Unconstitutional conditions of confinement

Rudzavice, James L.

Original

Transcript

UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONSOF CONFINEMENT The actions by Warden F.J.Garrido and this Administration by Group punishment,taking away priviliedges in this particular case commissary restrictions for 30 days where inmates in Dallas Unit may not*purchase any Food or Drink items [clearly affecting inmates with medical conditions such as diabetes], and in other cases the deprivation of NO commissary at all or No outside or inside recreation,these actions clearly are forbidden by the Federal Constitution;by punishing whole units with 200 or more inmates for the actions of 1 or 2 in most cases already gone to the SHU [Specialty Housing Unit] already sanctioned for their actions,while punishing all other inmates for not policing themselves clearly a violation of policy!. This Deliberate "Reckless"Indifference by Warden Garrido and his staff is fraudulent mailice and a violation of all prisoners Constitutionally protected rights,to sanction inmates without fair warning or opportunity to be heard despite:no illegal conduct violates Due Process,Staffs actions are problematic because it causes unnecessary tension,sometimes outbreaks or fights despite no legitimate non-punitive governmental interests is clearly Unconstitutional. “[F]raudulent intent may be proved by showing either actual intent or intent to decieve,or reckless indifference to the truth."SHOLDRA v. CHILMARK FN LLP, 249 F.3d 380 (5thcir 2001). The Retalitory actions/practices at FMC/FCI Ft.Worth,by Warden F.J.Garrido and his staff are malice and/or reckless indifference to the Federally protected rights of an agrrieved.party or group.See KOLSTAD v. ADA,527 US 526,144 L.ed 2d 494 (1999). The actionsby this Administration clearly has not legitimate non-punitive penological interests in punishing the majority for the actions of one or two, it is instead Unconstitutional because if rights or priviledges are granted they cannot be withheld as punishment without Due Process of Law,and these priviledges may not be arbitrarily restricted as done in this case.See BELL v. WOLFISH,441 US 520 (1979);WOLFF v. McDONALD,418 US 539 (1974). This Reckless Indifference is Equivolent of:Wanton behavior rather than invertenceor error in Good Faith. In Conditions of Confinment cases such as this when such priviledges are terminated or suspended are found to be Unconstitutional because this prohibition is not reasonably related to any leagitimate,;non-punitive governmental objective.See BELL v. WOLFISH,441 US 570 (1979);MATIS v. JOSEPH,2007 U.S... Dist. Lexis 4002(5thcir 2007). The Supreme Court explained that "[W]anton means reckless... without regard to the rights of others,and wantonly means causelssly without regard or restraint, and in reckless disregard of the rights of others and a conscious failure by one in charge with a duty to exercise due care and dilligence.See SMITH v. WADE,461 US 301,103 S.ct 1625 (1983), the deprivation of commisary priviledges for over 30 days with the exception of $25 dollars for hygiene and medicationsis wanton disregard for prisoners Constitutional rights,because it is fundamental that only except in emergency situations... Due Process is required when the Government,i.e Warden F.J.Garrido seeks to terminate [a protected] interest, it must be afforded notice and opportunity for a hearing before such termination, or it is lawlessness and barbarious in disregard for Constitutional Rights.See BELL v. BUSSY,402 US 535 - The supreme Court found a Constitutional violation exists if prison conditions are not reasonably related to a legitmate non-punitive penological government action.See BELL v. WOLFISH,441 US 520 (1979). The Fifth Circuit held it is a violation of Due Process to punish inmates for acts they did not commit,or they could not have known were prohibited.See REEVES v. PETTCOX,19 F.3d 1060.(5thcir 1994), in this case Warden F.J.Garrido is punishing innocent inmates because they refuse to police themselves. Therefore this Group punishment by punishing innocent prisoners for actions of indviduals most times already punishment creates atypical and Significant hardship in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life.See SANDLIN v. CONNER,515 US 472 (1995),thus this coolective and Group punishment is clearly forbidden by the Federal Constitution and is unlawful! The 8th Amendment protects prisoners fon methods of punishment . without legitimate,non-punitive penological interest and inhumane conditions of confinement.See FARMER v. BRENNAN,511 US 825 (1994),because inhumane conditions can take many forms and its the deprivation of the minimal civilized measures and decency.See HUDSON v. MCMILLAN,503 US 1,9,112 S.ct 9956 (1992). Therefore this unlawful and onerous treatment violates all inmates here at FMC/FCI FT.Worth Constitutional Rights, this Unconstitutional treatment has continued for over a year with no relief in sight By JAMES L RUDZAVICE

Author: Rudzavice, James L.

Author Location: Texas

Date: 2022

Genre: Essay

Extent: 2 pages

If this is your essay and you would like it removed from or changed on this site, refer to our Takedown and Changes policy.

Takedown and Changes Policy
Browse More Essays