Maximum Security, Minimal Appreciation

MAXIMUM SECURITY, MINIMAL APPRECIATION: THE
UNIQUE AND NECESSARY MISSION THAT OHIO’S

MAXIMUM-SECURITY PRISONS ACCOMPLISH AND
HOW TO IMROVE DEPARTMENTAL SUCCESS
Jesse E. Scott*
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................. 218
I. A Brief Introduction to Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction ............................................................................................... 220
A. Scope of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.. 220
B. Overview of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Tier System .......................................................................................... 223
II. Why Maximum-Security Facilities are Necessary ...................... 225
A. Maximum-Security Facilities Serve as a Deterrent ................. 225
B. Maximum Security Facilities Separate Problematic Inmates from
Non-Problematic Inmates ................................................................... 226
C. Maximum Security Facilities Create an Environment that Fosters
the Safety and Security of Both Staff and Inmates .............................. 228
III. Intersection of the Constitution, Supreme Court Rulings, and Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ....................................... 230
A. The Supreme Court Has Given Broad Deference to Prison
Administrators in Choosing How to Operate their Respective
Institutions, and Has Intentionally Limited Prison Liability Regarding
Celling Practices and Imposing Disciplinary Measures .................... 230
IV. Operations of an Ohio Maximum-Security Facility ................... 237
*
JD Candidate, University of Toledo College of Law (2022). This note is dedicated to the past,
current, and future staff of Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. May the world recognize the vast
risk associated with walking through A-Building each and every day and the sacrifices we made to
do our jobs. Merci au merveilleux ami qui a facilité cela depuis le début, and those that believed this
backwards hillbilly could make it. To the naysayers, here we are.
217
218 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 53
A. Correctional Officers Within Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

and Corrections and Use of Force...................................................... 237
B. Inmate Privileges and Comforts Within an Ohio Maximum-
Security Facility .................................................................................. 239
C. One Year’s Worth of Incidents of Violence Within an Ohio
Maximum-Security Facility ................................................................. 241
D. Examples of Things Going Wrong ........................................... 242
V. Deterring Further Violence and Unnecessary Disruption Within
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Maximum-Security
Facilities .................................................................................................. 244
A. Modern Theories of MSF Reform are Inadequate and Do Not
Account for the Potential of Violent Tendencies of Inmates ............... 245
B. Accounting for Statistical Differences Between Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility and Ohio State Penitentiary ............................. 246
C. A Clinician’s Perspective on Reform in a Maximum-Security
Facility ................................................................................................ 248
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 249
INTRODUCTION
I
magine you are a correctional officer employed by a state prison, walking
into work on a seemingly normal day. You have worked in the state prison
for nearly a decade and are considered an experienced officer. As the morning
continues, and you make your way through the various metal detectors and security
protocols that ensure that contraband does not make its way into the facility by
“dirty” staff, you greet your fellow co-workers and move towards the block that
you routinely work. After your initial morning count to ensure that all inmates in
your block are present and unharmed, you hear across your radio that the nurse is
en route to your block. On this particular morning, two inmates, Inmate A and
Inmate B, have requested medical services. Since the block you work is full of the
highest security level inmates your institution confines, you must strip search,
restrain, and escort both Inmate A and Inmate B to a nurses’ station. Three sets of
gates separate you, the nurse, and both Inmate A and Inmate B from the nearest
responder in the event of an emergency.
As Inmate A steps into the nurses’ station, you follow behind, because your
duty is to maintain security protocols and ensure that the inmate does not
physically assault the nurse. As is standard procedure, Inmate B is to stand outside
the door of the nurses’ station while the nurse speaks with Inmate A. The door to
Fall 2021] MAXIMUM SECURITY, MINIMAL APPRECIATION 219
the nurses’ station is required to be closed, but unlocked, while Inmate A is being
examined. While being treated by the nurse, Inmate A becomes verbally
aggressive, requiring you to intervene. As you begin to intervene, Inmate B, having
removed his restraints, bursts through the door wielding a makeshift knife. Before
you can attempt to signal for help or defend yourself, Inmate B has stabbed you
over thirty times. Inmate A assists by kicking you as you lay on the floor bleeding
out from your wounds. The nurse, petrified but aware of the situation, begins
screaming for assistance and activates her silent alarm, triggering an institution-
wide alert. Assistance is not immediate; other correctional officers are engaged in
their morning duties, spread thin, and are separated from you by a series of security
gates. Eventually, assistance arrives. The nurse is unharmed, and both Inmates A
and B are relatively uninjured. However, you are bleeding out and are barely
clinging to life. You are immediately airlifted to the nearest trauma center. You
survive, albeit barely.1Correctional officers and prison staff face these realities
daily within Ohio’s Maximum-Security Facilities (“MSFs”).2 Despite these
daunting realities, hundreds of correctional officers and prison staff walk through
the gates of MSFs every day to earn a living and provide for their families. Every
day, the fear of a similar situation is ever-present in the back of their minds.3
Ohio’s MSFs are uniquely poised to control, maintain, and rehabilitate the
state’s worst offenders.4 With widespread violence, discord, and rampant
insolence, the state depends on MSFs to separate the worst offenders from general
populations.5 As a result, Ohio’s MSFs must balance the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction’s (“ORDC”) mission of reducing recidivism while
maintaining order within their institutions.6
This Note explores whether Ohio’s MSFs can simultaneously meet its
mission of reducing recidivism within Ohio while also adequately protecting staff
and inmates. This Note identifies and assesses the substantive rights of inmates
classified as a maximum-security inmate (Level 4 and above) and whether these
1. Jona Ison, Videos, Records Reveal How a 2018 Attack on a Lucasville CO Unfolded,
CHILLICOTHE GAZETTE (May 10, 2019, 10:13 PM), https://www.chillicothegazette.com/story/news/
2019/05/10/videos-records-reveal-how-2018-attack-lucasville-co-unfolded/1128917001/
(chronicling and providing video and photo demonstrations of the above scenario as it occurred
within SOCF) [https://perma.cc/gf5z-gfkw].
2. See generally Joseph Micieli, Stress and the Effects of Working in a High Security Prison
(2008), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/224105.pdf (outlining the stresses that correctional officers
face in MSFs throughout the nation).
3. Id.
4. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 214 (2005) (stating that the Ohio State Penitentiary
is “designed to ‘separate the most predatory and dangerous prisoners from the rest of the . . . general
[prison] population’” (quoting Austin v. Wilkinson, 189 F.Supp.2d 719 (N.D. Ohio 2002)).
5. OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB & CORR., 53-CLS-01 (2019), https://www.drc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Pol
icies/DRC%20Policies/53-CLS-01%20%28Jan%202019%29.pdf [https://perma.cc/xl78-3eec]
[hereinafter ODRC INMATE CLASSIFICATION]; OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., 2021 ANNUAL
REPORT 20 (2021), https://drc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/ODRC%20Annual%20Report%202021.pdf [https:
//perma.cc/SX4N-F9MY] [hereinafter ODRC ANNUAL REPORT] (As of July 2021, 2,319 Ohio
Inmates are classified as Level 4 or above).
6. ODRC ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 5, at 3 (stating that ODRC’s Mission Statement is to
“[r]educe recidivism among those we touch”); Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 211 (finding that “Ohio’s
[ODRC’s] first obligation must be to ensure the safety of guards and prison personnel . . .”).
rights, coupled with the mission of ODRC, are truly harmonious. This Note argues
that ODRC’s MSFs are too comfortable, that ODRC has facilitated an attitude of
complacency within its MSFs, and that ODRC has set its MSF inmates up for
failure if, or when, they re-enter society. Ultimately, ODRC has subsidized
complacency in allowing vast comforts be available to MSF inmates instead of
properly incentivizing the following of departmental rules and regulations that are
designed to set inmates up for success upon reentry into society.
To remedy this institutional failure, this Note argues that ODRC should
actively incentivize inmates to reach lower-level security classifications, which
would allow them to receive educational and vocational programming that better
prepares them for re-entry into society, which ODRC would be well within
constitutional bounds to do so.7 To properly incentivize inmates to reach lower-
level security classifications, ODRC should remove the comforts and privileges
currently available within MSFs in order to better prepare its MSF inmate
population for success in society, thus reducing the recidivism rate within Ohio.
Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), a “top-flight, first-class” MSF in
Lucasville, Ohio, will be used throughout this Note to showcase the varied
successes and shortcomings of ODRC’s MSFs.8
I. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

AND CORRECTION
A. Scope of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
ODRC maintains and operates all state correctional facilities while

simultaneously bearing responsibility for the rehabilitation, control, and security
of all persons convicted of a crime and sentenced to a correctional institution
within Ohio.9 ODRC employs 11,630 individuals throughout twenty-eight
institutions, with 6,238 correctional officers (“CO”).10 As of July 2021, ODRC
maintains custody of 42,963 inmates, 39,670 of whom are male.11 However, of the
42,963 total inmates incarcerated by ODRC in July 2021, 2,319 are classified as
Level 4 or greater, requiring housing in an MSF.12 In Fiscal Year 2021 alone,
ODRC spent $1,810,072,312 towards its operations; approximately $42,130 per
inmate.13 In spending this amount, ODRC outlined eight different categories of
expenditures within its budget: Security, Medical Services, Administration,
Support Services, Facility Maintenance, Mental Health, Unit Management, and
7. See discussion infra Section III. A.

8. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 341 (1981). SOCF rose to infamy on Easter Sunday,
1993 when a multiple-day riot ensued, resulting in the death of nine inmates and one correctional
officer.
9. OHIO. REV. CODE ANN. § 5120.05 (West 2020).
10. ODRC ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 5, at 6-7; ODRC INSTITUTIONS, https://drc.ohio.gov/ins
titutions [https://perma.cc/zq8b-anxw] (last visited Oct. 19, 2020) (listing the twenty-eight
institutions).
11. ODRC ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 5, at 12.
12. Id. at 20.
13. Id. at 50.
Education Services in addition to “institutional operations” and “other

expenditures.”14 Of these services, ODRC spent the most on Security ($40.88 per
inmate, per day), and the least on Education Services ($2.11 per inmate, per day.)15
As shown by these figures alone, ODRC is a behemoth of a department, deeply
entrenched within the state’s budget.16
UNIT MANAGEMENT $3.68

SUPPORT SERVICES $7.29
EDUCATION… $2.11
MENTAL HEALTH $3.85
FACILITY… $5.90
ADMINISTRATION $20.08
MEDICAL SERVICES $12.97
SECURITY
$40.88
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
2021 Incarcerated Adult Cost Per Day
ODRC defines its mission as to “[r]educe recidivism among those we

touch.”17 Recidivism, existing as a fundamental measure of success for any state’s
department of correction, refers to an individual’s relapse into criminal activity
after already receiving a formal sanction or incarceration.18 ODRC, in one of its
own recidivism reports, defined recidivism as “a return to incarceration in an Ohio
prison for conviction of a new criminal offense or technical violation of the
conditions of post-release supervision.”19 In stressing the importance of reducing
recidivism, former ODRC Director Gary Mohr stated that “[r]educing recidivism
14. Id. at 49-50.

15. Id.
16. See ODRC ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 5, at 45-53; Gregory Trout, The Cost of
Incarceration: Ohio Prisons, 42 U. TOL. L. REV. 891, 893 (2011) (providing a snapshot of the
operational costs ODRC faced as of 2010). While this number has changed over the last decade, and
is discussed herein, this demonstrates that ODRC has been a behemoth of a department within Ohio
for many years. For a pop-cultural explanation on the power of money, see Wu-Tang Clan, C.R.E.A.M
(Loud Records, 1994) (here, Wu-Tang Clan makes the proposition that “Cash rules everything around
me, C.R.E.A.M., get the money, dolla’ dolla’ bill, y’all”).
18. Recidivism, NAT’L INST. OF JUST., https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism [https://p
erma/cc/436a-2tx3] (last visited Oct. 19, 2020).
19. Key Recidivism Information, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., https://drc.ohio.gov/reports/
recidivism (click on “2018 Recidivism Update” under the heading Report Files; then click on the
document download).
is the mission of this agency and at the core of everything we do . . . [we] better
prepare offenders for a life after prison . . . [r]educed recidivism increases the
safety of Ohio’s communities.”20 With its mission so exclusively focused on
reducing recidivism, in 2020, Ohio achieved a recidivism rate of 32.7%.21 To
highlight the success of ODRC, in the same year the Delaware Department of
Correction faced a recidivism rate of 63.5%,22 the highest of all states who report
three-year recidivism rates, while Virginia boasted a recidivism rate of only 23.1%,
the lowest reported of all states.23
ODRC Director Annette Chambers-Smith,24 appointed in February 2019, has
outlined four “core values” that ODRC strives for: (1) “Take care of our staff; they
will transform our offenders;” (2) “One team-one purpose;” (3) “Civility towards
all;” and (4) “Hope is job one.”25 These lofty goals can be classified as “easier said
than done.” Prior to Director Chambers-Smith taking the helm, when asked about
the new direction of ODRC and its recidivism reduction efforts, then-Director
Mohr responded “[f]rankly, I believe [inmates] should have the chance to smile
every now and then.”26
However, the 2,464 maximum-security inmates who have offended,
assaulted, and digressed their way to an MSF classification must be accounted for
within these core values. The system, thus far, has failed to properly incentivize
these inmates, as evidenced by the continued need for MSFs and the issues
addressed herein. This Note suggests that the current approach taken by ODRC
empowers inmates to remain unruly, undermines the efforts of correctional staff,
and has resulted in greater danger within Ohio’s correctional facilities. Instead,
ODRC should wield their authority to restrict the privileges and comforts generally
offered to lower-level classification within its MSFs as a deterrent for the behavior
that resulted in the initial MSF classification.
20. John Caniglia, Recidivism Rate in Ohio Prison System Continues to Drop: State Report,
CLEVELAND.COM (March 6, 2014, 5:24 PM), https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2014/03/state_repor
t_recidivism_rate_i.html [https://perma.cc/3dam-kg7a].
21. Recidivism Report, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR. 1 (2021), https://drc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/
2021%20Final%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/2y93-6rbl].
22. State Recidivism Comparison, VA. DEP’T OF CORR. (Feb. 2020), https://vadoc.virginia.gov/
media/1485/vadoc-state-recidivism-comparison-report-2020-02.pdf [https://perma.cc/ca26-vpse].
23. Id.
24. Prior to taking the helm of ODRC, Chambers-Smith served as the General Manager and
Chief Operating Officer of JPAY, a for-profit company that provides inmates the ability to purchase
music, send and receive photos, and access other electronic entertainment while incarcerated. See
Annette Chambers-Smith, CORRECTIONAL NEWS (Feb. 6, 2020) https://correctionalnews.com/2020/
02/06/annette-chambers-smith/ [https://perma.cc/h452-l9ev].
26. OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. AND CORR., How “Smiling” Impacted Ohio’s Correction Approach,
DRCINSIDER (Jun 3, 2016) https://medium.com/drc-insider/how-smiling-impacted-ohios-correction-
approach-5fbe0093ef9e/ [https://perma.cc/8cr7-dufu].
B. Overview of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Tier System
ODRC has implemented a 3-Tier Prison System for the classification27 of all
Ohio inmates.28 ODRC attributes the 3-Tier System as an effective method to
appropriately “classify[] inmates is a means of protecting the public, ensuring staff
safety, and achieving ODRC’s rehabilitative goals.”29 As stated in its Strategic
Capital Master Plan, ODRC implemented its 3-Tier System as a “system of
designation of housing options . . . into facilities focused on Control, General
Population, and Reintegration. Within each tier are multiple privilege levels . . .
[t]he tiered system was designed to reduce violence and critical incidents within
the ODRC. . . .”30 As described by ODRC’s Correctional Reception Center’s
Handbook:
The 3-Tier system was designed to treat inmates differently. There are inmates who
are not willing to accept responsibilities for their own personal growth and choose to
disrupt the operations of Ohio’s facilities. The 3-Tier System was designed to
effectively weed these inmates out of the general population prisons and place them
into a secure and controlled environment.31
In the same vein, the 3-Tier System was designed to achieve ODRC’s mission of
reducing recidivism by “encouraging a sense of hope in all who reside in Ohio’s
facilities.”32 The Tier System, in sum, allows an inmate to “work his or way (sic)
up or down these three tiers, based on individual behavior.”33 “Not only does this
system give offenders a sense of hope; it encourages pro-social behavior . . . by
27. Classification, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., https://www.drc.ohio.gov/policies/cl

assification [https://perma.cc/H2RW-7PNG] (last visited Oct. 19, 2021) (“The Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction maintains a uniform and objective classification level system that
places incarcerated individuals in the appropriate facility to ensure the safety and security of other
incarcerated individuals and staff, the institution, and the community. Accurately classifying
incarcerated individuals and placing them in institutions consistent with their security classification
is a means of protecting the public, ensuring staff and incarcerated individual safety, and achieving
the ODRC’s rehabilitative goals . . . It is the policy of the ODRC to maintain a classification level
system that creates a process for the classification of individuals according to their security risk. This
process will consider behavior and other objective factors as are available and relevant when
assessing an individual’s institutional security needs.”).
28. ODRC INMATE CLASSIFICATION, supra note 5, at 1.
29. Id.
30. ODRC Strategic Capital Master Plan, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., 4-14 (2015),
https://www.drc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/CAM/Ohio%20DRC%20Master%20Plan_Final%20Report_up
dated.pdf?ver=2018-01-24-105454-747 [https://perma.cc/2nz9-hhf4].
31. Inmate Handbook, CORR. RECEPTION CTR., 43 (2014), https://www.law.umich.edu/special/
policyclearinghouse/Documents/Ohio%20Correctional%20RecCtr%20Inmate%20Handbook.pdf
[https://perma.cc/e84p-hcf9].
32. Id.
33. Gary C. Mohr, Reforming a System: An Inside Perspective on How Ohio Achieved a Record-
Low Recidivism Rate, THE NAT’L REENTRY RES. CTR. (Mar. 12, 2012), https://nationalreentryresour
cecenter.org/resources/reforming-system-inside-perspective-how-ohio-achieved-record-low-
recidivism-rate.
offering incentives and privileges, such as a less restrictive environment[.]”34 In

theory, ODRC’s Tier System is designed to promote adherence to institutional
rules and regulations and foster a sense of reward amongst inmates who earn lower
classifications, while simultaneously allowing ODRC staff to separate
troublesome inmates from their cooperative counterparts.
Despite the formulation and general acceptance of the Tier System
throughout Ohio, ODRC faced a major hurdle in ensuring the system’s longevity.
In Wilkinson, a class of current and former inmates of Ohio State Penitentiary
(“OSP”) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that ODRC’s method of
classifying inmates directly into OSP violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.35 The Wilkinson Court was tasked with determining whether the
“Old Policy,” a predecessor to ODRC’s Tier System that allowed a haphazard
assignment to OSP, violated the constitutional rights of ODRC inmates.36 The
Court concluded that Ohio inmates do have a protected interest in avoiding
automatic classification to OSP.37 However, in 2002, between the original filing
and the time that the Supreme Court made its decision, ODRC modified its
classification system to closely resemble the Tier System that exists today.38 This
alteration, as the Supreme Court found, “provided more guidance regarding the
factors to be considered in placement decisions and afforded inmates more
procedural protections against . . . placement at OSP.”39 Further, the Court found
that the birth of the modern Tier System “strikes a constitutionally permissible
balance” between the protected interests of inmates and Ohio’s interest in
rehabilitation and safety.40 Though Wilkinson had the potential to shock ODRC
and turn the world of MSFs upside down, the Court instead solidified that a system
like ODRC’s Tier System is constitutionally valid.41
However, even if an inmate is classified as dangerous or disruptive and sent
to an MSF, an inmate can earn the privilege of reclassification and transfer to a
lower-security institution. As discussed in Section IV of this note, SOCF contains
inmates classified as Level 4 and Extended Restrictive Housing (“ERH”). Within
SOCF, an inmate must remain in a Level 4 status for twelve months before the
inmate can be considered for transfer to a lower-level facility.42 Similarly, ERH
34. Id.
35. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 213 (2005). See also Adam Miller, Comment,
Supermax’s Kryptonite? Wilkinson v. Austin: The Due Process Challenge to Ohio’s Super-
Maximum Security Prison, 2 S. NEW ENG. ROUNDTABLE SYMP. L.J. 223, 238 (2007) (outlining that
Wilkinson began as a result of a class of current and former OSP inmates filing suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983).
36. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 215. See generally Miller, supra note 35, at 230 (outlining the lasting
effect of Wilkinson v. Austin and the differentiation between the Old Policy and New Policy).
37. See Miller, supra note 35, at 239.
38. See Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 215.
39. Id. at 215-16.
40. Id. at 230.
41. Id.
42. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility Inmate Handbook, DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., 3 (2013),
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Documents/Ohio%20Southern%20Ohio
%20CF%20handbook.pdf [https://perma.cc/mpu2-dsdp] [hereinafter SOCF HANDBOOK].
level inmates are considered for classification to Level 4 after only six months in
ERH status.43 Thus, an inmate classified into ERH status, the highest security
classification housed at SOCF, can upon good behavior and adherence to
institutional rules, be transferred to a lower-security institution where they will
enjoy many more privileges, including educational/vocational programs, in only
one and a half years.44
II. WHY MAXIMUM-SECURITY FACILITIES ARE NECESSARY
A. Maximum-Security Facilities Serve as a Deterrent
An often-overlooked benefit of MSFs exists in their implicit effect of

deterrence.45 Simply put, the existence and utilization of MSFs deter prisoners
from violating institutional rules out of fear of being transferred to a MSF and
experiencing the unpleasant associated conditions.46 Specifically, MSFs serve as a
reminder to inmates that their behavior can result in a transfer from a lower-level
institution with educational and vocational programs, along with vast creature
comforts, to an MSF with reduced programming and significantly fewer creature
comforts.47
Though some scholarship indicates that this deterrence effect is low due to
uncertainty that placement in an MSF will ever occur,48 ODRC has implemented
its classification system to abate this concern.49 In assessing the deterrent effect of
SOCF, for example, some inmates have gone as far as renouncing their American
citizenship and cutting off and sending their finger(s) to the President of the United
43. Id.; see also ODRC INMATE CLASSIFICATION, supra note 5, at 2-11 (stating that individuals
who are classified into an ERH status upon incarceration are eligible for consideration to a lower-
level security status after six months. However, if an inmate is classified into an ERH status as a
result of a serious disciplinary infraction, decision by a Managing Officer, or as a result of a Serious
Misconduct Panel procedure, the timeline for review for consideration to a lower-security
classification varies.).
44. E-Mail from Anonymous ToCI Correctional officer, Toledo Correctional Institution, to Jesse
Scott, J.D. Candidate, University of Toledo College of Law (Jan. 04, 2021, 2:48 PM) (on file with
author) (ODRC has recently changed its terminology regarding security levels, and institutional
handbooks are still being updated to reflect the change. Before the change, ODRC consisted of Levels
1-3, 4A, 4AT, 4B, and 5. After the change, ODRC Levels include 1-4, ERH-T and ERH. As such,
ODRC has eliminated levels 4A, 4AT, 4B, and 5 distinctions, and lumped what was previously 4B
and 5 into what is now ERH, and 4AT into ERH-T.).
45. Roy D. King, The Rise and Rise of Supermax: An American Solution in Search of a Problem,
PUNISHMENT & SOC’Y. 163-186, 174 (1999).
46. Chase Riveland, Prison Management Trends, 1975-2025, 26 CRIME & JUST., 163, 191
(1999); see also DANIEL P. MEARS, EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERMAX PRISONS 6 (Urban
Institute Justice Policy Center, 2006) (outlining that general population inmates “will recidivate less
due to fear of being placed in supermax facilities.”).
47. Id.; see also LEENA KURKI & NORVAL MORRIS, THE PURPOSES, PRACTICES, & PROBLEMS OF
SUPERMAX PRISONS, 28 CRIME AND JUST. 385, 391 (2001).
48. Daniel P. Mears, An Assessment of Supermax Prisons Using an Evaluation Research
Framework, 88 THE PRISON J. 43, 50 (2008).
States of America in an attempt to be transferred out of SOCF.50 As mentioned

above, lower-level institutions within ODRC are designed to be more comfortable
and offer educational and vocational programming to inmates, so that they can be
reintroduced to society less likely to reoffend. Conversely, MSFs are designed for
control and security, when programming designed to facilitate successful
reintegration into society is unable to be conducted or is unsafe.51 As such, it takes
no stretch of imagination to find that the fear of having these benefits stripped away
by being transferred to an MSF would incentivize rational inmates to follow
institutional rules and regulations.
B. Maximum Security Facilities Separate Problematic Inmates from Non-

Problematic Inmates
MSFs, inherent with a design to maximize deterrence, also serve to separate

dangerous, violent, and unruly inmates from other inmates who seek to peacefully
serve their sentence or better themselves while incarcerated.52 In the late nineties,
a study conducted by the Human Rights Watch at an Indiana supermax facility
found that MSFs seek to segregate dangerous inmates to simultaneously protect
staff and allow inmates in lower-level institutions to serve their time with less fear
of assault.53
Within Ohio, ODRC designates a Level 4 status for individuals with
established histories and/or disruptive prison behavior “involved in lead[ing]
others to commit, violent, disruptive, predatory . . . action and pose a threat to the
security of the institution.”54 Outside of ODRC, general scholarship has indicated
seven types of inmates who are appropriate for being housed within an MSF,
including inmates who: (1) assault staff repeatedly or cause injury, (2) assault other
inmates repeatedly or cause injury, (3) instigate other inmates to be violent, (4) are
gang leaders, (5) are an escape risk, (6) are drug dealers while in prison, or (7) are
chronic rule violators.55 Other types of inmates who have been flagged for possible
MSF institutionalization include: gang members, high-profile inmates, inmates at
risk of being attacked, inmates who are incarcerated for a serious offense, inmates
who are sexual predators within the system, terrorists, or inmates who make or
50. STAUGHTON LYND, LUCASVILLE: THE UNTOLD STORY OF A PRISON UPRISING 214 (Temple
University Press, 2004).
51. Miller, supra note 35, at 228.
52. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 213 (2005).
53. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, COLD STORAGE-SUPER MAXIMUM CONFINEMENT IN INDIANA 10
(1997).
55. Mears, supra note 48, at 52; see also Daniel P. Mears, A Critical Look at Supermax Prisons,
30 CORRECTIONS COMPENDIUM 6-7, 45-49 (2005) (providing that wardens of supermax facilities
throughout the country characterized particular types of inmates that should be placed in maximum-
security facilities.).
possesses deadly weapons.56 With such an array of type of inmate within the prison
system, it is only logical for separation to occur.57
In separating inmates within MSFs, ODRC has utilized solitary conditions as
a method of control against the type of prisoners mentioned above, using three
distinguished mechanisms.58 First, and most obvious to the outside observer, is
physical isolation, where MSFs have utilized technological advances to facilitate
minimal interaction between staff and prisoners, combined with remote
surveillance of inmate populations.59 Secondly, MSFs implement an element of
psychological control, through physical control and deprivations of conditions
associated with law-abiding citizens, to force inmate populations into
compliance.60 Finally, MSFs utilize the deference given to prison administrators
by courts to protect inmates and staff from the dangerous, unpredictable inmate
populations to further isolation practices.61
The 3-Tier Prison System that ODRC has implemented is structured to
leverage the principles of separation and control.62 In viewing the criteria for
classification within a Level 1 institution within ODRC, inmates are to “be granted
the highest amount of privilege and autonomy . . . [and] expected to be rule
compliant and pro-social . . . .”63 Conversely, classification within a Level 4
institution is reserved for inmates who have established histories of violent or
disruptive behavior, riotous actions, or pose a threat to the security of the
institution.64 The institutional value of separating and segregating Level 1 inmates
from Level 4 and above inmates is highlighted from a statement given by a federal
inmate within a Federal Supermax Facility:
True I killed a guard . . . Not all dogs put their tail between their legs when their
masters beat them . . . [s]ome eventually bite back . . . So how many more bodies will
56. Daniel P. Mears, A Critical Look at Supermax Prisons, 30 CORR. COMPENDIUM 45, 45-46
(2005).
57. Wolff v. McDonnel, 418 U.S. 539, 563 (1974) (holding that “there is a great range of
personality and character” among inmates and will require to be treated differently within the prison
system).
58. Jules Lobel, Mass Solitary and Mass Incarcerations: Explaining the Dramatic Rise in
Prolonged Solitary in America’s Prisons, 115 NW. UNIV. L. REV. 159, 182 (2020).
59. Craig Haney, “Infamous Punishment”: The Psychological Consequences of Isolation,
NAT’L PRISON PROJECT J. 3, 3 (1993). See generally, Lobel, supra note 58, at 182-84 (outlining that
supermax facilities have utilized three main mechanisms as a form of control against rambunctious
inmate populations).
60. Lobel, supra note 58, at 182.
61. KERMET REITER, 23/7: PELICAN BAY PRISON AND THE RISE OF LONG-TERM SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT (2016) (discussing that courts began to grant deference to prison administrators in
controlling the separation practices within their respective institutions); Judith Resnik et al.,
Punishment in Prison: Constitution the “Normal” and the “Atypical” in Solitary and Other Forms
of Confinement, 115 NW. UNIV. L. REV. 45, 55 (2020) (noting that prison administrators have been
given a great deal of discretion in determining prison disciplinary actions).
63. Id. at 4.
64. Id. at 4-5.
fall and how many more individual [restrictive housing units] like mine, before
[prison administrators] face up to the jobs they get payed [sic] well for?65
With this mentality, seemingly closed to recognizing one’s own rule violation and
disregard for organizational systems and failure to follow basic canons of right and
wrong, it becomes clear that it is in the best interest of ODRC, staff, and Ohio to
separate inmates who show no desire to rehabilitate themselves from those who
are receptive of ODRC’s mission.
C. Maximum Security Facilities Create an Environment that Fosters the Safety

and Security of Both Staff and Inmates
It is no surprise that MSFs are designed to promote the safety of staff, the
institution, and other inmates.66 The Supreme Court has explicitly found that
Ohio’s “first obligation must be to ensure the safety of guards and prison personnel
. . . and the prisoners themselves.”67 The Ohio court in Taylor v. Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation & Correction was tasked with assessing the value of social
services within SOCF compared to institutional security following an event where
a teacher (Taylor), providing education services to inmates within SOCF, was
beheaded by a three-ring binder in the library.68 It found that “[s]ecurity should be
the number one concern of the legislature, [SOCF], and all others interested in
protecting the lives of the individuals who work in that institution, as well as the
inmates themselves.”69 In coming to this conclusion, the Taylor court recognized
that SOCF is an MSF charged with housing the worst male criminals in the state.70
This justification of MSFs is not organic to ODRC. Instead, the extreme rise of
violence in American prisons throughout the 1980s and 1990s, perpetuated by
prison gangs, prompted Departments of Corrections to create MSFs in order to
control the most dangerous and volatile inmates.71 In 1997, the National Institute
of Corrections reported that an overwhelming majority of its jurisdictions indicated
that the development of MSFs was a direct result of the need to better manage and
confine “violent and seriously disruptive inmates.”72
65. AM. FRIENDS SERV. COMM., THE LESSONS OF MARION: THE FAILURE OF A MAXIMUM
SECURITY PRISON: A HISTORY AND ANALYSIS, WITH VOICES OF PRISONERS 24-25; see also Fugate v.
Erdos, No. 1:19-CV-30, 2021 WL 221995 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2021) (outlining a situation arising
out of SOCF involving an inmate who planned and succeeded to escape his restraints while being
transferred to a rules infraction board hearing and assaulting the CO present simply because he was
upset).
66. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 227 (2005).
67. Id.
68. Taylor v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., 662 N.E.2d 1156, 1158 (Ct. Cl. 1994).
69. Id. (In Taylor, an inmate at SOCF forced a teacher, Beverly Jo Taylor, into the staff restroom
and slashed her throat with the metal spine of a 3-ring binder).
70. Id. at 1160.
71. See Lobel, supra note 58, at 169 (outlining the historical background and popular
justification for the rise in maximum security facilities throughout the nation).
72. NAT’L INST. OF CORR., SUPERMAX HOUSING: A SURVEY OF CURRENT PRACTICES 3 (1997).
At the time of Taylor’s slaying, the Taylor Court found that the security of
SOCF’s classroom was inadequate.73 Of primary concern regarding the security
shortfall that lead to the murder of Taylor was that only one correctional officer,
located at a poorly stationed desk, was charged with overseeing between eighty to
one hundred inmates freely roaming the library.74 Had ODRC and SOCF
implemented more stringent and thorough security measures in regard to
vocational services, perhaps she would still be alive today; however, because a
lapse of judgement and disregard to the known security risk, that is not the case.75
What is known is this: inadequately supervised inmates, especially those at an
MSF, can result in deadly consequences.76
An uncontroverted reality is that some inmates assault other inmates, and
some inmates kill other inmates.77 Upon the conclusion of 2019, ODRC reported
1,961 instances of inmate-on-inmate assaults, and 913 instances of inmate-on-staff
assaults.78 While ODRC has not offered statistics as to what the security level of
the institution of which these assaults took place, it is logical to connect that the
vast majority of these assaults, both inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff
occurred at non-MSF facilities.79 In State v. Newton, an ODRC inmate, Newton, at
a Level 3 institution, requested transfer into a protective custody cell, where he
knew he would have a cellmate.80 Once the transfer was granted, Newton attacked
his cellmate, Inmate Brewer.81 As staff responded to a disturbance call from
Newton’s cell, Newton was described as being painted with blood from eating a
portion of Brewer’s body as part of a ritual.82 As staff attempted to resuscitate
Brewer, Newton was reported as saying “Let him die, I killed him . . . Fuck that
bitch [Brewer]. You might as well not even work on him. He is already dead . . .
Stop, let the fucker die . . . [T]here is nothing like the taste of fresh blood in the
morning.”83 Unlike SOCF and OSP, the institution Newton was confined in
allowed for the double celling – the practice of two or inmates sharing a single cell.
As such, Newton had access to another inmate.84 Had Newton been placed in an
MSF, such as SOCF, where single celling is standard procedure, Brewer may still
be alive.
73. Taylor, 662 N.E.2d at 1160.

74. Id.
75. Id. at 1161-62.
76. Since the strengthening of security measures at SOCF’s library to the time of this Note, no
further life has been lost within SOCF’s library.
78. Id.
79. Though some of these assaults have occurred in MSFs, inmates who are confined in
institutions with greater security measures are less likely to assault other inmates and staff as the
opportunity to do so is lessened.
80. State v. Newton, 840 N.E.2d 593, 599 (2006).
81. Id.
82. Id.
83. Id. at 599-600.
84. Id. at 599.
III. INTERSECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, SUPREME COURT RULINGS, AND

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS
A. The Supreme Court Has Given Broad Deference to Prison Administrators

in Choosing How to Operate their Respective Institutions, and Has
Intentionally Limited Prison Liability Regarding Celling Practices and
Imposing Disciplinary Measures
The Supreme Court has given significant deference to prison administrators

in how to operate their respective institutions.85 Consistently, the Supreme Court
has held “[p]rison officials must be free to take appropriate action to ensure the
safety of inmates and corrections personnel and to prevent escape or unauthorized
entry.”86 Reaching a single standard after decades of litigation, to balance the
constitutional protections still afforded to inmates and the interests of rehabilitation
and corrections, the Court stated that “when a prison regulation impinges on
inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to a
legitimate penological interest.”87 In cementing this standard, the Court noted four
factors for consideration in determining the legitimacy of a prison’s regulation.
First, the prison must proffer a “‘valid, rational connection’” between the
questioned regulation and a legitimate interest in justifying the regulation.88
Second, a court must determine whether an alternative measure of exercising the
right claimed by inmates that the questioned regulation imposes upon remains
available to the inmates.89 Of particular interest in this second factor, the Supreme
Court emphasized that lower courts should be cognizant of the “‘measure of
judicial deference owed to corrections officials . . . in gauging the validity of the
regulation.’”90 Third, a court must analyze the impact accommodation of the
claimed constitutional right will have of the corrections staff, other inmates, and
allocation of prison resources.91 Here, the Court emphasized that all courts “should
be particularly deferential to the informed discretion of corrections officials.”92
The fourth and final factor encourages courts to assess whether a reasonable
alternative to the questioned regulation exists.93 Though a required factor, the
Court noted that this fourth factor is simply an inquiry to whether an alternative to
the questioned regulation exists in a de minimis cost to penological interests.94 By
establishing the “valid penological interest” test, the Supreme Court has essentially
85. This note does not address all issues of substantive Due Process issues in their entirety.
Instead, this note focuses on issues most prevalent in MSFs, such as disciplinary issues, isolation
celling, and liability of prison administrators.
86. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979).
87. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
88. Id. (quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).
89. Id. at 90.
90. Id. (quoting Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827 (1974)).
91. Id.
92. Id.
93. Id.
94. Id. at 91.
deferred “to the informed discretion of corrections officials”95 to determine what

regulations should be imposed to ensure the safety of inmates and corrections
personnel and to “preserve[] internal order and discipline.”96 Seemingly, the
Supreme Court has intentionally granted prison administrators deference, while
specifically outlining constitutional bounds within which administrators must
operate.97
Lower Courts, legislatures, and departments of corrections are not without
guidance on what the Supreme Court has deemed as constitutional floors on the
treatment of inmates. The Supreme Court, in recognizing the terror that prisons
confine, has found:
As a consequence of their own actions, prisoners may be deprived of rights that are
fundamental to liberty. Yet the law and the Constitution demand recognition of
certain other rights. Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all
person. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment.98
Rights of inmates are discerned from the broad spectrum of constitutional law;99
of those, Eighth Amendment limitations on celling practices, conditions, and
prison discipline are most particularly relevant to the scope of this Note and are
discussed in the following sections.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that
inmates are not subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.100 Through years of
development in constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court has answered
many questions of what level of comfort inmates are entitled to in MSFs under the
Eighth Amendment.
On Easter Sunday, April 11, 1993, SOCF became infamous as the
battleground that resulted in the longest prison riot in United States history.101
95. Id. at 90-91.

96. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 521 (1979).
97. In Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 531 (2006), the Court assessed whether a regulation,
concerning inmates placed in disciplinary isolation, satisfied the test outlined in Turner. The prison
regulation in question provided that the policies were designed to motivate better behavior from
“particularly difficult prisoners” by providing incentive to behave through restricting property
available to inmates. Particularly, the prison prohibited newspapers and magazines. As a justification,
the prison regulation cited that “less property these high maintenance, high supervision, obdurate
troublemakers have, the easier it is for . . . correctional officer[s] to detect concealed contraband [and]
to provide security.” Id. Further, the prison justified its policies as the prisoners might use the
restricted property as weapons, or that inmates could employ excess items “as tools to catapult feces
at the guards without the necessity of soiling one’s own hands or use as tinder for cell fires.” Id. In
assessing these policies in relation to the Turner test, the Beard Court found that while the second,
third, and forth factors of the Turner Test were not explicitly met, the “real task is not balancing these
factors, but rather determining whether the [prison] shows more than a simply logical relation.” Id.
at 533.
98. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 439, 510 (2011) (emphasis added).
99. 73 Ohio Jur. 3d Penal Institutions § 145.
100. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.
101. AP Was There: The 1993 Uprising at Lucasville, Ohio, Prison, AP NEWS (Apr. 10, 2018),
https://apnews.com/article/d59df1b907b34bdeaabf8f95eadc8552.[https://perma.cc/mgm8-dp4a]
Many scholars and inmates credit the practice of double celling throughout SOCF
as the tinder that ignited the riot.102 Just twelve years prior to the SOCF riot, the
Supreme Court in Rhodes v. Chapman, found that double celling, in a cell that
measured approximately sixty-three square feet, was not a violation of the Eighth
Amendment.103 Though the Court acknowledged that the Eighth Amendment
prohibits punishments that “‘involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain,’”104 the Court simultaneously stressed that the Constitution does not require
prisons to be comfortable, and that these type of considerations should be assessed
by the appropriate legislative body and the respective prison administration, not
the Courts.105 A decade after Rhodes, the Court once again emphasized that prisons
are not required to be remotely comfortable, and that the Eighth Amendment is
only invoked when inmates are deprived of “‘the minimal civilized measure of
life’s necessities.’”106 As such, the Supreme Court has continued to uphold the
notion, amidst changing social dynamics favoring prison reform,107 that prisons are
not a social experiment and are constitutionally permissible to be unpleasant and
that, absent a flagrant violation, courts should refrain from interfering with prison
management.
Isolation cells, sometimes called solitary, are the opposite of double celling,
which entails housing inmates in individual cells for twenty-two to twenty-four
hours a day, separated from contact with other prisoners and staff.108 The Supreme
Court, as early as 1890, recognized that isolation cells are a method of additional
punishment once incarcerated.109 Courts have routinely found that placement in an
(noting that as a result of the SOCF Riot, nine inmates and one correctional officer was killed). Other
scholarship has viewed the SOCF Riots differently. For example, Staughton Lynd, an attorney who
represented some rioters of the SOCF Riot, compared the SOCF Riots to a fundamental piece of
American pride in stating “I have viewed [the SOCF Riots] as a comparison to the American
Revolution.” STAUGHTON, supra note 50, at 13. Mr. Lynd has also produced scholarship belittling
both Lucasville and the population of southern Ohio. See Staughton Lynd, The Saran Wrap of
Complicity: Finding Guilt After an Ohio Prison Rebellion, 51 U. TOL. L. REV. 197, 201 (2020)
(claiming “Lucasville is merely a crossroads, hardly even a small town, located in Scioto County
near the Ohio River. Its culture is that of the South. The manner of speaking and general outlook of
the guards very much resemble that of their Kentucky counterparts on the other side of the river.”)
For reference, the author of this Note, is a native Scioto-Countian.
102. LYND, supra note 50, at 21.
103. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S 337, 344 (1981).
104. Id. at 344 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)).
105. Id. at 349.
106. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 349).
107. Marie Gottschalk, Bring It On: The Future of Penal Reform, the Carceral State, and
American Politics, 12 OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L. 559, 588 (2015) (noting that national surveys suggest
“considerable decreases since the early-to-mid 1990s in key indicators of public punitiveness,
including public fear of crime . . . support for the death penalty, and designation of crime as a top
priority.”).
108. FAQ: Solitary Confinement in the United States, SOLITARY WATCH, https://solitarywatch.o
rg/facts/faq/ [https://perma.cc/mt2r-q47l] (last visited Oct. 19, 2021).
109. See In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 170 (1890) (finding that solitary confinement, in the
meaning of a Colorado statute, “remains of the essential character of the that mode of prison life as
it originally was prescribed and carried out, to mark them as examples of the just punishment of the
worst crimes of the human race.”).
isolation cell is not sufficient to give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim.110 In

furthering the justification of prison administrators to utilize isolation cells, the
Sixth Circuit has found that placement in isolation cells is a “routine discomfort
that is part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against
society.”111
However, in 2020, the Supreme Court noted a limitation in which cell
conditions may become problematic.112 In Taylor v. Riojas, the Supreme Court was
tasked with determining whether placing an inmate into a solitary confinement cell
“covered, nearly floor to ceiling, in ‘massive amounts’ of feces: all over the floor,
the ceiling, the windows, the walls, and even ‘packed inside the water faucet’”
gives rise to an Eighth Amendment claim.113 In assessing the poor cell conditions,
the Supreme Court combined the fact that the inmate was unable to dispose of
bodily waste because of a clogged drain and was forced to defecate on the cell
floor, naked, with the fact that the cell lacked a bunk and the inmate was not issued
clothing, and found an Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment
existed.114 As such, it becomes illuminative that the Supreme Court has no issue
with prison administrators placing inmates in solitary cells with unpleasant
conditions, but will draw the line at placing inmates in solitary confinement cells
covered in feces, with non-working plumbing, while naked.115 The Sixth Circuit,
covering Ohio and ODRC, has set clear limits on cell conditions.116
Though the Court has defined the constitutionality of practices involving
double celling and isolation cells, the question arises as to how courts, and prison
110. See Harden-Bey v. Rutter, 524 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that placement into an
isolation cell is a routine discomfort associated with the penalty that “‘offenders pay for their offenses
against society’” and is therefore insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment Claim) (quoting
Murray v. Unknown Evert, 84 F. App’x. 533, 556 (6th Cir. 2003)); Wilkerson v. Goodwin, 774 F.3d
845, 853 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding that, “absent extraordinary circumstances[,]” placement in isolation
that is merely “incident to the ordinary life as a prisoner” does not give rise to a Constitutional claim
because isolation “does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest.”
(quoting Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1996)). See also Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d
192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that “administrative segregation, without more, simply does not
constitute a deprivation of a [constitutional interest].”).
111. Harden-Bey, 524 F.3d at 795 (quoting Murray, 84 F. App’x at 556).
112. Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52, 53 (2020).
113. Id. (quoting Taylor v. Stevens, 946 F.3d 211, 218 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. granted, judgment
vacated sub nom. Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52 (2020)).
114. Id.
115. Id. at 52. But see Richmond v. Settles, 450 F. App’x. 448, 456 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding that
a brief deprivation of hygiene items such as toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, toothbrush, running water,
or the ability to shower for six days did not give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim.). For an
interesting glimpse into the thoughts of Supreme Court Justices’ thoughts on solitary confinement,
see Davis v. Ayala 576 U.S. 257, 287-90 (2015). In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy notes that
solitary confinement is a growing issue that may be harmful for the inmate. Justice Thomas wrote a
concurrence simply to articulate that the conditions the inmate in question would be subjected to are
far better than what his murder victims will ever see.
116. See Braswell v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 419 F. App’x. 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding a
violation when an inmate spent nine months in a dirty, unsanitary cell where mold grew in the toilet
and the cell was littered with food trays). But see Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511
(6th Cir. 2001) (finding that a flooded cell and inoperable toilet was only a temporary inconvenience
that did not violate the Eighth Amendment).
administrators, should assess other disciplinary measures within prisons. The

Court has routinely upheld, unsurprisingly, that the Eighth Amendment requires
that prison administrators provide confined inmates with humane conditions,
including adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and reasonable safety.117
To clarify the boundary between what is a permissibly “restrictive and even
harsh”118 prison environment, and the protections afforded by the Eighth
Amendment, the Supreme Court has developed a two-prong test.119
First, the alleged deprivation must be “objectively sufficiently serious[]”120
and have resulted from a prison official’s act or omission in providing
“minimal…life necessities.”121 Secondly, a prison may only be liable for an Eighth
Amendment violation if the prison imposes “only the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain . . . .”122 Further attached to the second prong is whether the prison
possessed a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,”123 and if so, whether that state of
mind is one of “deliberate indifference”124 to inmate health or safety.125 Though
the Supreme Court in Riojas did not employ this test to find an Eighth Amendment
violation, it takes no stretch of the imagination to see how forcing an inmate to
sleep in a fecal-ridden floor, naked, for days meets these requirements.126
Through Farmer, the Court further specified what satisfies the second prong
requirements for an Eighth Amendment violation. As for “deliberate indifference,”
Farmer further reaffirmed Estelle v. Gamble,127 that a “deliberate indifference”
requires something more than an ordinary lack of due care for a prisoner’s safety
or interests, or, something more than mere negligence.128 Recognizing that Estelle
leaves a spectrum with negligence on one end and purpose and knowledge on the
other,129 the Farmer Court found recklessness to be equal to deliberate
117. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).

118. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S 337, 347 (1981).
119. See Nicole B. Godfrey, Institutional Indifference, 98 OR. L. REV. 151, 186 (2020) (“The
current Eighth Amendment test requires a prisoner prove both an objective and subjective element.
First, the prisoner must show he is subject to an objectively serious prisoner condition. Second, in
order for a defendant to be held liable under the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must demonstrate
that the defendant is deliberately indifferent to that serious prison condition. To prove this element,
a prisoner must make two showings. First, he must show that the defendant knew that the prison
condition at issue posed a substantial risk of serious harm to the prisoner (the knowledge component).
Then, after demonstrating knowledge, the prisoner must show that the defendant disregarded the risk
by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it (the disregard component).”).
120. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, at 298 (1991)).
121. Id. (citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)).
122. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S 294, 297 (1991) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976)).
123. Id.
124. Id.
125. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
126. In Taylor v. Riojas, 141 S. Ct. 52 (2020), the primarily question for the Supreme Court
focused on whether the correctional officers involved would receive qualified immunity.
127. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
128. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835 (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986)).
129. Id.
indifference.130 However, as the Farmer Court recognized, recklessness is defined

differently in civil law and criminal law.131 In weighing these interests, the Court
held that the criminal law definition of recklessness, i.e., deliberate indifference, is
met when a prison official knows of and “disregards an excessive risk to inmate
health or safety.”132 Further, deliberate indifference arises when a prison official is
aware of both facts from which the prison official should equate to being a
substantial risk of serious harm exists and the prison official actually draws this
inference from the facts.133
Spurred by frequent litigation filed by inmates throughout the nation, the
Court in Sandin v. Conner cemented doctrine to guide courts in the application of
Due Process issues regarding prison regulations.134 Prior to Sandin, courts wrestled
with determining whether prison administrative handbooks codified expectations
of confinement, which if not followed, would present grounds for a Due Process
violation.135 As a result of not having a hard standard for the interaction of prison
regulations and Due Process protections of prison conditions and procedures,
existing case law encouraged inmates to scrupulously search prison regulations for
mandatory language on which to set a basis for perceived entitlements of state-
conferred privileges.136 In recognizing this, the Sandin court noted that while
recognizing state-created Due Process concerns make sense when defining rights
and remedies for the general public, it is counterintuitive when applied to prison
regulations that simply guide correctional staff on operations of prisons.137
To settle the concerns addressed in Sandin and problematic prior precedent,
the Sandin Court held that though States can create a liberty interest protected by
the Due Process Clause, these interests are limited to a freedom from restraint that
imposes “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life.”138 In applying this new standard, the Court found that the
inmate Plaintiff in Sandin, in being placed in a segregation cell as a result of a
disciplinary infraction, did not give rise to an atypical, significant hardship on the
inmate when compared to ordinary prison life, and that he was not entitled to
procedural Due Process claims based on the wording of the respective prison
130. Id. at 836.

131. Id. at 837.
132. Id.
133. Id.
134. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
135. Id. at 480-81 (finding that prior to the holding of this case, the Supreme Court “wrestled with
the language of intricate, often rather routine prison guidelines to determine whether mandatory
language and substantive predicates created an enforceable expectation that the State would produce
a particular outcome with respect to the prisoner’s conditions of confinement.”).
136. Id. at 481.
137. Id. at 482 (finding that prison regulations are not designed to confer rights on inmates). In
Sandin, the Supreme Court found that its previous guiding case, Hewitt v. Helms, 456 U.S. 460
(1983), created two negative implications. First, Hewitt disincentivized States from codifying prison
management procedures in the interest of even treatment. Id. Secondly, Hewitt has led to a disturbing
increase of federal courts becoming involved in the day-to-day management of prisons, resulting in
a waste of judicial resources with little benefit to inmates or prison administrators. Id.
138. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484.
regulations.139 In reaching its holding, compared against the factual circumstances

of Sandin, the Supreme Court has further clarified that inmates are not protected
from disciplinary action that does not reach the atypical standard of prison life, and
that in codifying prison regulations, states do not implicitly create disciplinary
limitations or open itself to Due Process liability.140
What does this mean for Ohio’s MSFs when nearly every inmate interaction
could result in danger to staff and other inmates? Does Farmer stand for entirely
restricting all inmates within MSF to isolation cells? Does it require that prison
administrators tiptoe around inmate feelings? Does it require prison administrators
to refrain from imposing punishments befitting an MSF inmate? It does not seem
so. Instead, Farmer and subsequent doctrine stands for limiting the liability of
prison administrators when an inmate brings forth an Eighth Amendment claim.141
Using a Farmer analysis, a prison administrator would only be found liable for an
Eighth Amendment claim alleging inhumane conditions of confinement if the
prison administrator is explicitly aware of a substantial risk of serious harm.142
Further, Sandin cements that prison regulations, in the form of internal procedures,
inmate handbooks, and decisions made by prison administrators, only give rise to
Due Process concerns when the action imposes an atypical and significant hardship
on inmates in relation to ordinary prison life.143 Although it can be debated whether
solitary confinement and other disciplinary actions constitute “serious harm”
within the meaning of Farmer, or what amounts to an atypical and significant
hardship when compared to prison life, a brutal truth stands regardless: most MSF
inmates are unruly and violent and continue to be so until their freedom of
movement and access to other inmates and staff are eliminated. As such, the
Supreme Court has recognized this uncomfortable truth and has given deference
to prison administrators in determining disciplinary measures and prison
procedures.
139. Id. at 486.

140. See Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 577 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that “an increase in
security classification . . . does not constitute an ‘atypical and significant’ hardship . . . .”); Rimmer-
Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1995) (refusing an inmate’s allegation that prison officials
“violated his procedural due process rights by placing him in administrative segregation without a
formal reclassification hearing”). But see Powell v. Washington, 720 F. App’x 222, 226 (6th Cir.
2017) (holding that confining an inmate in administrative segregation for six months does not
constitute an atypical and significant hardship, but being placed in a cell, deprived of adequate
lighting, for thirty-five days is sufficiently extreme enough to give rise to an Eighth Amendment
claim).
141. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 825 (1994).
142. Id.
143. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 472.
IV. OPERATIONS OF AN OHIO MAXIMUM-SECURITY FACILITY
A. Correctional Officers Within Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Corrections and Use of Force
ODRC requires that CO applicants possess a high school diploma or GED

and hold a valid driver’s license.144 Further, ODRC requires COs to develop skills
in detention practices for adult felons, the criminally insane, security operations,
unarmed self-defense, riot control, familiarization with firearms, and basic
computer operations upon completion of a 365-day probationary period.145 Before
beginning work in their respective institutions, COs are required to attend the
Corrections Training Academy (“CTA”), located in Orient, Ohio, to undergo 160
hours of training in areas such as firearms, CPR, inmate transportation practices,
and the use of restraints.146
Scholarship has found that COs derive five pillars of power within prisons:
legitimate power, coercive power, reward power, expert power, and referent
power.147 Legitimate power refers to the inherent power that COs retain just by the
structural relationship between the position of authority as a CO and the position
as an inmate.148 Coercive power refers to the ability of COs to impose sanctions
upon inmates to “coerce” an inmate to follow institutional rules and regulations.149
Reward power, the opposite of coercive power, encompasses a CO’s ability to
grant favorable functions to inmates, such as a work assignment, access to
recreation, commissary privileges, and overlooking minor rule infractions.150
Expert power stems from an inmates perception that a CO is knowledgeable in his
craft, and therefore follows instruction based upon this belief.151 Referent power
refers to a leadership style that garners the respect and admiration of inmates that
results in an inmate population following rules and regulations based on
admiration.152 Despite these bases of power and the theory held in academia that
inmates will submit to these powers, the histories of MSFs stand in direct
opposition to this theory.153
144. Job Description and Qualifications for Correctional officers, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. &
CORR., https://dasstateoh.taleo.net/careersection/oh_ext/jobdetail.ftl?job=210004ET&tz=GMT-04%
3A00&tzname=America%2FNew_York (last visited Oct. 7, 2021) [https://perma.cc/DRC4-KYF6].
145. Id.
146. Corrections Training Academy, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., https://drc.ohio.gov/cta
(last visited Oct. 7, 2021) [https://perma.cc/5zw4-pbq6].
147. JOYCELYN POLLOCK, PRISONS TODAY AND TOMORROW 200-201 (Texas State University-San
Marcos eds., 2nd ed. 2006).
148. Id.
149. Id. at 201.
150. Id.
151. Id.
152. Id.
153. This is inferred from the existence of MSFs within ODRC as ODRC reserves the use of
MSFs for inmates who fail to adhere to institutional rules, pose a threat the security, harm staff or
inmates, and cannot be controlled in lower security institutions.
ODRC does not alter its occupational duties or methods to accomplish the
respective duties of COs based upon the security level of institution. A CO that
works within an MSF, dealing with the worst offenders, must adhere to the same
rules and regulations as a CO who works at a minimum-security institution.154 This
raises suspicion as to whether this is a wise policy for ODRC to follow. After all,
ODRC recognizes that minimum-security inmates are vastly different from
maximum-security inmates.155
As discussed above, Farmer stands for guiding prison administrators when
they may stand liable, and subsequent doctrine offers specifics on the limits on
conditions of confinement and treatment. However, often unique to MSFs is
rampant violence and the necessary force that COs must apply to gain control of
unruly, violent inmates.156 When violence and disruption occurs within a prison
setting, the Court has recognized that COs must assess the need to maintain order
and discipline with the risk of injury to inmates.157 Additionally, the Court
recognizes that in instances in which violence and disorder occur within prisons,
COs and prison officials are forced to act quickly and decisively without the luxury
of planning and assessment of courses of action.158 In reaching this realization, the
Court has found that prison administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging
deference in the adoption and execution of policies . . . that in their judgment are
needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional
security.”159 Obviously, this is limited by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishment, similar to Farmer. To balance the interest between
the sanctity of the Eighth Amendment and prison administrator’s deference, the
Court has held that when force is implemented, liability arises only if the force was
utilized in a bad-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and
sadistically to cause harm.160 To assist prison administrators in developing their
use-of-force policies, the Court has determined a set factors to determine the
validity of force used.161
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the court
in which many federal suits arising from SOCF arrive, has held “the good faith use
of physical force in pursuit of valid penological or institutional goals will rarely, if
ever, violate the Eighth Amendment.”162 As such, ODRC is not severely restricted
154. MEARS, supra note 48, at 5.

155. SOCF HANDBOOK, supra note 42, at 3-4; see also ODRC INMATE CLASSIFICATION, supra note
5 (describing the different inmate security classifications).
156. See discussion infra Section IV. C.
157. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992).
158. Id.
159. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22 (1986) (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547
(1979)).
160. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 (citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21).
161. In Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, the Supreme Court found that factors to be assessed include the
injury suffered as a result of the force used, whether force was required, the severity of the force used
when compared to the need of the force, the apparent threat that prompted the force used, and any
mitigating efforts used to prevent force from being used.
162. McDougald v. Clagg, No. 1:18-CV-93, 2020 WL 2557039, at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 20, 2020)
(quoting Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 604 (6th Cir. 1986)).
by the legislature or the courts in its use of force policies, and has guidance from
its respective jurisdiction in how to craft its use-of-force policies. Instead, it
appears that ODRC, through its internal policies, is hyper-restricting CO and
prison administrators’ ability to gain compliance and manage their institutions with
deadly consequences. Both District Courts and the Sixth Circuit, hearing Eighth
Amendment claims arising out of SOCF, have routinely found for COs when
inmates allege use-of-force violations.163
B. Inmate Privileges and Comforts Within an Ohio Maximum-Security Facility
I spent sixteen hours on a constant watch. Eight hours prior to starting this shift, I had
just completed my shift on the same constant watch. For sixteen hours my duty was
to stare at an inmate to ensure that he did not harm himself. For sixteen hours, the
inmate masturbated while staring at me. For the entire shift the inmate belittled me,
insulted me, and called me a [homosexual] for doing my job. The rest of the inmates
in the block, unaware that the inmate was masturbating, joined in belittling me and
calling me a [homosexual]. The inmate on constant-watch wasn’t suicidal. He just
wanted to make life difficult. He knew that an Officer would be frozen to work a
double shift if he said he was suicidal and we were understaffed. He was on constant
watch for over sixty-five days.164
SOCF houses inmates ranging from three security classifications: ERH165 is

the most restrictive, Level 4 is the least restrictive, and ERH-T is a transition
classification between the ERH and Level 4 classifications.166 ERH level inmates
are entitled to religious and legal services, one hour of recreation five days a week,
163. Clagg, 2020 WL 2557039, at *3 (finding pro se inmate did not have a case against prison
administrators when pepper spray was utilized against him for smearing feces on the wall of his cell
and banging his head against the wall in a self-harming manner). In McDougald v. Stone, No. 18-
3294, 2019 WL 1502513 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019), the Sixth Circuit applied the Use-of-Force doctrine
to an instance arising out of SOCF involving the same Inmate McDougald. Here, Inmate McDougald
was ordered to give a blood sample after being accused of both “throwing a bodily substance on
another person’s face and spitting on a correctional officer’s face.” Id. at *3. Once ordered to give
the blood sample, Inmate McDougald refused, and correctional officers grabbed him in a “painful . .
. manner” and medical staff “forced [a needle] in [his] arm causing [him] severe pain” which resulted
in a bruise. Id. at *1. In finding that Inmate McDougald’s excessive force claim must fail, the Sixth
Circuit assessed the objective component of the force (if the injury was sufficiently serious), and the
subjective component (if the prison official applied force maliciously or sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm). Id. at *3. In its analysis, the Sixth Circuit also considered the type and
excessiveness of the force used, and the extent of the inflicted injury. Id. Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit
found that the COs involved, in light of Inmate McDougald’s noncompliance with orders, used
necessary force to ensure compliance with the blood draw, and that no bad-faith intent existed
amongst COs in gaining compliance. Id.
164. Letter from anonymous S. Ohio Corr. Facility Corr. Officer to author (Feb. 3, 2021) (on file
with author) [hereinafter ANONYMOUS CO LETTER].
165. ODRC INMATE CLASSIFICATION, supra note 5, at 2 (defining ERH as “the most restrictive
security level in the ODRC reserved for inmates who constitute the greatest threat to the safety and
security of the community, staff, others, and/or the secure operations of a correctional facility.”).
166. Id. at 3 (outlining that ERH-T is a transitional classification from ERH to Level 4); see also
SOCF HANDBOOK supra note 42, at 3-4.
one phone call on the weekend, televisions placed on the cell range for viewing
pleasure, limited non-contact visits, and a $70 commissary spending limit for each
shopping period.167 ERH level inmates are fed in their cells, but receive the same
meals that Level 4 inmates receive.168 Conversely, Level 4 inmates are permitted
to spend $90 at commissary each shopping period,169 have the opportunity to attend
the institutional library seven day a week,170 and are permitted to attend a
recreation period seven days a week where games such as basketball, volleyball,
table tennis, and flag football are facilitated by staff.171 Further, Level 4 inmates
leave their cells multiple times a day to travel to the inmate dining room to eat their
meals, in addition to recreation and library periods.172 Additionally, Level 4
inmates are permitted to attend contact visitations Wednesday through Saturday,173
and are also permitted to have a single television, a CD player, a radio, and a tablet
with Wi-Fi capabilities to call outside of the institution and purchase music.174
As consistently found by the Supreme Court and lower courts, inmates are
not entitled to comfort or privileges while incarcerated, and certainly not in
instances in which an inmate resides within an MSF.175 Further, the Supreme Court
has explicitly held that the only privileges inmates are entitled to are adequate food,
shelter, clothing, medical care, and reasonable safety.176 Attending recreation
multiple days a week to play games, large commissary spending limits, televisions,
the ability to call home and listen to music extends far beyond the required
adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and reasonable safety.177 However,
167. SOCF HANDBOOK, supra note 42, at 3.

168. Id. at 3, 18.
169. Id. at 9.
170. Id. at 21.
171. Id. at 34.
172. Id. at 18.
173. Id. at 40.
174. Id. at 31; see also E-mail from anonymous Toledo Corr. Inst. Corr. Officer to author (Jan.
4, 2021, 02:48 CST) (stating that ERH inmates now receive access to tablets and Wi-Fi within their
cells, a privilege previously given to Level 4 or lesser inmates, and that Level 4 inmates receive
significantly more out-of-cell time than required) (on file with author). Tablets are not outlined in
this version of the SOCF rulebook but have since been authorized and incorporated into recent
editions of the SOCF rulebook that is not readily available to the public.
175. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 349 (1981).
176. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). In Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 954 (6th Cir.
1987), the Sixth Circuit found that the Constitution does not protect an inmate from uncomfortable
or unpleasant prison experiences. In Vick v. Core Civic, 329 F. Supp. 3d 426, 451 (M.D. Tenn. 2018),
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee found that a prison requiring an
inmate to be fed within his cell, and not the communal chow hall, does not give rise to an “atypical
and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” (quoting
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). Further, Vick, 328 F. Supp. 3d at 451 found that inmates
have no constitutional entitlement to access to television or access to commissary privileges while
incarcerated.
177. In Rodgers v. Jabe, 43 F.3d 1082, 1087-88 (6th Cir. 1995), the Sixth Circuit considered
constitutional minimums regarding recreation times. The Sixth Circuit found that one hour of
recreation time, five days per week, does not violate the Constitution. Id. at 1087. However, it would
be unconstitutional to limit an inmate’s recreation time to one hour per week, five days a week, every
thirty days as a punitive measure. Id. at 1088; see also Delaney v. DeTalla, 123 F. Supp. 2d 429, 435-
and arguably most troubling, while incarcerated in an MSF, inmates receive

creature comforts, such as table tennis and routine phone calls to loved ones, that
many law-abiding Americans are not guaranteed. While potentially effective in
occupying the time of MSF inmates, these creature comforts are exactly that:
comforts being provided to Ohio’s worst offenders while incarcerated in an
institution designed to encourage inmates to follow rules and regulations to be
reassigned to a lower-level institution.
With such comfort permitted and privileges provided, it appears that MSF
inmates do not have proper incentive to abide by ODRC rules and regulations to
ultimately be transferred to a lower-level institution to receive educational and
vocational training for a successful transition back into society. While many of
ODRCs inmates likely do wish to serve their time, learn, grow, and become
productive members of society, these are not the type of inmates who traditionally
reside within MSFs. Thus, ODRC has built a system that creates complacency and
comfort within MSFs, further incentivizing the State’s worst offenders not to
change their behavior patterns, but instead has lulled them into complacent
comfort.
It started out as a normal day. We had an inmate in a slammer cell because he had
thrown shit on an Officer the day prior. After about two hours on shift, during a
routine round, I walked by his cell and it smelled terrible. I looked closer and he was
covered in shit. His cell walls were covered in shit. His sink, bed, blankets, mattress,
ceiling, light fixtures, everything, covered in shit. He grinned at me and said “I’m not
coming out of here. You’re gonna have to come in and get me.” He knew we couldn’t
leave him in there like that. He knew what he was doing.178
C. One Year’s Worth of Incidents of Violence Within an Ohio Maximum-

