imprisoned? Don't sue the state.

This is truly confusing - never mind if the state sends you to prison for three years by mistake: destroying your life, impoverishing your family, and so on - it isn't responsible to pay you for damages. Perhaps he should have sued the judge and agents of the court instead of the state?

----------from Cronkite News--------------

Appeals court says wrongly jailed man cannot collect damages from state

Friday, Nov. 18
By Max Levy
Cronkite News

A federal appeals court said Friday that a man who wrongly spent three years in an Arizona prison cannot recover damages from the state.

The ruling upholds a lower court decision for Alan Stein, who pleaded guilty to attempted sexual contact with a minor in 1997, was given lifetime probation, then sentenced to 10 years in jail after violating that probation in 2006.

Stein, 53, had served three years of jail time when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that he should actually have been off probation long before he was sent to jail.

He sued the state, the Department of Corrections and various state employees over his imprisonment, but a U.S. District Court judge dismissed the suit.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court Friday. It said that while the state “had a duty to ensure that his prison sentence was calculated correctly, it had no duty to review the legality of his sentencing order” and does not owe him damages.

Stein’s attorney did not return a call seeking comment Friday. State lawyers also declined comment.

The case began Aug. 1, 1997, when Stein pleaded guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court to attempted sexual contact with a minor between October 1995 and October 1996. He was ordered to spend a year in jail and given lifetime probation. After he violated probation in February 2006, he was ordered to prison to begin a 10-year sentence.

The legality of Stein’s sentence came into question in November 2008, when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in an unrelated case that laws in effect at the time of his original sentence only permitted lifetime probation for “completed offenses against children.”

Both sides agreed that, under that ruling, Stein’s “attempted child molestation” conviction should have merited no more than five years of probation. That means he should have been off probation in 2002, long before he was sent to jail for violating it.

Stein’s prison sentence, therefore, was recognized as illegal. He was released in February 2009, four months after the Supreme Court ruling.

Stein claimed that because the Arizona Department of Corrections was responsible for his prison time, it was duty-bound to make sure that he was sentenced legally. He sued, claiming violations of his Eighth Amendment right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and 14th Amendment right to due process.

But the appeals court said he “received all the process that was due to him,” according to the opinion by Circuit Judge Clifford Wallace.

The ruling emphasized that the legality of a sentence is a court’s responsibility; the Corrections Department is obligated to carry out that sentence.

“The department has no authority to refuse to enforce a sentence issued by a competent court,” Wallace wrote.