We are all subjects of a system that uses aggression to subdue calls for human rights because those who are in power can only stay in power if the perception of “justice” is corrupted.
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court denying federal inmates the ability to sue correctional officers for crimes such as assault is a blatant denial of inmates’ Eighth Amendment rights. What it’s basically saying is that employees of the Bureau of Prisons have almost blanket immunity – a green light to abuse and assault the individuals under their care. This is a clear reflection of a President whose administration is weaponizing all law-enforcement personnel – from correctional officers to ICE agents – to maintain a predominantly white system through force.
The unsigned ruling justified the court’s action by saying that if inmate’s claim was allowed to move forward, it “could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials.” Let’s back up and review the facts. Anthony Fields, who was incarcerated at USP Lee at the time, says that officers shoved his face into the wall, slammed a security shield into his back, then punched him and kneed him in the groin – all while he was constrained. My question is: What are the “negative consequences” for the inmates when such abuse goes unpunished? I’ll tell you: The attack on Fields occurred in 2021. In 2024, National Public Radio described a pervasive culture of racism and violence at Lee, especially in the prison’s Special Housing Unit. Numerous lawsuits have now been filed, alleging that officers smashed incarcerated people’s faces into concrete walls and broke their teeth, stomped on their feet and legs with steel-toed boots, kicked and groped their testicles, and cut off their dreadlocks and ripped off their beards. One man now requires the use of a wheelchair as a result. The moral of the story is clear: When officers get away with abuse, more abuse will follow. (It was the lawsuits and media exposure, I believe, that at least forced the DOJ to recommend limits on the BOP’s use of restraints.)
The Supreme Court stated that “inmates have other avenues” in which to address allegations against correctional officers. I assume it’s referring to the what’s called the “administrative remedy” system. If so, the justices clearly are not familiar with how that system works in reality.
A guide to the ‘administrative remedy’ system
Here’s how what’s also known as the grievance system is supposed to work:
When inmates believe they have been wronged by prison staff, they begin the process by requesting a BP-8 form from their unit counselor. After an inmate completes the form with a description of the issue, the form is supposed to be signed and dated by the counselor, thus beginning a formal timeline. The counselor should then investigate the allegations and seek to mediate the grievance or issue. The BP-8 is then returned to the inmate with the counselor’s findings and actions noted.
If the findings are not to the inmate’s liking, he or she may then request and file a BP-9 with the warden, then a BP-10 (the regional office) and a BP-11 (DC headquarters). It is only after these steps have been taken that inmates may take their grievances to court.
Now let me tell you how that process works in real life.
Over my past nine years of incarceration, I have filed numerous grievances for a wide range of reasons – from staff harassment to discrimination in the commissary — and I’ve learned that it isn’t really intended to be a “remedy process ” but more like a “pacifier process.” That means inmates have very low expectations regarding the outcome. The slightest of chances for some measure of justice are only possible if you get past the individual prison level – BP-8 and BP-9 – and beyond the scope of the friendship, relatives, buddy brotherhood within the institution. The only opportunity for at least some impartiality is at the regional (BP-10) office.
At the prison level, grievances are at great risk of being downplayed or even thrown in the trash by anyone and everyone, including the unit counselor — to whom you are instructed to submit your BP-8. If your grievance concerns someone he or she is friends with or married to, your grievance could simply disappear (or worse, you’re retaliated against, like with a shank – knife – planted in your cell). Correctional employees depend on these jobs to take care of their families, and inmates are seen as fuck ups who chose a life of crime and are now “crying like a little snitch bitch ” about what some officer did to them.
Still, if you have a halfway decent counselor, he or she will do a surface investigation of your claim, maybe talk to the officer involved, take a look at what you have listed on your claim as a possible form of reasonable relief, and get back to you in a couple of weeks with a signed copy of your complaint and his findings. In case you don’t agree with the counselor’s conclusions, a BP-9 for the warden should be included.
You might think that at this level, claims are taken seriously, but that is not the case. It really depends on what kind of man/woman that institution’s warden is. At FCI Bennettsville, the institutional administration is mostly fair. But if you have a reputation for writing officers up a lot, it can work against you. You might even get shipped to another institution!
Once your grievance makes it to the warden’s office, it takes an average of two months to receive a response. And that’s if you are constantly on their case about your grievance. It’s only after you have exhausted the BP-9 appeal that you can finally head to the Regional Office. But at any point, your grievance may be dismissed because you skipped a step, took too long to file (usually due to no fault of your own) or didn’t provide all the proper paperwork.
The illusion of justice
The bottom line is this: The system is designed to protect itself from challenge and disruption. It was created to create the illusion that inmates actually have rights and don’t need to go to court or protest. Any attempt at collectively organizing to protest – by going on strike or even circulating a petition – is quickly stamped out, with the organizers often immediately shipped out.
In my view, a major underpinning of this oppression is the disproportionately white staff, many who live in mainly rural towns and are hard-line, often White supremacist conservatives. Many of them have military backgrounds – already trained to follow orders. That means that the odds of being impartial with Black inmates are slim. (In my experience, when an officer assaults an inmate, that inmate is almost always black. I don’t say people of color because other races or ethnicities, such as Mexicans, are often feared because of their cohesiveness and willingness to kill in in their defense.) Nowhere in the qualifications for correctional officers do the words honor or integrity show up.
Prison officers are a closely knit group and are often related and grew up in the same areas where these institutions are located. Then add the us vs them mentality. And now, under a Trump influence that started in his first term, we have a Supreme Court populated with justices who identify as conservative or even Trump acolytes. So, we know what to expect when we are assaulted by a correctional officer. Where is the enforcement of the BOP’s own policy that all inmates “shall be ensured a safe and humane environment”? The BOP’s PREA policy (required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act) mandates an entire system to protect inmates who are victims of sexual misconduct by officers. So, it’s not ok for officers to sexually harass prisoners, but you can physically abuse them?
Without a clear, definitive ruling from this nation’s highest authorities that we have rights too and that such behavior is not acceptable, officers will continue to beat us up with impunity. There should be no job in the United States that green lights commission of crimes against anyone, including prison inmates. (Note that Trump has issued an executive order calling for an automatic death penalty for any person who kills a law enforcement officer – no matter what the circumstances. That’s a casebook example of a double standard.)
What we are facing today is an assault on not just Blacks but the so-called “American” ideal – that human rights and justice are guaranteed for everyone. This Supreme Court ruling is just another manifestation of what this country is becoming in broad daylight, right in front of our eyes. If an individual cannot expect to seek justice through the court, where can they turn?