Security Facility
In 2016,179 the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee (“CIIC”), the

agency charged with ensuring compliance of correctional institutions, issued a
report on SOCF.180 Within this report, CIIC determined that throughout Fiscal
Year (FY) 2015, 257 incidents of inmate-on-inmate assaults occurred within
SOCF, an increase of 3.6% from FY 2014.181 Additionally, CIIC found that during
FY 2015, 152 inmate-on-staff assaults occurred, an increase of 3.4% from FY
2014.182 Further, CIIC found that the rate of inmate disciplinary convictions for
37 (N.D. Ill. 2000), aff’d & remanded, 256 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that denying an inmate
out-of-cell recreation for a period extending six months, absent a security risk, qualified as a
constitutional violation).
178. ANONYMOUS CO LETTER, supra note 164.
179. 2016 is the most recent year that CIIC has issued a report on SOCF.
180. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE INSPECTION AND
EVALUATION OF SOUTHERN OHIO CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (2016) [hereinafter CIIC SOCF REPORT],
http://ciic.state.oh.us/docs/Southern%20Ohio%20Correctional%20Facility%202016.pdf
[https://perma.cc/fa3h-jgjs].
181. Id. at 30.
182. Id.
assault, for both inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff, at SOCF was

“significantly more than the [O]DRC average.”183
In its 2016 report, CIIC also assessed the incidents in which COs at SOCF
used force against inmates. During Calendar Year (CY) 2014, SOCF reported 443
incidents in which force was used.184 Unsurprisingly, SOCF’s rate in which force
was used was “significantly more that the [O]DRC average.”185 Of the 443
incidents that force was used within SOCF in CY 2014, chemical agents, such as
pepper spray, were used 293 times,186 meaning that 150 instances in which force
was used involved hand-to-hand contact or the employment of a PR-24, a security
baton issued to COs within SOCF.187
These statistics raise the questions as to why so many assaults and uses of
force arise in a maximum-security setting and how to reduce instances of violence
to ensure the safety of both SOCF inmates and staff. As outlined throughout this
Note, SOCF inmates are granted comfort and privileges beyond the “minimal
civilized measure of life’s necessities.”188 SOCF inmates are out of their cells,
attending recreation, and comingling in groups beyond what has been determined
as the constitutional minimum. In allowing this, ODRC has permitted institutions
such as SOCF to exist as a tinderbox of violence and danger. It is easy to assume
that inmates are predictable, after all, MSFs are rigid and strict for this purpose,
and that COs have an easy position within prisons: keep count of inmates, enforce
the rules, and follow the direction of supervisors. However, it is not that simple.
When theory fails and reality ensues, Murphy’s Law becomes the controlling
precedent.189
D. Examples of Things Going Wrong
Casey Pigge, an inmate currently incarcerated at OSP in Youngstown, Ohio,

has a long track record within ODRC.190 After being convicted for the murder of a
woman in Chillicothe, Ohio in 2009, Pigge was not finished killing.191 After
conviction and sentencing, he killed while incarcerated at Lebanon Correctional
Institution in February of 2016 by smashing his cellmate’s skull with a cinder
183. Id.
184. Id. at 32.
185. Id.
186. Id.
187. This number is derived by subtracting the number of instances that chemical agents were
used from the total number of reported uses of force.
188. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
189. Murphy’s Law stands for the proposition that if anything can go wrong, it will.
190. Offender Details of Casey L. Pigge, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., https://appgateway.d
rc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A617546 (last visited Oct. 20, 2021) [https://perma.cc/
ad7l-lxym].
191. Jona Ison, Top 10 for 2018: Casey Pigge Continues Violent Prison Assaults, CHILLICOTHE
GAZETTE (Dec. 28, 2018, 1:49 PM), https://www.chillicothegazette.com/story/news/2018/12/28/top-
10-2018-casey-pigge-continues-violent-prison-assaults/2420857002/ [https://perma.cc/p2dx-6zab]
(outlining Pigge’s inability to follow social constructs, despite receiving the strictest punishments
ODRC is willing to impose).
block.192 Upon murdering behind bars, Pigge was transferred to a more restrictive
facility.193 However, in what was shaping up to be his typical disruptive fashion,
Pigge killed again while on the prison transport bus.194 The hypothetical presented
in the introduction of this note is not a hypothetical at all; instead, it is a truthful
account of further destruction that Pigge contributed to while incarcerated at
SOCF.195 Pigge has demonstrated that ODRC’s MSFs are lacking proper security
practices and, arguably, has not completely disincentivized destructive behavior
within its institutions.
Similar to the story of Casey Pigge is the history of ODRC inmate Greg
Reinke.196 Reinke is no stranger to bloodshed while incarcerated at SOCF. In June
of 2017, he and four other inmates were handcuffed to tables within an ERH block
pursuant to an ODRC effort to contribute to ERH inmates’ recreational interests.197
Reinke managed to remove his handcuffs, brandish a shank, and subsequently stab
the four inmates multiple times while they were still handcuffed to their respective
table.198 At the time of the stabbing, internal prison reports state that Reinke said
he “just felt like killing someone.”199 This incident, particularly because of the
released video footage, sparked a number of theories and concerns regarding
SOCF.200 Notable are the accusations that COs within SOCF delayed their
response and orchestrated the attack on the four inmates.201 However, these
allegations have been refuted by both the related CO Union and Scioto County
Prosecutor, Shane Tieman.202 As a result of the incident, Shamieke Pugh, one of
the inmates stabbed, filed a federal suit seeking relief and naming the Warden of
SOCF, Ron Erdos, as a defendant.203 In this suit, the District Court of the Southern
192. Id.
193. Id.
194. Id.
195. Id.
196. Ivy Potter, Inmate Sentenced to 86 Years for SOCF Stabbings, PORTSMOUTH DAILY TIMES
(Apr. 1, 2019), https://www.portsmouth-dailytimes.com/news/36900/inmate-sentenced-to-86-years-
for-socf-stabbings [https://perma.cc/ns5n-f2st].
197. Id.
for-socf-stabbings; John Deike, Graphic Video: Lucasville, OH Inmates Repeatedly Stabbed in
Vicious Prison Attack, 19 NEWS (Jan. 28, 2019, 8:18 PM), https://www.cleveland19.com/2019/01/29/
graphic-lucasville-oh-inmates-repeatedly-stabbed-vicious-prison-attack-video/
[https://perma.cc/5nlf-j59w] (within this article is an embedded video that shows Reinke removing
his hand restraints and assaulting four inmates still cuffed to their respective table).
199. Scott Grammer, Four Ohio Prisoners Shackled to Table Stabbed by Fellow Prisoner, PRISON
LEGAL NEWS (Dec. 9, 2019), https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/dec/9/four-ohio-prisoner
s-shackled-table-stabbed-fellow-prisoner/ [https://perma.cc/rl6a-jmya].
200. Id.
201. Id.
202. Id.
203. Pugh v. Erdos, No. 1:19-CV-245, 2020 WL 2395566 (S.D. Ohio May 12, 2020). In Pugh,
the court found that Warden Erdos was not liable for a separate reason, but had he not, simply having
awareness that Inmate Reinke had stabbed other inmates while incarcerated, met the Farmer standard
for imputing liability. No. 1:19-CV-245, 2020 WL 2395566, at 6 (2020).
District of Ohio noted that Warden Erdos could not be liable but did grant Plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint.204
As portrayed in the introduction to this Note, Reinke was the second inmate
involved in the stabbing of an SOCF CO that resulted in over thirty-two stab
wounds.205 As such, Reinke has since been moved to Ohio State Penitentiary, and
he began a hunger strike in April of 2019.206 Reinke claims he began a hunger
strike due to being denied recreation and having to reside in a cell without creature
comforts.207 ODRC has denied that Reinke is being mistreated and acknowledged
that he is being held at a high-security facility with fewer comforts than a lower-
security facility because of his assaultive behavior at SOCF.208
V. DETERRING FURTHER VIOLENCE AND UNNECESSARY DISRUPTION

WITHIN OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS
MAXIMUM-SECURITY FACILITIES
How does ODRC motivate the most depraved inmates to behave and follow
institutional rules? After all, the exact purpose of having MSFs, such as SOCF, is
to deter inmates from violence and rule breaking within ODRC’s lower-level
institutions. The answer is rooted in the creature comforts and privileges that MSF
inmates receive within facilities such as SOCF. The following sections will address
the comforts and privileges received by Ohio’s maximum-security inmates, and
include opinions of correctional staff and administrators regarding the intersection
of reducing violence, recidivism and the comforts and privileges retained by
ODRC’s MSF inmates. By demonstrating these findings and opinions, it becomes
clear that SOCF inmates receive more than they are entitled to, and as a result,
ODRC has created a culture that promotes manipulation and complacency. As
such, some of those closest to SOCF opine that by removing the addressed creature
comforts and privileges from MSFs, inmates will be incentivized to adhere to the
rules, resulting in reclassification to a lower-security institution where creature
comforts and privileges are appropriate, while receiving the necessary educational
and vocational programming to bolster successful reintegration into society,
ultimately reducing recidivism within Ohio.
204. Id.
for-socf-stabbings.
206. AP, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility Inmate Who Stabbed 4 Prisoners Goes on Hunger
Strike, THE ENQUIRER: NEWS, (Apr. 16, 2019, 5:22 PM), https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/201
9/04/16/greg-reinke-hunger-strike-lucasville-inmate-alleges-mistreatment/3489739002/
[https://perma.cc/jnh7-seyx].
207. Id.
208. Id.
A. Modern Theories of MSF Reform are Inadequate and Do Not Account for
the Potential of Violent Tendencies of Inmates
In 1983, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, Civil

