Every now and again I come across a case that really gets under my skin. Recently I tripped upon just such a case while looking up another case. And...Well...let me present it to you and you exercise your own judgment – was justice served here?
Cindy Galvan is (was?) a female Alaskan prisoner. While serving her sentence, DOC placed her at the Lemon Creek Correctional Center (LCCC) in an all male wing of the prison. Ms. Galvan was subjected to all sorts of harassment, including being harassed by male prisoner Juan Cuisido when he cleaned the tier.
Mr. Cuisido, made sexual advances and insinuations, including threats of physical harm, masturbating outside of Ms. Galvan’s cell, throwing fecal matter at her, and harassing her while she was using the toilet facilities in her cell.
Other male prisoners constantly discussed their sexual fantasies within Ms. Galvan’s hearing. Male prisoners Boris McLuke and John Finley exposed themselves to Ms. Galvan. And at least one male prisoner other than Mr. Cuisido masturbated in Ms. Galvan’s presence as part of some sort of sexual gesture toward her.
As if the harassment from male prisoners were not enough, Ms. Galvan was forced to shower in front of male correctional officers, and then required to walk past the male prisoners on the tier to return to her cell from the shower.
All of the above are the facts Ms. Galvan alleged in a civil rights complaint presented to the United States District Court (855 F. Supp. 285, 290 (D. Alaska 1994).
At about the same time all of this was being done to Ms. Galvan, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had before it a case wherein it was decided that a male corrections officer clothed body search of a female prisoner violates the United States Constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. (See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1529 (9th Cir. 1993).
Logic and common sense would say that if it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a male corrections officer in the State of Washington to perform a clothed body search of a female prisoner, then surely Ms. Galvan has presented a valid claim in her case against Alaska DOC officials.
Not true, at least according to the U.S. District Court for Alaska and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (who subsequently let the U.S. District Court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Galvan’s case stand without publishing its opinion). Who ever said logic, common sense, truth and justice have any place in our court system really ought to examine this case.
Alaska’s Assistant Attorney General, John K. Bodick argued to the court the position that there is no evidence of minimal standards of privacy and decency for a woman inmate, and thus LCCC Superintendent Dan Carothers and DOC employees Norm Anderson, and Richard Franklin, are entitled to summary judgment in their favor because they didn’t know they were violating Ms. Galvan’s rights. Though the court called this position “fantastic,” it ultimately agreed with Bodick and dismissed the case!
You are; of course, free to make up your own mind about how prisoners should be treated in Alaska’s prison system. But in cases such as Ms. Galvan’s where are the cries of public condemnation? Why is John Bodick permitted to represent the State of Alaska in a legal capacity? Why is it that Dan Carothers continues to be employed as the Superintendent of LCCC? I am personally not sure of what may have happened to Norm Anderson, but I do know that Richard Franklin has retired.
As if adding insult to injury. the Alaska Legislature made the following findings in support of passing a bill which limits the court’s authority to act in prisoners’ rights cases:
The legislature finds that;
(1) state and municipal executive branch agencies that operate correctional facilities need the widest latitude, consistent with constitutional and legal requirements, to manage those facilities and carry out the several constitutional goals of corrections administration;
(2) the legislature has the exclusive right to appropriate under the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and consent decrees and court orders that require certain levels of funding or services conflict with the legislature’s exclusive appropriation power:
(3) the legislature carefully scrutinizes the correctional system each year, and annual budget appropriations have been and will continue to be based on the legislature’s assessment of how to appropriately meet the needs of Alaska prisoners and the public as a whole; because state revenues vary greatly from year to year, the legislature need the widest possible latitude to exercise its constitutional and statutory budget authority for the good of all Alaskans; and
(4) the Alaska Supreme Court has held that administration of the state corrections system is an executive concern involving many day-to day decisions that necessitate that court interference be kept to a minimum; see McGinnis v. Stevens, 543 P.2d 1221. 1237 (Alaska 1975); the Alaska Supreme Court has also held that the exercise of executive branch discretion within constitutional bounds is not subject to the control or review of the courts; see Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court, 534 P.2d 947, 950 (Alaska 1975).
Apparently, for all of the “careful scrutinizing” of the correctional system by the legislature, nobody bothered to look at matters taking place right there in Juneau, where LCCC is located and Ms. Galvan was being forced to endure what no person should be subjected to, prisoner or not! Apparently, the legislature also felt that the “good of all Alaskans” would be best served by saving money by refusing to provide adequate and constitutionally acceptable housing for the States female prisoner population – it only took a court order to get the State to take any action in regard to providing Alaska's female prisoners equal treatment compared to male prisoners.Of course, it is exactly that sort of court order the legislature has restricted by the passage of AS 09.19.200 (to which the above findings were made).
Here is my proposal, since the Legislature claims to carefully scrutinize the correctional system, and thus limits the need for court intervention, let the Legislature deal directly with Ms. Galvan’s case. Carothers and Bodick should be fired for their respective conduct in regard to Ms. Galvan’s case; a formal and public apology from the State should be given to Ms. Galvan for the evil conduct and mistreatment she was forced to endure at the hands of State officials and Ms. Galvan’s sentence should be commuted. If you agree you should drop your legislator a note and tell them so. At the very minimum we should all vow to pay more attention to what we are calling justice.