The following is an appeal from the staff rejection of a prisoner's grievance. It was directed to Ben Varner, the superintendent at Smithfield state prison and the former superintendent at the Greene state prison where he was implicated in the vicious abuse of prisoners. The procedure governing Pennsylvania prisoner grievances is for the prisoner to submit his futile complaint. It is then rejected by some partisan member of the staff, usually the person against whom the grievance is made. Then the prisoner further beats the dead horse by appealing the staff rejection to the institution's superintendent. Of course the whole bureaucratic scheme is a farce. I appeal from Lieutenant Elder'sl finding at [grievance] SMI-13195-02 dated 7 February, but not delivered to me until this afternoon, five days later.2 The flippantly pugnacious3 response is certainly not unanticipated. The grievance system is such a sham that I've generally preferred to publish my grievances than to expect any semblance of institutional sincerity. I appeal here only because of the absurd tack taken by the lieutenant. His pretext in denying my grievance is that, "[y]ou don't have any proof that [sic] substantiate your claim..." I notice with amusement that no place in the response are my allegations4 contradicted and that the diligence of the lieutenant's inquiry was limited to chatting with the two guards;5 not exactly souring thoroughness. DC-ACM 8046 makes no reference to "proof" and makes no suggestion that "proof" is required. Section VI,A,1,d merely requires that "[The inmate shall include a statement of the facts relevant to the claim." I did so. Indeed, I did exactly as the directive requires and apparently no one contradicted me. If "proof" is required, the system becomes an adversary procedure like a legal complaint. In that case, a hearing and witnesses would be required. Clearly, supposing that the system was ever intended to operate at all, it is one of good faith where the respondent (Lieutenant Elder in this case) resolves, not exacerbates a problem. 7 Footnotes 1 Irvin Elder is an aging guard who has, in his many years, zoomed all the way up to the rank of lieutenant in his chosen occupation. He's the sort of a man who's admitted that he got confidential information from a prisoner's medical records apparently in order to criticize the man. As a prison officer he has shown interest in such important issues as empty peanut butter jars, tabs of tape on prisoners' cots and the ever-engrossing cell clotheslines. His principle duty appears to be as maitre d' in the prison mess hall. There he's charged with the vital responsibility of assuring that prisoners sit where he wants them to sit and no place else. He's remembered for making the "great celery bust." Through his exhaustive diligence, he spotted a man munching on a stalk of celery as he left the mess hall. Elder ordered that the celery be discarded. It's better to trash food than to consume it. That's what we pay these people to do! 2 The regulations require that an appeal must be filed within five days. By stalling the delivery of the reply to the prisoner, the prisoner may be prevented from appealing. It's a common practice. 3 Grievance responses are typically arrogant and flippant. They reflect the mentality of the bureaucrats making the responses. Often, as in the present instance, the response is more aggressive, nasty and asinine, again reflecting the respondent. 4 The prisoner had said that a guard questioned him and that when the prisoner chose to remain silent, the guard retaliated by trashing his cell. The prisoner was of the view that he had a right to remain silent and that retaliation was illegal. The prisoner had further complained about being subjected to repeated and needless strip searches. A surprising number of prison guards like to look at naked men. 5 Elder identified the guards as "J. Wilson and R. Ramey." 6 DC-ADM 804 is the directive which supposedly governs prisoners' grievances. The staff applies the directive only where it can be used to sanction the prisoner. Otherwise, its simply window dressing. 7 The prisoner complainant erroneously supposes that the respondent possesses the intellectual acumen and the professionalism to act in good faith. If they had anything on the ball, they wouldn't be prison guards.