Even before the pandemic, the grievance system within the Washington State prison where I live did little to help resolve issues.
Prisoners have known for decades that the grievance process used by the Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) is dysfunctional and ineffective. In my experience, meaningful actions to address or correct mistreatments of incarcerated people rarely, if ever, result from this hollow process.
Of course, the DOC’s grievance program manual paints a picture of respect and fairness. It claims the system “promotes proper and effective communication between staff and offenders in an effort to resolve issues.” The program, it says, “offers open access to a process . . .for meaningful negotiation of problems to a just and fair conclusion.” And it even claims it “recognizes the human dignity of offenders [and] offers a fair and satisfactory solution to a wide variety of conflict situations.”
The fact that the manual refers to prisoners as “offenders” is a tell-tale-sign that the recognition of the human dignity of prisoners is not a priority.
But the fact that the manual refers to prisoners as “offenders” is a tell-tale-sign that the recognition of the human dignity of prisoners is not a priority.
The current prison grievance system dates back to 1996, when then-President Bill Clinton passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) as part of his “tough on crime” initiative. The bill, meant to reduce the amount of court cases brought by prisoners, made it necessary for litigants to first “exhaust” all other options for resolving a complaint internally with their own prison administrators.
Although this barrier was relaxed somewhat by a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, the PLRA continues to make it more difficult—if not nearly impossible—for prisoners to file lawsuits that protest unfair treatment.
Of course, the PLRA’s guidelines wouldn’t be as much of an issue if grievance coordinators in prisons didn’t ignore or, in some cases, actively block grievances from being filed. Grievance coordinators, whose main task is to respond to inmates’ concerns, have countless ways they can derail a prisoner’s complaint: They can say an issue is non-grievable, that the request needs a rewrite, that the grievance covers too many issues (regardless if they’re connect), and, most recently, they can reject COVID-19-related grievances because the guidelines for prison sanitation are handed down from above.
In paving over prisoners’ complaints, the list of excuses never seems to end.
By the time a prisoner makes it through the minefield of what grievance coordinators consider a grievable issue, there is nothing left to file. And if blocking prisoners’ complaints wasn’t enough, grievance coordinators have started handing out infractions for “abusing” the program as a means to bully prisoners from attempting to even access the grievance process.
One prisoner in my unit, Jojo Ejonga, contracted COVID-19, allegedly due to the negligence of DOC staff members. I knew Ejonga had been filing issues around the horrific treatment he received while housed in solitary confinement after catching the virus. After submitting his complaint, he was sent a warning letter by the prison’s grievance coordinator stating he had exceeded the allowable number of active grievances a prisoner can have.
Ejonga said he was also threatened with an infraction if he did not cease filing new complaints. Refusing to be bullied, he continued fighting the mistreatment he experienced. Days later, Elonga told me he was given a minor infraction—WAC 103, for failing to follow written orders, rules, or policies—by the very person whose job it is to proactively work to resolve issues.
Frustrated, Ejonga sent a message to a prison administrator, which I saw: “It is crazy while y’all got me sick, torture me in [solitary confinement], I grieve y’all, then y’all want to write me up. This is intimidation and harassment, let the [grievance coordinator] know, I will see her in court.”
Ejonga was then given a major infraction—WAC 663, for using physical force, intimidation, or coercion against any person—for the message. The grievance coordinator responded by saying she felt “that these statements were made by Ejonga [in] an attempt to intimidate [her] from infracting him for doing her job as a Grievance Coordinator by holding him accountable to the rules outlined in the Offender Grievance Program Manual.”
When Ejonga attended the hearing for his major infraction, he was found not guilty, and the infraction was dismissed. Not all DOC officials agreed with the far-reaching accusation that was levied against Ejonga, nor the substantial and harsh punishment he surely would have received if found guilty.
Another hurdle prisoners face is that most grievance coordinators are former prison guards or DOC administrators. Their opinion of prisoners is often biased, making it impossible for prisoners to get fair consideration.
Many prisoners have never seen a grievance coordinator work to resolve an issue in a positive manner.
Many prisoners have never seen a grievance coordinator work to resolve an issue in a positive manner where both parties feel heard and satisfied with the resolution. Rather, we usually see coordinators focused only on derailing a complaint from moving forward.
Another weapon to squash grievances is time. Prisoners are held to a strict time limit in filing complaints (twenty days from the incident) and appeals (five days after the grievance coordinator responds), while coordinators often far exceed their allowable time without consequences. This makes it difficult for prisoners to do any research, if needed, and formulate their complaint in adherence to the grievance coordinators desires.
These obstacles actively prevent incarcerated people from receiving the protection of our Constitutional rights through the courts. If the DOC is to have an honest and effective grievance process—one that aligns with the claim stated in their own manual—some things have to change.
First, the grievance process needs to be coordinated by an outside agency. Second, and most importantly, this needs to be an organization that is able to hold the DOC accountable when prisoners’ rights are violated.
Maybe then the mistreatments we suffer won’t just be swept under the rug.