May 2024 Intake Unit Impact Case Blocks

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General May 2024 Intake Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in July 2024 Prison Oversight The Office of the Inspector General (the OIG), hotline), and web inquiries through our as part of our statute, maintains an Intake website, which can exceed 800 complaints Processing Unit that receives complaints a month. Below are six complaints that the from the incarcerated population and the Intake Processing Unit reviewed and closed public. Staff in the Intake Processing Unit as of May 2024. These cases highlight the respond to complaints that the OIG receives OIG’s impact and efforts to resolve the through regular mail, phone calls (toll-free complainants’ concerns. Incident Date OIG Case Number August 22, 2023 24-0072964-PI Case Type Complaint Summary Classification Issue On January 31, 2024, the OIG received a mail complaint from an incarcerated person (complainant) who alleged a classification error had been made, which restricted him from using a computer. The error disqualified him from any job or vocational assignment that Mission required access to a computer. Division of Adult Institutions: General Population Males OIG Actions The OIG reviewed prison records, departmental policy, regulations, and penal code requirements. We found that a classification committee had placed the restriction on the complainant because an incorrect commitment offense that restricts computer access had been cited from the California Penal Code. Based on the OIG’s assessment, the complainant should not have been restricted from a vocational assignment that required computer usage. The OIG reviewed the related grievance submitted by the complainant and identified that the Office of Grievances’ (OOG) response cited the incorrect penal code requirement for computer crimes and improperly restricted the complainant’s access to or ability to work on a computer for a possible vocational assignment. The complainant appealed the OOG’s decision to the Office of Appeals (OOA). However, the OIG determined that the OOA did not sufficiently assess and review the appeal before it closed the complaint. On February 16, 2024, the OIG referred the complainant’s concerns to the OOA to reconsider the initial response. Disposition On February 22, 2024, the OOA provided an amended response to the complainant and directed the OOG to open a new grievance and refer the claim back to the classification committee for review to determine whether the computer restriction was valid. On March 21, 2024, the OOG opened a new grievance, and on April 18, 2024, the grievance was granted because the OOG had inappropriately applied the computer restriction. On April 16, 2024, the complainant was heard by the classification committee, and the complainant’s restriction from computer usage was lifted. Page 1 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General May 2024 Intake Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in July 2024 Prison Oversight Incident Date OIG Case Number June 22, 2023 24-0075175-PI Case Type Complaint Summary Mail Operations On March 1, 2024, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from an incarcerated person who alleged that mailroom staff had inappropriately refused to deliver his mail that included a map of a city within the state of Kansas. Mission Division of Adult Institutions: General OIG Actions Population Males The OIG identified the related grievance, appeal, and related documents. On June 22, 2023, the incarcerated person’s grievance was received by the Office of Grievances (OOG). The grievance stated the aerial city map within Kansas was nowhere near any state prison. On July 12, 2023, the OOG refused to deliver the map to the incarcerated person because it determined the map was within a 10-mile radius of a Kansas correctional facility. The complainant appealed the OOG’s decision to the Office of Appeals (OOA). On September 18, 2023, the OOA granted the appeal requesting that the OOG open a new grievance and substantiate whether the map was within a 10-mile radius of a facility. A new grievance was assigned, and on November 15, 2023, the OOG again denied issuing the aerial map, claiming the map was within a 10-mile radius of a correctional facility. The complainant appealed the OOG’s decision to the Office of Appeals (OOA); however, the OIG determined that the OOA had not sufficiently assessed and reviewed the appeal before it closed the complaint. The OIG reviewed departmental regulations that prohibited incarcerated people from possessing a map depicting any area within a 10-mile radius of a correctional facility. Our review found that the distances shown in the aerial map were outside of the 10-mile radius of any nearby correctional facility. The OIG determined that the prison had used a mapping application that provided accurate distances when measured directly within the application. However, the distances to nearby correctional facilities in Kansas were distorted and appeared closer than 10 miles away when the map was converted to a PDF. On March 14, 2024, we shared our findings with the OOG, and requested reconsideration of the previously denied grievances and appeals because the aerial map appeared to comply with departmental regulations. Disposition On March 21, 2024, the prison’s mailroom supervisor agreed with the OIG’s findings and provided the withheld mail including the map to the incarcerated person. Page 2 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General May 2024 Intake Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in July 2024 Prison Oversight Incident Date OIG Case Number March 21, 2024 24-0077036-PI Case Type Complaint Summary Transfer Issue or Transfer On March 25, 2024, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from an incarcerated person, Requests; Safety Concern who alleged he was going to be transferred to another prison where he had safety concerns and was at risk of being assaulted. Mission Division of Adult OIG Actions Institutions: High Security The OIG identified and reviewed the related grievance and classification documents. The OIG found that because a yard was going to be deactivated, a captain had notified the incarcerated person on March 21, 2024, that he was being transferred to another prison. The incarcerated person stated in a grievance received by the Office of Grievances (OOG) on March 26, 2024, that over several days, beginning on March 21, 2024, he had notified a correctional counselor, a lieutenant, a captain, and the investigative services unit, of his imminent safety concerns if he were to be transferred to the other prison. Nevertheless, the incarcerated person was subsequently transferred to the other prison on March 27, 2024. The OIG searched the historical “backfile” documents and found a confidential investigation memorandum from March 2011 indicating that the incarcerated person had safety concerns at the prison in which he had been transferred. On March 27, 2024, the OIG notified the warden at the prison where the incarcerated person had recently been transferred of the safety concerns and provided the warden with the information found in the confidential memorandum. Disposition On March 27, 2024, the incarcerated person was promptly placed in the restricted housing unit due to the safety concerns the OIG had shared with the warden. On March 28, 2024, the incarcerated person was returned to the prison from which he had transferred from the previous day. Page 3 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General May 2024 Intake Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in July 2024 Prison Oversight Incident Date OIG Case Number March 19, 2024 24-0076480-PI Case Type Complaint Summary Contraband; Rules On March 19, 2024, the OIG received two anonymous voicemails from an incarcerated Violation Report person alleging that incarcerated people in four separate cells were in possession of mobile phones. Mission Division of Adult OIG Actions Institutions: High Security We reviewed the prison’s housing data and found that three of the prison’s cells housed six incarcerated people who had previously received rules violation reports for the possession of a mobile phone in the past year. On March 20, 2024, the OIG notified the hiring authority of the alleged contraband mobile phones, along with the housing-cell numbers provided by the anonymous source. On March 25, 2024, the OIG reviewed prison records, but found no documentation that a cell search had been conducted or that any mobile phones had been discovered. Thus, on March 27, 2024, the OIG followed up with the hiring authority to determine what actions, if any, had been taken based on the OIG’s notification. After the OIG’s subsequent contact, the prison notified the OIG that the search that had been conducted on March 27, 2024, resulted in the discovery of one mobile phone in one of the four housing cells that had been searched. A rules violation report was issued to the incarcerated person for possession of a mobile phone. Of note, the cell search was conducted seven days after we had initially notified the prison of the alleged contraband mobile phones. Disposition Although the incarcerated person who possessed a mobile phone received a rules violation report, the rules violation report was ultimately dismissed because of a due-process violation by departmental staff. On April 9, 2024, an officer provided the incarcerated person with a copy of the rules violation report, and a senior hearing officer was not assigned until May 8, 2024. The rules violation report hearing took place on May 13, 2024, more than 30 days after the rules violation report was provided to the incarcerated person. Thus, because of staff’s due-process violation, the incarcerated person did not incur discipline. Page 4 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General May 2024 Intake Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in July 2024 Prison Oversight Incident Date OIG Case Number March 10, 2024 24-0076808-PI Case Type Complaint Summary Safety Concern On March 21, 2024, the OIG received a voicemail complaint from an incarcerated person (complainant) alleging a safety or enemy concern with another incarcerated person, but the department failed to resolve the concern. The complainant stated that after reporting the Mission safety concern, the complainant was placed in the restricted housing unit at another prison. Division of Adult Departmental staff then attempted to return the complainant to the same facility with the Institutions: Female other incarcerated person. Offender Programs and Services/Special Housing OIG Actions The OIG reviewed prison records and identified a confidential memorandum dated March 10, 2024, documenting the complainant’s safety concerns. The sergeant who conducted the review determined that the complainant was unreliable and that the safety concerns were unsubstantiated. Therefore, no steps were taken to confidentially separate the complainant and the incarcerated person. On March 16, 2024, another investigator interviewed the complainant at the same prison for a separate safety concern. This investigator identified the complainant as a reliable source. Thus, the investigator documented that the complainant was an enemy of the third incarcerated person. The OIG reviewed departmental policy and identified a concern with the department’s conclusion. On March 22, 2024, the OIG notified the hiring authority of the complainant’s possible safety concerns with the other incarcerated person. Furthermore, the OIG requested that the prison reevaluate the complainant’s safety concerns to determine whether they warranted a confidential offender-separation alert with the other incarcerated person. Disposition Following the OIG’s notification to the hiring authority on March 22, 2024, there was no documentation indicating that the prison had reevaluated the complainant’s safety concerns. The complainant was transferred to another prison in May 2024. Although the complainant and the other incarcerated person are currently housed at different prisons, the safety concern appears unresolved. Page 5 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General May 2024 Intake Unit Impact Case Blocks Independent Published in July 2024 Prison Oversight Incident Date OIG Case Number January 31, 2024 24-0077289-PI Case Type Complaint Summary Prison Rape Elimination On March 28, 2024, the OIG received a mail complaint from a third party alleging that a Act: Incarcerated Person transgender women (PREA aggressor) housed in a female prison sexually assaulted another on Incarcerated Person incarcerated person (PREA victim). Mission OIG Actions Division of Adult The OIG immediately reviewed prison records and determined that the department had Institutions: Female first become aware of this Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) allegation on March 6, 2024, Offender Programs and and initiated PREA protocols. During the investigation, the date of the alleged incident was Services/Special Housing determined to be January 31, 2024. The alleged PREA aggressor was housed in the prison’s restricted housing unit on February 1, 2024, due to an unrelated matter. The department completed its PREA investigation on March 21, 2024, before the OIG received the complaint, and the allegations against the PREA aggressor were sustained. On March 28, 2024, the complaint was referred to the OIG’s Field Investigations Monitoring Unit (FIMU) to monitor the Institutional PREA Review Committee (IPRC). The OIG’s review of the IPRC is to include, in part, whether the allegation or investigation indicates a need to change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, or respond to sexual abuse. Disposition On April 5, 2024, a classification committee hearing was held for an Involuntary Gender Identity Based Transfer and Department Review Board Referral consideration in accordance with the Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act. The committee endorsed the transfer of the PREA aggressor to a male prison on April 19, 2024. Page 6 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov