An Introduction to Prisoner Retaliation

Inmates, just like other citizens in the United States, are guaranteed certain rights under the Constitution. Among these rights, the First Amendment stands out as one of the most important for prisoners. It guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Despite maintaining a First Amendment right, prisoners as well as free citizens often face retaliation when exercising this right. In this blog post we’ll, delve into the reality of prisoner retaliation when this right is exercised. We’ll explore common forms of retaliation and provide real examples of how inmates are affected when they exercise their rights.

What is Prisoner Retaliation?

Prisoner retaliation occurs when prison officials or other authorities retaliate against an inmate for engaging in conduct protected by the Constitution. For this post, we’ll focus on prisoners who exercise their First Amendment rights, such as filing grievances, participating in peaceful protests, or communicating with the media about conditions within the prison. It is important to recognize that while inmates loose some rights when they enter a correctional facility, they still retain their fundamental right to free speech, the right to petition, and the right to seek redress for grievances.

Retaliation involves taking some type of adverse action against the prisoner in response to the exercise of these rights. Retaliation can take many forms and can often result in serious consequences for the inmate. Not only does it undermine the protection of basic civil liberties, but it also deters inmates from speaking out, filing complaints, or engaging in lawful activities that may highlight issues such as overcrowding, mistreatment, lack of medical care, or unsanitary conditions.

Examples of Prisoner Retaliation

Prisoner retaliation within the correctional environment can manifest itself in many forms. Common examples include:

1. Restricting Access to Grievance Procedures

Many prison systems have formal grievance processes where inmates can report mistreatment, request changes, or complain about the conditions of their confinement. If a prison official feels that an inmate is too vocal in their complaints or engages in legal action against the facility, they may intentionally delay, obstruct, or deny the inmate access to these grievance procedures. This retaliation limits the inmate’s ability to raise legitimate concerns, forcing them to endure harmful conditions without any recourse for change.

For example, an inmate may file a formal complaint about being subjected to poor medical care. In retaliation, the warden or other staff members could manipulate the grievance process by either ignoring or rejecting their complaint without a proper investigation.

2. Transfer to a Different Facility

Another common form of retaliation involves transferring the inmate to a different prison or unit. Transfers can be particularly disruptive to an inmate’s ability to maintain relationships, access important legal resources, or continue any educational programs. A retaliatory transfer may be used as a punishment for an inmate who has engaged in activities such as communicating with the media or filing lawsuits.

In one well known case, Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry prisoner, Stephen Karban, was transferred from one medium security prison to another, by Deputy Warden Vivian Baltierra. Inmate Karban had filed a grievance claiming he had been the recipient of a false disciplinary citation. The sudden transfer, done with no warning, was determined by a jury to be prisoner retaliation in response to Karban using the prison’s grievance process.

3. Disciplinary Sanctions

Prisoners often face disciplinary actions from corrections officers. These sanctions may include placing an inmate in solitary confinement, restricting their visitation rights, or limiting access to educational programs and recreational activities. These disciplinary actions are often framed as responses to infractions, but they can be motivated solely by the prisoner’s exercise of their constitutional rights.

For instance, in inmate Karban’s case, retaliation began when Corrections Officer, Jacqueline Ostrander, wrote a false disciplinary citation. The disciplinary sanctions handed down due to the false citation caused inmate Karban to loose visitation rights, recreational activities, and other prison privileges. The false citation caused Karban to grieve the behavior of Officer Jacqueline Ostrander. In addition to a successful lawsuit against Vivian Baltierra, Karban also sued and won a civil lawsuit regarding Jacqueline Ostrander.

4. Harassment or Physical Abuse

Harassment and physical abuse are extreme forms of prisoner retaliation that can have devastating consequences for inmates. In some cases, corrections officers or other prison staff may target prisoners who file grievances, seek legal redress, or communicate publicly about the conditions within the facility. They may subject the inmate to physical assault, verbal threats, or even prolonged periods of confinement in harsh conditions.

One prominent example occurred in a California prison, where an inmate was severely beaten after filing a complaint about excessive use of force by prison guards. After the beating, the inmate’s grievance was ignored, and the guards involved were not disciplined suggesting the retaliation was sanctioned by the institution.

5. Limited or Denied Access to Legal Resources

Prisoners who file lawsuits or seek legal assistance often face retaliation in the form of limited or denied access to legal materials, such as law books, legal documents, or even communication with their attorneys. The withholding of legal resources is particularly detrimental to inmates who are seeking to challenge the conditions of their confinement or to pursue civil rights lawsuits.

For example, if an inmate were to file a lawsuit regarding the lack of adequate healthcare in prison, they might find themselves being denied access to the law library, making it impossible to adequately prepare their case.

6. Retaliatory Cell Searches

Routine cell searches in prison are a necessary aspect of maintaining security. However, when these searches are used as a tool of retaliation, they become an infringement on the inmate’s right to privacy and a form of harassment. Prison officials may conduct more frequent or invasive searches of an inmate’s cell after the inmate has filed complaints or engaged in protected speech activities.

In one case, an inmate who had filed multiple complaints regarding racial discrimination in the prison was subjected to daily cell searches. The searches, often conducted at odd hours, were disruptive and humiliating. They had no legitimate security purpose, and it was clear that they were designed to punish the inmate for their activism.

Legal Protections Against First Amendment Prisoner Retaliation

Prisoners who experience retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights have the legal right to challenge such actions. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides a framework for bringing lawsuits against corrections officials, but it also places certain limitations on prisoners’ ability to seek legal remedies. Despite these challenges, courts have consistently ruled that retaliation against prisoners for engaging in protected speech or petitioning the government is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2012) reinforced that prisoners are entitled to First Amendment protections, even if their speech or activities are unpopular with prison officials. The Court held that retaliation against a prisoner for their constitutional rights could be the basis of a lawsuit.

In these cases, inmates often seek damages for the violation of their First Amendment rights and may also request injunctive relief to stop ongoing retaliatory actions. However, proving retaliation in a prison setting can be difficult, as it often requires clear evidence that the retaliatory action was motivated by the inmate’s exercise of their rights rather than legitimate security concerns.

What Makes a Strong Retaliation Case?

For an incarcerated individual to have a strong case supporting First Amendment prisoner retaliation, the prisoner must be able to prove five key elements as outlined in Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir 2005). The five key elements are:

1. An Adverse Action: The prisoner must prove that a prison official took an adverse, or negative, action against him or her. This can be either a completed or threatened action.
2. Because of: There must be proof that the adverse action was taken because the prisoner was engaging in a protected First Amendment right.
3. The Protected Conduct: The prisoner must establish he or she was engaged in a protected First Amendment right. This could be evidence that the prisoner was grieving an issue, threatening a lawsuit, or communicating with the media prior to the adverse action occurring.
4. Chilling Effect: The prisoner must show that the adverse action would chill an ordinary individual from exercising their First Amendment right. The prisoner isn’t required to show that the adverse action would stop the future exercise of the protected right.
5. No Legitimate Correctional Goal: Lastly, to establish a strong retaliation case, the prisoner must show that the taken or threatened adverse action failed to advance a legitimate correctional goal.

My Final Thoughts

Prisoner retaliation is a serious issue that undermines the constitutional rights of inmates. Whether through obstructing grievances, transferring prisoners, or subjecting them to abuse, retaliation silences the voices of those who attempt to address confinement conditions or exercise their right to free speech. Understanding and addressing this form of retaliation is crucial for ensuring that inmates retain the ability to speak out against injustices and advocate for improved conditions. Legal protections do exist, but the fight for inmates’ rights remains an ongoing challenge.

If you, or someone you know, will be representing themselves in either a criminal or civil matter, our books are crucial resources in the pursuit of justice. Purchase your copy today or on behalf of someone incarcerated.