Category: TPI advocacy efforts

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be moderate risk.

TPI submitted an initial complaint in early March 2022 concerning an unauthorized and abusive body cavity search. Although the complaint could have alleged sexual abuse, there is a US Department of Justice (DoJ) interpretation of allegations against staff for committing sexual violence where if the sexual violence happened while carrying out one’s job duties, intent of sexual violence must be proven. Intent like that is next to impossible to prove in prison settings, so we sometimes choose to address these allegations as staff misconduct. To be clear, TPI believes that what was reported to have happened WAS sexual abuse, but we know that reporting it as such, the report would only be dismissed and would stand less chance of finding any misconduct.

The TPI complaint was not sent to the PREA Ombudsman (which would investigate sexual violence), but the TDCJ Ombudsman forwarded it to the PREA Ombudsman as a means of manipulating our compliant, relegating it to a certain finding of “unsubstantiated” as sexual abuse instead of investigating staff misconduct.

The letter provided here is a subsequent complaint about that malicious manipulation of our complaint, with documentation we have about this and similar manipulation that we believe indicates willful negligence in addressing staff misconduct and unconstitutional violence against persons in prison. The letter was copied to the DoJ.

In the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be low risk.

Property issues may seem to be of little significance to persons on the outside, but in prison, your property can be an important link to feeling human in a greatly dehumanizing environment. Property handling also becomes a kind of proxy power struggle between incarcerated persons and staff because staff have many opportunities to confiscate and destroy property, so winning property battles can be a significant personal victory, one that helps a person feel seen and acknowledged as a human being.

In this case, a trans woman follows all TDCJ policy concerning inquiries about property being sent from one prison to another when she was transferred. Even with clear documentation that TDCJ was in possession of her property and obviously lost it somewhere during the shipment, TDCJ refused all accountability, claiming she did not provide proof of ownership, when the subject had clearly stated she had receipts and paperwork for all items missing.

This advocacy attempt also illustrates an important secondary purpose of advocacy: pushing prison agencies for responses gets them to reveal operational problems. As part of our complaint, we cited the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), which outlines basic civil rights afforded persons in prisons. Among those are the right to review of their grievances, and the right to have timely responses to grievances. CRIPA states that the entire grievance process should be completed within 180 days; the subject of the complaint had yet to get a response to her Step 2 grievance after almost 220 days.

TDCJ responded to the allegation of CRIPA violations that they consulted with the TDCJ Office of General Counsel, which “advised the federal law to which you refer is a voluntary procedure in which states may avail themselves of, if they so choose. Currently, Texas has not chosen to do so.”

It is true that no specific penalties are defined under CRIPA for non-compliance, but that does not make a federal law subject to only “voluntary” compliance. And that opinion misrepresents CRIPA. The act gives the US Attorney General the right to take legal action against any party responsible for human confinement when the AG determines the failure to comply with CRIPA deprives “such persons of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States causing such persons to suffer grievous harm, and that such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities.”

In the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be moderate risk.

TPI tries to respond immediately to death threats, in this case threats against the life of a gay man due to his sexual orientation. Enhancing our concern in this case was that the report came from Telford Unit, in northeast Texas, which TPI considers one of the worst units in the TDCJ system for trans and queer persons. It is not uncommon for staff and administration at Telford to take actions that increase the endangerment of anyone who is trans or queer.

In this case, a person reported receiving multiple kites, or notes, threatening his life due to his sexual orientation at some point around or before the end of March 2022. The subject of the complaint had filed for an Inmate Protection Investigation (IPI), which is supposed to identify endangerment. As is common at Telford and throughout TDCJ, the IPI was “unsubstantiated,” which means they claim there was less than a 50/50 chance that the report of endangerment was true.

The subject was ordered to be housed back where he reported endangerment, then filed for another IPI in early April. That IPI too was “unsubstantiated.” Fortunately the subject was transferred the day after the second IPI was filed.

A transfer can take weeks if not months in TDCJ. A transfer has to be recommended by the unit, then approved by the State Classification Committee. That the transfer happened almost immediately indicates it was done as an expedited action in response to some sort of emergency circumstances. In cases such as this, no one should believe the report that an investigation was appropriately determined to be “unsubstantiated”; these expedited transfers do not happen when there is not a serious threat of endangerment and harm.

In the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be moderate risk.

In March 2022, a few days after arriving at a TDCJ’s Estelle Unit, a guard began harassing a trans woman because he felt he needed to force her to look and act like a man. He is reported to have made her go to her cell and told her that she could not come out of the cell as long as she looked like a woman. The subject of the complaint reported other guards also mistreated her, possibly encouraged to do so by the actions of the initial person harassing her. It should also be noted that the guard harassing her gave her a false name; Texas law requires guards to accurately identify themselves when asked.

Although the subject of the abuse did not state specifically, she is a good advocate for her interests and would have tried to address the discrimination through processes set up to do so.

TDCJ responded about 10 weeks later with a vague affirmation that they confirmed the abuses of the guard initially harassing the subject. The response indicates an investigation by the unit was not done properly, meaning staff and administration tried to cover up the incidents. Additional interviews with witnesses appear to have confirmed the mistreatment. It is telling that not until June did administration take “corrective actions” to address the misconduct by the guards.

In the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred. The response to this letter was one of a very few that garnered actual investigation by someone outside the unit staff, who have a vested interest in covering up harm.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be low risk.

In this complaint, TPI is addressing the improper use of a housing designation called “safekeeping status,” which TDCJ routinely manipulates in various ways and for various purposes. It is sometimes used as a means of denying trans and queer persons access to education and training programs, and it is falsely claimed to be a voluntary designation when in fact safekeeping status can be extremely difficult to obtain or waive. In this case, the subject of the complaint had been trying for about three years to have her safekeeping status removed so she could pursue educational opportunities denied persons in safekeeping housing (TDCJ will disingenuously claim safekeeping status is not what keeps persons from opportunities, it is that the units where where the opportunities are offered do not have safekeeping housing).

The PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) standards require considerable evaluation before placing someone in involuntary segregation, and requires that persons placed in such housing shall have access to all “programs, privileges, education, and work opportunities to the extent possible.” Denial of such access requires significant documentation of why the person requires segregation and justifying the lack of access that accompanies such segregation. TDCJ avoids the required documentation by claiming that safekeeping status is always voluntary. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is not.

In this case, the National PREA Resource Center auditor, as is common of PREA auditors, was complicit in covering up TDCJ’s noncompliance because the auditor was at the unit while the subject was active seeking removal from safekeeping and being denied. The PREA auditor not only falsely claimed, based on the unconfirmed false information provided by the unit, that no persons were in “involuntary protective custody” at the unit, the PREA auditor went so far as to grade the unit as “exceeds expectations” on compliance with the relevant PREA standard.

TDCJ refused to respond to our complaint other than to falsely state “[w]e have looked into the matter but have not identified any PREA violations.”

It may be worth noting that in the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be high risk.

Here we are addressing an issue of harassment and threats from other incarcerated persons, and staff refusal to respond to the endangerment even though they knew of the issues and even said they would take care of the problem, but did not. With the lack of response from staff, the subject felt she had no other choice but to negotiate protection with another incarcerated person, an agreement that often means trading sexual favors for protection from harm. In this case, even though they knew about the endangerment and directly or indirectly encouraged the actions taken by the subject, the staff then cited the subject with a disciplinary case for sexual misconduct.

In their response to this complaint on March 11, 2022, the PREA Ombudsman referred to the coerced sex for protection as “a consensual relationship,” a typical excuse used to cover up sexual violence and manipulate data reported under PREA requirements. In spite of their manipulation, the Office of the Inspector General did open an investigation, but it can take years for such investigations to be completed, and most are dismissed.

It may be worth noting that in the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be moderate risk.

In this letter, we are advocating for someone based on somewhat limited information sent to us in their first letter. TPI often tries to get more information before filing a complaint, but in cases where the endangerment appears to be immediate, we will file with what we have. Our impression was that this issue warranted quick action.

Note that extortion is mentioned, and the person we were advocating for admits to paying extortion. This is common in prison. When staff refuse to respond or refuse to provide appropriate response, the fastest means of gaining some safety is to pay someone, generally with commissary or sex, for protection. This also causes additional problems because prison staff will often refuse to identify extortion as such, and are fairly likely to claim this is consensual trafficking and trading in contraband or consensual sex, and it can result in a disciplinary case for the person trying to avoid additional harm or violence.

Mentioned in this letter is the SCC, or Unit Classification Committee. The Unit Classification Committee (UCC) and the SCC are important review groups that make decisions about housing and transfers. In general, endangerment is investigated and the UCC determines what, if anything, is recommended to be done to address the endangerment. That recommendation is send to the SCC for final approval. The UCC can make weak arguments to claim to be acting in the best interest of the incarcerated person, even when they know that the argument they make will be refused by SCC. That appears to be the manipulation that occurred in this instance.

It may be worth noting that in the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be moderate risk.

The person we are advocating for in this letter, a trans woman, provided a detailed description of being assaulted by a ranking officer and guards after a disciplinary hearing. The Captain mentioned in this letter as an assailant has been reported to TPI an number of times as being disrespectful, unprofessional, and an instigator or perpetrator of violence against persons in TDCJ custody, particularly LGBTQ+ persons.

TDCJ staff have a saying: “we protect our own.” Although there may be descriptions of this statement that have more honorable justification, what this statement often means is that staff will cover up violence against incarcerated persons committed by other staff.

In responding to this report, TDCJ’s “independent” ombudsman simply parroted the statement from staff at the unit who claimed that the person “attempted to head butt an officer.” No attempt to verify the veracity of that statement was made, and no video or audio recordings were reviewed. It is common for staff to claim that there was some “attempt” to do do something as an excuse for violence, in this case being used to justify assaulting someone who was in hand restraints and could not defend themselves. Any use of force is generally considered improper against someone in hand restraints.

It may be worth noting that in the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be high risk.

The person in this letter has identified to TPI as a transgender woman. She has reported sexual assault by a guard, who then proceeded to harass her and threaten her if she reported the incident, and then to retaliate against her when she did report it. Other staff participated in what can only be described as an attempt to cover up the abuses by the guard. The issue is discussed in two complaints to the TDCJ PREA Ombudsman, submitted in January and February 2022. The first complaint was filed with information we had initially, and the second provided some additional information and subsequent violence against the trans woman survivor.

In response to the actions by the incarcerated trans woman and our complaints, eventually the guard who sexually assaulted her was terminated. However, the trans woman was told that she was lying and her story was unsubstantiated, which means they are claiming there is less than a 50% chance it happened. TDCJ claims about 97% of all allegations to be either unsubstantiated or unfounded (claiming they did not happen), and this is often accomplished by refusing to investigate appropriately, manipulating the narrative of the survivor, claiming sexual assault is “consensual,” or simply claiming the person is lying.