Pelican Bay Human Rights Movement: Short Corridor Collective’s Counter-Proposal to CDCR

Modern-Management Control Unit (MMCU)

This proposal starts by looking at concrete programs that have been implemented by CDCR and functioned effectively, and by examining how they can be immediately adapted to the present-day PBSP and all 180 prison structures.

In the 1970s and 1980s the Max-B management control unit programs, such as Chino, DVI, and San Quentin Max-B, afforded as much programming as the General Population (GP) prisoners had, and held individual prisoners accountable, who failed to program within the MCU setting.

Today (2012) there are still some small Max-B type programs functioning in a few CDCR facilities under different names, but segregated with the same objectives.

The new 180 design prison complexes are perfectly structured for the necessary control setting and for meeting all the security requirements needed to make this modern (Max-B MCU) type of unti(s) more durable and cost-effective to operate for the California tax payers.

PBSP “B” Control Program

PBSP “B” facility control/behavior program (facility) for the general population prototype can be implemented as a pilot program, and used at other 180 design prison complexes. PBSP “B” facility can serve a dual purpose of allowing for a short period of decompression time for validated SHU/Ad Seg prisoners who have served decades in super-max SHUs. This applies to prisoners who have not received any serious CDCR-RVR 115s for any individual behavioral misconduct, demonstrating factually reliable evidence of the prisoner currently engaging in criminal gang activity that shall and can be prosecuted as a criminal offense within California’s state or federal courts.

The second purpose of this M-MCU program shall allow validated prisoners to successfully complete the 90 day step program; this is a three phase program for re-entry back in the general population of a prison setting, within the new modern structural environment of the 180 design prisons like the old MCU program (similar to what existed in the mid-1970s and 1080s at Chino, DVI, San Quentin Max-B units, and old Folsom state prison—i.e., restricted housing units).

PBSP “B” Facility is an Ideal Institution for the (Max-B, MCU) Program for release to the (G.P.), because it is in a level IV Maximum Security Prison, with an existing Policy Requiring that inactive affiliates be housed on close B status within a level IV-prison setting, for a period of observation that shall be no longer than 12 months.

Upon completion of that observation period, the prisoner shall be transferred to another control/behavior unit (CBU) Facility to G.P. in the absence of real safety needs (i.e. a specific conduct/behavior act), the prisoner may be housed in a facility consistent with his classification score.

PBSP “B” Facility is comprised of eight (8) housing units with one main exercise yard, that is divided into three (3) smaller separate yards, and approximately twenty cells per. Section (i.e. A, B, and C) for building one (1) and building two (2) is a repeat of building one. Each housing unit has three separate housing sections, with an approximate capacity of forty prisoners in each section. Thus, each housing unit has room for approximately 120 prisoners, and a facility capacity of 900 prisoners. Additionally, each housing unit has a separate concrete wall enclosed yard, with a capacity of twenty (20) to forty (40) prisoners, during their (prisoners) exercise periods. There are generally two (2) or three (3), exercising periods each day. Prisoners can effectively be segregated to fit security and safety standards, like what existed under the past management control units. All segregated programming can be operated by a schedule of Group A, Group B, and Group C.

Modern Management Control Facility (MMCF/G.P.) Has Three Phases:

Phase I: Initial Placement into (MMCF) from the (SHU) shall be for a minimum of 30 days, with no group programming, no designated work group participation allowed non-contact visits.

Phase II: Programming within a prisoners particular classification assigned to group A, B, or C. Eating in Dining Hall. Phase II Placement shall be for a minimum of 60 days, with contact visits.

Phase III: The successful completion of 90 days (MMCF/GP) Programming, meaning a prisoner has full access to one of the main exercise yards with his assigned group.

In Phase I, the classification committee will designate the assigned work group; phase II work group A1,A2,B privilege Group B; Phase II work group A1,A2,B privileged work group.

  1. Classification should be every 90 days
  2. Telephone access: One call per month
  3. Contact visits
  4. Educational programs
  5. Canteen items not to exceed one month’s draw of assigned privilege group
  6. Conjugal visits
  7. Feeding in units dining halls
  8. Transfer C.A.T. Programs
  9. Prisoners should be able to another institution with a (MMCF) to G.P. after one year, in order to be closer to family.

Additional Requirements and Support for our Proposal

  1. IGI, OCS should discontinue the arbitrary, unfair practice of relying on allegations from confidential informant/debriefers to keep prisoners in SHU and/or from advancing out of SHU, unless such allegations are supported by credible evidence, and thereby result in issuance of a CDCR-115 rule violation report, and required due process thereafter whom himself been denied inactive status.
  2. Discontinue relying on innocent associational activity, such as: roster list, group petitions, address books, poems, drawings, portraits literatures, published books, manuscripts, signing of birthday cards, signing of condolence cards, legal work, chrono’s for talking, envelopes with a validated prisoners name on it, etc; unless IGI can disclose undisputed evidence during inactive review, that the prisoner under review has written to another on a roster list who is promoting current gang activity; written to another validated prisoner’s address, who is promoting current gang activity. The same proof of evidence shall apply to poems, drawings, cards literature, etc; showing the prisoner how his written material has promoted “current gang activity”, gang violence, etc!

It is known that there are IGI and ISU and OCS officials, that are deliberately (during the inactive reviews), misinterpreting what constitutes current gang activity; as well as, relying on flimsy information that contains no credible evidence or documentation about the prisoner who is under review, showing him to be planning, organizing, threatening, soliciting or committing any criminal gang acts. (If there was credible evidence supporting this a CDCR 115 RVR is required).

The reason for this erroneous practice is because there is an attitude to use the inactive review as a means to continue denying specific validated members a release from SHU to the mainstream General Population (G.P.).

Documented evidence clearly demonstrates the opposition (e.g. OCS) is not in favor of giving better programming opportunities to SHU prisoners, like those afforded to the General Population prisoners. Prisoners have loudly and clearly called for the end to group punishment and for a focus on individual behavior instead. They have voiced their willingness to accept individual accountability for individual conduct. They (prisoners) will get that under this plan, and individual who fails to remain in compliance with the PBSP “B” facility (MMCF) structural setting will return to the (SHU/adseg).

The current long term (SHU) prisoners have already fulfilled a step-down program during the decades spent in supermax/SHU’s. They should not have to do more to earn their release into a PBSP “B” facility (MMCF) program setting (like what existed in the mid-1970’s and 1980’s in what was called management control units within the (SHU-structure) The security level today in the 180 level IV prison is much more controlled and therefore suitable, for a (MMCF) to be easily implemented and effectively operated.

This document is in direct relation to the (P.B.H.R.M) to address the illegal ware housing of prisoners held in California Torture Chambers (i.e. solitary confinement, SHU, and indefinite isolation), which is stated in the “Five (5) Core Demands”, that M. Cate CDCR Secretary, Undersecretary S. Kernan (former) and undersecretary Terri  McDonald (current) have all agreed that we (the prisoners held within indefinite isolation (i.e. SHU) should have had coming, and we shall be afforded all of the Prisoners “Five (5) Core Demands.”; which is supported by the California Governor E. Brown. These demands are all reasonable.

Prisoners currently held under the indeterminate (SHU) term, shall be relocated into this (PBSP “B” Facility-MMCF), and shall be authorized to receive the same personal property items for prisoners assigned to the BMU see Title 15, CCR 3334(e) (g).

Evidence proves, CDCR (SHU/Adseg) sensory deprivation from Solitary Confinement (conditioning causes) harm to prisoners… this illegal torture must end.

The science of sensory deprivation was theoretically structured in the federal prison in Marion, Illinois in the 1970’s. It was the first known behavior modification program in the United States. There were no pre-conditional snitching (debriefing) requirements connected to being released from said program. In California, at Pelican Bay State Prison Security Housing Unit – SHU), under the region of the Prison Intelligence Units (PIU)= SSU, ISU, LEIU, IGI and OCS (which is a qualitative fact of a high intensity (enhanced) sensory deprivation program that was implemented in December 1989, against a targeted class of prisoner between the years of 1990 and 2011). Hundreds of targeted prisoners in the principal ethnicity groups of New Afrikans (Black), Northern Mexican, White and Southern Mexican, Hereafter (N.A./N.M./W. & S.M.) Were tortured into debriefing. The facts of sensory deprivation being a form of torture, is linked its application and the results. For the sake of argument, the American Medical Association Encyclopedia, Page 1103, defines “Sensory Deprivation” as a form of torture. The experimenting with sensory deprivation in California has far succeeded the federal behavioral modification program. Long term solitary confinement by itself is an irrational, and unjustifiable instrument of corrections; and when the State of California allowed the prison-industrial complex (PIC) to implement such sensory deprivation for over five (5) years, they (CDCR) have recklessly modified the genetic features of what are human beings social characteristics, and by suppressing a humans natural social behavior, it changes the thought process of the targeted prisoners by removing objective reality once deprivation sets-in, the second signal system (subjective reality) of the targeted prisoners thoughts will supersede the first signal system, which than produces: Irrationalism, Cannibalism, Racism, Chauvinism, Terrorism, Conformism and Obscurantism. The process of deprivation passes through three (3) phases 1) Judgment, 2) Awareness, and 3) Fatigue. Once the three (3) phases are tapped into the physiological basis for the targeted prisoners, association and loyalties becomes short-circuited. The targeted prisoners of deprivation believes they’re no longer accountable for their behavior and actions.

Sensory deprivation has a secondary phenomenon, which are social deprivation, cultural deprivation, ethical deprivation and emotional deprivation. No sane targeted prisoners can escape this type of deprivation that comes from long term interment in super-max control unit. The science of deprivation has been perfected by the handlers to operate with devastating force.

The techniques of torture by deprivation are used by United States Military Intelligence and the Political Police Interrogators, to break down the will Power of the targeted prisoners. They (CDCR) have conducted a war of attrition against the mind and body of thousands of prisoners over a prolong period of time. There’s a misconception that “mental” torture not being as brutal and barbaric as physical torture. Military Intelligence Experts will attest to the fact that mental torture is more effective than physical torture especially inside the prison theater. #1) Physical torture produces short range returns #2) Mental torture produces long range returns.

Admittedly, from the overview of sensory deprivation, there is no separation between physical torture and mental torture. Torture is two a (2) – edged sward and can be an effective way towards (1) exacting punishment, or (2) revenge; and of course the objective being to obtain a confession, or information from the subject, we know that (PBSP-SHU) was architecturally deprivation impact. Its features are:

1) The cage pods have no windows the targeted prisoners will go decades without ever seeing the natural physical scenery (i.e. trees, mountain, grass, dirt, plants, birds or wildlife) of the objective world.

2) The cage pods have several strategic secret type of capabilities that are used for disposal of human beings, incineration, refrigeration and or gas chamber), the degree of hotness (heat of combustion) and coldness (freezing point) or gaseous asphyxiate.

3) Ventilation shaft designed to circulate, stale and noxious air from cage to cage, poor air quality

4) High intensity impulse noise trapped in a vacuum.

The prison intelligence unit (PIU) has an established profile of every targeted prisoners socio-psychological characteristics (Dictatorial attitude, level of self-discipline, personality, group orientation, dominance, submissiveness, paranoid, sociability non-compatibilities). The (PIU) establish the racial- ethic social ecology make up of every eight (8) cell-pod. It is essential to the intensities of deprivations that the social polarity atmosphere influence the phenomena effects. It does play a significant role in the bringing about the deterioration of the targeted prisoners. No targeted prisoners can escape the transformation of objective reality into subjective reality of self-preservation. The external world must become immaterial in the targeted prisoner minds if they are to survive the War of Attrition.

During the last six (6) months of 2011, the California prisoners was compelled to get involved with two (2) peaceful non-violent hunger strikers, to get this Country President Obama and Governor Brown of California, and CDCR Secretary M. Cate know, that this country (U.S.A.) and the State of California do infact torture State Prisoners, and later drive some to the State of Sensory Deprivation through the Personal of Prison Intelligence units/military Intelligence agents and Political Police Tormentors… Now, over the Past nine (9) months, July 2011 to March 2012, we (Prisoners) have lost three (3) fellow prisoners, whom we shall honor them for their courageous struggle for our (PBHRM) call for Justice and Humanity.

In Memory Of:

  1. Johnny Owen Vick – PBSP Adseg
  2. Hozel Alanzo Blanchard – Calipat Adseg
  3. Christian Gomez – CSP-COR Adseg

These are just recent men (Human Beings) who were subjected to the inhumane treatment in solitary confinement who dedicated their lives to our struggle to be liberated from these torture chambers. We dedicate to them our commitment to continue our struggle.


Respectfully submitted by:

Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa – Dewberry C-35671

Arturo Castellanos – C-17275

Todd Ashker – C-58191

Antonio Guillen – P-81948

Date: 3-19-2012

10 thoughts on “Pelican Bay Human Rights Movement: Short Corridor Collective’s Counter-Proposal to CDCR

  1. Pingback: Short Corridor Collective rejects CDCR proposal & presents counter-proposal | Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity

  2. i’m proud of the inmates counter proposal. The breadth of research is vast, true and articulated well. How about while they are in the process to general population, if they are ever given the chance, they get a flood of self help opportunities to keep them busy and focused on positive change for when they do get housed in general population?

    The part the inmates articulated about the flimsy evidence used by gang coordinators, example- a name showing up on anything and anywhere, combined with the unreliable nature of the debriefing process should be a cause of concern for anyone who cares about justice! I turned my life around from prison by writing novels and other prisoners can make the change given half a chance.

    • I agree with Glenn. Reading his book, Roll Call at the moment.
      People can and do change. The system of incarceration in this nation is punitive and non productive.
      It is overtime for meaningful change in the way we lock people down.

  3. Pingback: Pelican Bay Human Rights Movement: Short Corridor Collecitve’s Counter-Proposal to CDCR « Denver Anarchist Black Cross

  4. Pingback: Short Corridor Collective rejects CDCR proposal & presents counter-proposal « 4strugglemag

  5. Pingback: Call to Action: Call CA Legislators to Support SHU Prisoners & Stop the expansion of the SHU | Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity

  6. Pingback: Open letter to Gov. Jerry Brown: Stop the torture now | San Francisco Bay View

  7. Pingback: Open letter to Gov. Jerry Brown: Stop the torture now « Dogma and Geopolitics

  8. Pingback: Open letter to Gov. Jerry Brown: Stop the torture now « Dogma and Geopolitics

  9. Pingback: 2013 Prisoner Strikes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s