The Carini Search And
The Inmate Grievance System
By: Kristin Dodson
You probably wonder what a "Carini" is. It's nothing important, just a prison guard, but I'll get to that in a moment.

We've received a letter and some records from one of our founders, an imprisoned writer. We'll just call him "OFG" (for "Old Fat George," an appellation he commonly applies to himself). We'll use his information to educate you, the public, about the so-called prison Grievance System.

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") makes much of a scheme it's adopted by which prisoners are supposedly able to express complaints about various abuses. The DOC has given the scheme the typically pompous title, Consolidated Inmate Grievance System and designated it Administrative Directive 804. The DOC pretends that the scheme works to resolve prisoners' problems and to correct abuses. Of course it's all nonsense. The real intent of the scheme is to frustrate the orderly resolution of problems while giving the pretense of affording a forum. The DOC exists on dishonesty.

Under this scheme, the prisoner must first take his complaint directly to the person he's complaining about. This gives the offending staff member the excuse to punish the victim for "lying to an employee," or "disrespecting an employee." We wonder how it's possible to disrespect a guard.

After going to the fox and compiling about his eating the chickens, the victimized prisoner is required to complaint to the "appropriate staff" before filing a formal complaint. What this really means is that the guy must go to the fox's boss and complain that the fox is doing what the boss put him up to.

Yes, it's all very surreal!

"OFG," our imprisoned correspondent only has an IQ of 164 and has only been imprisoned for over 20 years. He's not nearly clever enough to figure out who the "appropriate staff" might be in any given situation. It keeps changing in order to frustrate the injured prisoner. OFG wrote to the prison Grievance Coordinator for clarification.

"Today you refused to process a grievance relying on the 'appropriate staff' gambit. The last time I had a problem [of this sort], the 'appropriate staff' was the Unit Manager. Fool that I am, I reasoned that he would be 'appropriate' again. Who would have guessed that this time it should be the Shift Commander. He would seem to have an administrative as opposed to a policy role.

"I admit that I'm nothing but a dimwitted prisoner. Please direct me to where I can find the directory of 'appropriate staff.' Where [is] such a schedule published in the directives or in the administrative manual? How can I divine the arcane identity of who may be the 'appropriate staff' at any given phase of the moon for any specific problem?" 

The Reply Was: 

"There is no such list. You will be provided with the appropriate person to direct your inquiry depending on the issue at hand." 

Another provision of the scheme is that the grievance must be filed within 15 days of the event being complained of. By comparison, we people "on the streets," have 2 years in which to file an action against a person who injures us.

The 15 day period of limitations prevents most grievances because of the procedural stalling.

Suppose that you're a prisoner and a guard beats you up. This happens about 3 times a day across the state. When you recover enough, you must first go to the guard who beat you. You must tell him that you don't like the fact that he broke your face and that you are going to complain about him. Of course, he'll be perfectly content to hear that you find fault with him. He won't do anything else to you, will be?

Supposing that you can endure his retaliation, you must then write to somebody, but you don't know who is "appropriate" to address. Let's pretend that you pick the security captain. No way you'll get relief. All you'll get is another bloody face. 

Then, at last, you'll file a formal grievance. It won't be processed, however, because you didn't go to the "appropriate staff."

Let's pretend that this time it turns out that you're told that the 'appropriate staff' is a cook in the kitchen. You write to him. He says "huh?" Then you resubmit the grievance. 

Most times all this can't all be done in 15 days! Maybe 2 months have passed. You are barred from complaining.

Now to the Carini. He's more commonly called "Teeny Beanie Carini" in deference to certain intellectual limitations. He's a prison guard, nothing unusual or special although there are rumors that he sucks his thumb. Carini is a searcher. He likes to root through the few personal items that prisoners have managed to obtain. He seems to obtain a perverse delight in depriving them of their possessions.

With another, more reasonable guard, Carini searched the cell in which our correspondent, OFG, was imprisoned with another older prisoner. OFG was miffed by his treatment, but he's old and cranky. He gets miffed pretty easily. He undertook the daunting challenge of formally complaining about the search.

First OFG ranted to Carini complaining about the property he'd stolen and the mess that he made. Carini wasn't happy that OFG was going to file a grievance and he warned him about how "lucky" he'd been that he hadn't been treated even worse.

Then OFG wrote to the prison Security Office which he foolishly assumed was the 'appropriate staff.' The following is part of his prolix letter. 

"I appear to be the unfair object of a pattern of harassment. Why?

"On the evening of [date] for the third time in just over seven months, I was subjected to a cell search. This doesn't count the general search to which I was subjected on [date] or the search where [drug-sniffing dog] Fido and a handler tangos on my cot and property on [date] or the unconscionable looting of my property after reception of [date] and [date].

"The most recent search, the seventh in the series, as conducted by a guard named Carini, was punitive, even abusive. I haven't suffered such an intentional 'tossing' of my property during the eleven years since the 'riot' at SCI-Huntingdon.

"The search as conducted by Mister Carini not only violated [the Administrative Directive related to cell searches] DC-ADM 203, III, but it was also unreasonable and offended common sense. Most guards recognize that some slight deference is due to a 59 year-old man who's been imprisoned for 21 years. Not only was my property recklessly dumped and strewn, but several items were damaged including my brand new Pennsylvania Rules Of Court, and some [irreplaceable family] photographs.

"Carini did his bit toward making the world safe for democracy by seizing several pieces of my personal property. He took a [little rag] rug, for example. I had been using it on top of the tin bench [in the tiny cell] to baffle the drumming of my typewriter in consideration of my neighbors. Apparently it produced dread and terror in the guard."

Carini seized some of my food, some packets of sugar and jelly issued to me by the prison. He even took the oil I use on my typewriter. perhaps he thought it would deter me from writing - WRONG!

"Carini also seized two personal towels. They represent about half a month's wages. What do you do when somebody take half a month of your wages? Carini offended credulity by characterizing the towels as being 'altered.'

"In point of act, the towels were the curtain [that] we two old men used [in our 8 by 7 foot cell] during the recent lock-down to retain a scintilla of dignity while using the toilet. The towels were certainly no more 'altered' than a piece of paper is altered by writing on it or a bag of potato chips is altered by eating from it. My towels were being put to a reasonable and appropriate use. They should not have been seized. 

"Carini even seized the paper lips which were closing partly consumed packages of commissary food. He also elected to take a few rubber bands [used to hold together files of legal citations]. There's no rule against either paper clips or rubber bands where they are being used properly.

"Many of the guards at [this prison] enforce their personal set of rules. More astonishingly, some members of the staff empower themselves with the authority to concoct bizarre local rules. It may be all very self-aggrandizing, but it isn't consistent with the law. Title 71 PS, Sections 61, 66, 186 nd so forth, provide that only he Secretary of Corrections has authority to promulgate rules and only after rational consideration and public notice (see 45 PS 1201 et seq. and 45 PaCS 501 et seq.). The rules must be published and a copy given individually to each prisoner.

"Carini's search was gratuitously disruptive. He gave the appearance of focusing personal or institutional animosity toward me. Why am I being subjected to harassment? I [recently] complained because I'd been subjected to 4 drug urine tests in 7 months. Now it appears that I'm also the brunt of repeated and damaging cell searches. Why?

I ask for the return of my property. Further, I ask to be treated consistent with the regulations and some reasonable consideration for my age and seniority and for the real exigencies of the circumstances precipitating the search." 

The security boss responded in effect; screw your old-ass. 

So, OFG tried submitting a formal complaint. That provoked nothing but official retaliation. Within a day, more guards stormed into his cell. It was worse than the first time. A flippant guard who must have fantasized himself as part of Star Trek and called himself "Scotty," ransacked OFG's few belongings.

After an hour and a half of trashing the old man's possessions, "Scotty" hit pay dirt. In OFG's extensive card file he spied cards listing the names and titles of members of the prison staff! Scotty's mental engines jumped into warp drive. Just because he had the intellectual acumen of a "Trebble' didn't mean that he couldn't recognize information when he saw it. Information was like almost spooky! Triumphantly, Scotty beamed the card file directly to the security boss' inner sanctum.

I'll let it up to you to guess what more happened. but you can see how the Inmate Grievance System really works. I'm sure that you are delighted to shell out $800,000.00 a year to pay for such a farce and to support the guards like "Teeny Beanie" and Scotty who make a need for it.


Return to the Grievances Menu

Return ot the Main Menu.

Send us your comments or input.