The panel says inmates restricted for security reasons should get the 30 minutes a day out of their cells they're entitled to, and have a better way to appeal their placement.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department is unfair and perhaps cruel in how it treats inmates in some of the most restrictive parts of county jails, the grand jury has found.
Inmates placed in administrative segregation because they’re believed to pose a threat to other inmates or staff can’t appeal their placement the way inmates can protest other conditions, a policy the grand jury recommended changing.
In addition, while those inmates are supposed to get 30 minutes a day outside of their cells to do things like take a shower and call their family, they sometimes lose even that little amount of time, grand jurors wrote in a report released last week. Inmates shouldn’t lose access to rights and privileges like that, the panel said.
“Preventing, denying or curtailing the allotted time with no appropriate alternative to compensate for lost time, is not only unfair, but could be interpreted as cruel treatment,” the report states.
The Sheriff’s Department declined to comment. A spokesman said officials are still reviewing the report and crafting an official response, which is expected to be filed next week.
Riverside County’s civil grand jury provides oversight into county and city government operations, with the panel looking into a variety of issues during each one-year term and issuing reports with non-binding recommendations.
This year, grand jurors were prompted by a Press-Enterprise story on an inmate hunger strike at the county jail in Riverside to look into the issues raised by those inmates.
All 16 inmates in administrative segregation, or “ad-seg,” at the Robert Presley Detention Center participated in that five-day hunger strike in January. Ad-seg inmates also went on a 19-day hunger strike in spring 2017, and a local activist said then that there had been another hunger strike about six months previously. The grand jury said this suggested a pattern of problems not being addressed.
The main issue that prompted this year’s hunger strike, according to the grand jury, was how ad-seg placements are reviewed “and the lack of an equitable appeal process.”
Inmates who want to protest almost any condition of their confinement can file grievances. If they’re not happy with the outcome, they can appeal up the chain of command, all the way to the commander of the jail.
But inmates who take issue with being assigned to administrative segregation are allowed to file only informal grievances, the grand jury report says. Those complaints are reviewed by the same sergeant who placed the inmate there and who evaluates every 30 days whether they should stay or return to the general population. The inmates can’t attend that review and don’t have an option to appeal the result to higher ranks.
Another main frustration that led to the hunger strike was ad-seg inmates frequently losing their 30 minutes of time out of their cells, said Michelle Delahanty, whose husband, Brian, participated in the strike. Often it’s because the unit has to be locked down while an inmate is being transported in or out, she said in January. Someone whose time is cut short doesn’t get to make it up later.
Other conditions she said they were protesting was a lack of attention to medical issues — for example, she said her husband was diagnosed in jail with high blood pressure but wasn’t getting the medication he was told he needed — and a loss of access to hygiene items at the commissary. Additionally, ad-seg inmates without mental health issues wanted separate areas from those with mental health issues, who can be disruptive, she said.
The grand jury criticized the Sheriff’s Department for being “inconsistent and capricious” in giving inmates the time out of their cells they’re entitled to. It also said that while staff might make changes for a few weeks or months after inmates raised concerns, they would soon “revert back to their ‘old ways.’”
“All correctional policies must be enforced, especially in regards to privileges, in order to maintain stability and assure the inmate population that all policies will be consistently enforced and not be applied capriciously,” the report says. “Staff must not create a work culture of deliberate indifference or institutional complacency.”
Finally, the grand jury saw as a problem that the only way for inmates to raise concerns was through the grievance process, which it called “a reactive stance.”
It recommended that in addition to grievances, the Sheriff’s Department should develop a proactive process, such as a monthly discussion where inmates could raise concerns, which might allow staff to address issues before they escalate.
In 2015, experts in medical and mental health assessed Riverside County’s jails as part of the settlement process in a class-action lawsuit filed by the Prison Law Office. The experts’ detailed written reports didn’t contain much criticism of the administrative segregation units, although as part of the settlement, there are some enhanced policies to ensure ad-seg inmates are getting proper mental health care — an issue the grand jury didn’t address.
July 2, 2019
The Press-Enterprise
By Nikie Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment