Memo: Unfair treatment, disrespect triggered prison riot

ADC report explains factors that led to disturbance

Several factors led to the March 1 riot at the state prison near San Luis, Ariz., according to the final reports released by the Arizona Department of Corrections on Wednesday.

Some of the factors, such as a perceived unfair treatment and disrespect by staff, built up over time until the inmates took an opportunity to vent their frustrations, which resulted in violence and the death of one inmate.

The Disturbance Assessment Report and Operational Review Report contains the final findings following the investigation of the disturbance at the Arizona State Prison Complex-Yuma’s medium-custody Cheyenne Unit.

A memorandum to ADC Director Charles Ryan from the agency’s Southern Region Operations Director Joe Profiri addresses some of the factors leading to the riot. For this disturbance, “there is no single identifiable cause, but a series of contributing factors,” Profiri said.

The riot was not premeditated but rather a

spontaneous event due to “perceived unnecessary or excessive use of force by security personnel against an inmate.”

The memo notes that the factors which most contributed to this disturbance existed for some time. Those factors include excessive administrative sanctions impacting visitation privileges without due process; excessive lockdowns and yard closures impacting entire segments of the population as a tactic to mitigate the manufacturing and possession of prison-made alcohol; and a perception by inmates of being disrespected by staff.

Administrative breakdown

The memo notes that the Cheyenne Unit disturbance is a prime example of a violent protest by the inmate population against the administration due to an eroded relationship between the two. The relationship breakdown caused the inmate population to revolt against what they viewed as oppressive custodial operations and discipline.

The memo says the breakdown is the direct result of a pattern of behavior by the unit’s Deputy Warden Gerardo Zaragoza, whom Profiri says “failed to effectively engage and interact in a manner that legitimized his position to create a sense of institutional structural stability among staff and inmates.”

Zaragoza, who had been employed with ADC since 1998, did not effectively communicate with his staff or inmates. He conducted inadequate tours that did little to address the concerns of both staff and inmates, the memo notes.

As examples, the report cites his inaction with concerns expressed by staff over the Integrated House Process and by inmates regarding excessive lockdowns over prison-made alcohol. He acknowledged being aware of these concerns, but he failed to take any action to alleviate or temper them.

“The routine and excessive locking down of yards by line officers as a mitigation protocol to prisonmade alcohol never should have been allowed by DW Zaragoza,” Profiri wrote in the report. “The inmates’ uncertainty of staff behavior in this regard went unchecked by DW Zaragoza, which, from the inmates’ perspective, degraded institutional legitimacy in prison operations. As a result, what seemingly was a small incident, the use of force involving (an) inmate, triggered a disproportionate response from the inmate population, which expressed a collective unwillingness to accept their conditions of confinement.”

The memo also reports that Warden Carla Hacker-Agnew, employed with ADC since January 1999, should have recognized the myriad of administrative and institutional failures that set the stage for this disturbance.

The memo notes that Warden Hacker-Agnew was likely aware of the shortcomings of Zaragoza. “Warden Hacker-Agnew would have been better served to hold DW Zaragoza accountable to the expected standards and performance commensurate with his position.” HackerAgnew was reprimanded and given an eight-hour suspension.

However, the memo also praised Hacker-Agnew’s dedication to her institution and her prioritization of public service. “Her leadership resulted in the quick repair and remediation of a Unit that had suffered catastrophic damage ... She never shirked her responsibility and faced every challenge, no matter how daunting, head-on and with a positive attitude, and she modeled quality leadership behavior in the face of great adversity.”

Inmates felt disrespected

The relationship between staff and inmates “cannot be underestimated as contributory factors” to this incident, the memo says.

“It is imperative that assigned personnel maintain respectful relationships with the inmate population and engage them with fairness and judicious use of power and authority. This, coupled with the exercise of good judgement, has a profound impact on a Unit’s orderly operation and institutional legitimacy,” Profiri wrote.

Specifically as it relates to this riot, the memo pointed to excessive and unscheduled yard closures that “did not exhibit good judgement, nor did it demonstrate proper utilization of authority,” further eroding stability and the relationship between staff and inmates.

In addition, the memo says, the staff and inmate population had a relationship of apathy and indifference. Inmates reported that many staff members were disrespectful or unprofessional towards them.

“Of significant concern,” Profiri said, was the criminal behavior by some staff after the riot. Specifically, six correctional officers reportedly intentionally destroyed the personal property of inmates.

“These criminal acts demonstrate with absolute clarity the negative staff culture at this institution, the poor regard some staff have for inmates, and the lack of professionalism and personal accountability in some of the workforce. Staff did not exercise their authority professionally or with confidence or care to create healthy environments and positive relationships with the inmate population.”

All six officers were fired or resigned in lieu of termination and prosecution is being pursued against all six officers for criminal conduct. “This culture is likely a manifestation of the staff feeling under-supported by facility administrators, resulting in an over-assertion of their power in an effort to achieve or maintain institutional order and legitimize their authority,” the memo says.

Profiti concluded his memo by noting that the inmates at the Cheyenne Unit were dissatisfied with their conditions of confinement. Thus, they rebelled through this disturbance.

“My experience informs me that inmates feuding with one another will take the opportunity in situations like this to destroy one another’s property/ living space or to attack one another. However, this did not occur here,” he wrote.

“Rather, the violence and destruction were directed against prison personnel, common items/areas, and security devices, which strongly suggests that this disturbance was much more likely a violent protest against the prison system, prison personnel, and/or conditions of confinement, than a violent airing of disputes among the inmate population.”