Liberties and the Administration of Justice held oversight hearings regarding the
lockdown conditions at Marion.209 The subcommittee commissioned two
individuals, David Ward and Allen Breed, believed to have expertise in
corrections, to make recommendations for the future of MSFs.210 According to
Ward and Breed, the way forward for corrections in the United States involved
rejecting lockdown as a permanent correctional practice.211 Instead, Ward and
Breed advocated that a correct model would utilize the surveillance practices
accustomed to a MSF, but separated into small units to include “40-50 inmates, all
in individual cells, contain dining and laundry facilities, counselling offices, indoor
game rooms, a wire enclosed outdoor recreation yard and a work area.”212 In
making this recommendation, Ward and Breed sought to provide inmates the
opportunity to congregate within the unit while shedding the distinct features of a
MSF: social isolation, minimal stimulation, and lack of physical contact.213
Though venerable, the recommendations produced by Ward and Breed are
not practical. Most MSF inmates are violent and unpredictable. Should inmates
like Pigge and Reinke have the ability to freely roam about a unit of 40-50 inmates,
understanding that they have already killed and assaulted within ODRC’s existing
MSFs, ODRC would be opening other inmates and staff up to further assault while
seemingly rewarding unacceptable behavior. This distinctly contradicts the
purpose of ODRC’s Tier System and would undercut the entirety of progress
ODRC has made in its recidivism reduction efforts.
209. Marion Penitentiary—1985: Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Cts., Civ.
Liberties, & the Admin. of Just. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong. 1 (1985) (opening
statement of Rep. Robert Kastenmeier, Chairman, Subcomm. on Cts., Civ. Liberties, & the Admin.
of Just.).
210. Marion Penitentiary—1985: Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Cts., Civ.
Liberties, & the Admin. of Just. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong. 1 (1985) (opening
statement of Rep. Robert Kastenmeier, Chairman, Subcomm. on Cts., Civ. Liberties, & the Admin.
of Just.); Lobel, supra note 58, at 202 (outlining the outcome of the Subcommittee’s decision to
consult Ward and Breed to make recommendations regarding Marion and the future of MSFs within
the United States).
211. DAVID A. WARD & ALLEN F. BREED, THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, MARION, ILLINOIS:
A REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (1984), reprinted
in Marion Penitentiary—1985: Oversight Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Cts., Civ. Liberties, &
the Admin. of Just. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 99th Cong. 1 (1985).
212. Id.
213. Id.; see also Lobel, supra note 58, at 203.
B. Accounting for Statistical Differences Between Southern Ohio Correctional

Facility and Ohio State Penitentiary
ODRC currently maintains three institutions dedicated for Level 4 or

greater inmates: SOCF, OSP, and Toledo Correctional Institution (“TOCI”).214
Although the three institutions house the most troublesome of Ohio’s inmates,
statistical data gathered by CIIC indicates that SOCF is inherently more violent
than OSP.215 Throughout CY 2015,216 OSP reported 8 incidents of inmate-on-
inmate assaults and 55 incidents of inmate-on-staff assaults.217 Conversely, in the
same reporting period, SOCF hosted 257 inmate-on-inmate assaults and 152
inmate-on-staff assaults.218 Though housing inmates of similar security
classification and danger, SOCF saw nearly 500% more incidents of assault than
OSP in the same time period. These glaring statistical differences can easily be
explained: the majority of OSP’s inmate population are Level ERH, whereas the
majority of SOCF’s inmate population are level 4.219 Between Level 4 and ERH
exists a vast difference in privileges and comforts.
For example, in Level 4, such as some of SOCF’s population, inmates can

expect to receive a $90 commissary spending limit,220 one ten-minute phone call
214. Darin Furderer, Correctional Institution Inspection Committee Report on the Inspection and
Evaluation of Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, CORR. INST. INSPECTION COMM. 32 (2016),
https://www.ciic.state.oh.us/assets/reports/318.pdf [hereinafter SOCF 2016 REPORT]; ODRC INMATE
CLASSIFICATION, supra note 5, at 3. Some institutions temporarily house or have designated holding
cells for inmates of higher security classification than what that particular institution is accustomed
to.
215. Id. at 31.
216. At the time of this writing, CIIC has only published comparable data for 2015 as the most
recent year.
217. Darin Furderer, Correctional Institution Inspection Committee Report on the Inspection and
Evaluation of Ohio State Penitentiary, CORR. INST. INSPECTION COMM. 13 (2017), https://www.ciic.
state.oh.us/assets/reports/286.pdf. [hereinafter OSP 2017 REPORT].
218. Id. But see Danika Jo Anderson, Note, Solitary Confinement As Illegitimately Proscribed
and Disproportional Punishment: Another Angle from Which to Attack the Inhuman Practice, 35
NOTRE DAME J. L. ETHICS & PUB. POL’Y 301, 323 (2021) (Claiming that solitary confinement does
not rehabilitate or reform inmates, does not decrease violence in prisons, and does not deter inmates
from committing further violence or crimes and suggesting that placement into solitary confinement
should require additional process and should not be a preventative measure readily available to prison
administrators). The statistical difference between OSP and SOCF stands in direct opposition to the
claim made in the article; solitary confinement accomplishes exactly what the author claims it does
not.
219. See ODRC ANNUAL REPORT, supra note 5, at 20 (noting that ODRC holds 1,558 level 4
inmates and 906 level E inmates as of July 2020); see SOCF 2016 REPORT, supra note 214 (stating
that in of January 2016, SOCF housed 1,228 inmates); see OSP 2017 REPORT, supra note 217 (stating
that in April of 2017, OSP held 568 inmates). Exact numbers for the classification of each inmate at
OSP and SOCF are not available at the time of this Note. However, according to ODRC and the CIIC
reports cited within this Note, OSP is designated to contain ERH inmates, whereas SOCF
predominantly confines Level 4A with a lesser amount of ERH and ERH-T inmates. Following this
trend, the majority of ODRC’s 4A inmates are housed at SOCF, whereas OSP’s population is
predominantly made up of ERH inmates.
220. SOCF HANDBOOK supra note 42, at 9.
per day,221 an unlimited number of visits from family members during set visiting
hours,222 and one hour of recreation seven days per week.223 Conversely, for ERH
inmates, such as those found at OSP, inmates can expect a $50 commissary
spending limit,224 one fifteen-minute phone call monthly,225 two, two and a half
hour no-contact visits monthly,226 and one hour of recreation five days per week.227
As demonstrated in the preceding paragraph, the majority of SOCF inmates

receive significantly more privileges and creature comforts than the majority of
inmates within OSP. For OSP inmates, this means less time out of their cells, less
interaction with other inmates, and less opportunity for disaster to strike. Though
an outsider may believe that OSP’s inmates would harbor disdain for the reduced
out-of-cell time and seclusion, many OSP inmates have stated to the contrary.
According to responses received by CIIC from an open-ended survey given to OSP
inmates, the following were responses of OSP inmates when asked, “What is one
positive aspect of this prison?”:228
[1] You can stay to yourself for the most part. [2] You can get a lot of books and time
to focus on learning stuff to better yourself. [3] I get to sit back in my cell and get my
mind right. [4] Allows you to make your own choices before they make them for you.
[5] The prison is locked down 23 and 1 so you are forced to use your mind. [6] It’s
less people, and I’ve grown into a good person by educating myself and I love the
single cells. [7] Easy to focus on positive things . . . [no] . . . drama.229
Conversely, when the same question through the same forum was asked to SOCF
inmates, many responded with simply “Nothing” or “None.”230 As seen from the
responses of OSP inmates, many inmates in a more restrictive status appreciate the
reduced distraction, reduction of potential for strife that is inherent with the lack
of interaction and mobility within a restrictive environment, and the ability to
better oneself while incarcerated. As such, reducing the number of privileges and
creature comforts available to SOCF inmates would encourage and assist inmates
to have and maintain good behavior so that they can earn a re-classification to a
lower-security institution, allowing them to receive recidivism-reducing
educational and vocational programming and privileges.
221. SOCF HANDBOOK supra note 42, at 7.

222. SOCF HANDBOOK, supra note 42, at 41.
223. The SOCF Inmate Handbook simply states that recreation schedules are posted in the
respective block of each 4A unit; however, this author has personal knowledge that SOCF 4A inmates
receive one hour of recreational time seven days per week.
224. Ohio State Penitentiary Inmate Handbook, UNIV. OF MICH. L. SCH.: POL’Y CLEARINGHOUSE
52 (2014), https://www.law.umich.edu/special/policyclearinghouse/Documents/Ohio%20State%2
0Pen%20Inmate%20Hanbook.pdf [hereinafter OSP HANDBOOK] [https://perma.cc/j8lh-ncge].
225. OSP HANDBOOK, supra note 221, at 52.
228. OSP 2017 REPORT, supra note 217.
229. Id.
230. SOCF 2016 REPORT, supra note 214, at 94.
C. A Clinician’s Perspective on Reform in a Maximum-Security Facility
Law and the social sciences are no stranger to one another, as each lends to
the other in the functioning of a well-assessed system.231 Leading literature in the
intersection of law and psychology suggests that the current constitutional doctrine
regarding MSFs fails to recognize the extent of psychological trauma that is
inflicted by solitary confinement and placement in MSFs.232 Though this is the
narrative that is popular within academic circles, it is not the only narrative, and
more importantly, it is not a narrative that has been fostered by immersion into an
Ohio MSF.233
Within the workings of a human mind exist six developmental domains:
physical, emotional, psychological, social, intellectual, and moral.234 Though
collectively contained within the biological mandate of humanity, these six
domains do not all develop equally.235 Within any individual, especially an MSF
inmate, any one of these six domains can be underdeveloped or can “fail to pass
through certain critical development gates that” set the course one’s life ultimately
follows.236 Often in the case of an inmate who has reached their way to a MSF,
there has been a pervasive inability to adopt the basic rules of society.237 Instead,
MSF inmates incorporate a view of self and others that fails to care or fails to
perceive the impact of behavior that violates social norms, rules, and laws
produced by their criminal behavior.238 In sum, in the absence of a moral code law-
abiding citizens understand, “an amoral code predominates the persistent
behavioral patterns commonly displayed” by inmates within a MSF.239
This amoral code, or absence of morality, stands directly in opposition to the
goal of ODRC in that the reduction of recidivism cannot occur.240 For these types
of inmates, predominantly found in MSFs, exists an “invincible personality that
will not be altered in their antisocial view.”241 As such, these inmates will continue
on a path that stands in opposition to ODRC and the benefit of society.242 However,
231. A hallmark of Civil Rights adjudication, Brown v. Bd. of Ed., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), utilized
emerging data in the social sciences in its reflection on the damaging effects of racial segregation.
232. Craig Haney & Mona Lynch, Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological Analysis of
Supermax and Solitary Confinement, 23 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 477, 481 (1997).
233. Stephen G. Virginia, the Psychologist Supervisor and Clinical Director of Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility provided the professional opinion and first-hand experience that serves as the
basis as follows infra Section V. C.
234. Letter from Stephen G. Virginia, Psychologist Supervisor, Clinical Director, S. Ohio Corr.
Fac., to author (Jan. 6, 2021) (on file with author) [hereinafter Stephen G. Virginia Letter].
235. Id.
236. Id.
237. Id.
238. Id.
239. Id.
240. Id.
241. Id.
242. Id.
not all MSF inmates possess this antisocial view resistant to efforts of
rehabilitation and instead simply require development within the moral domain.243
In the view of SOCF’s Clinical Director, several things are needed to
facilitate development of the moral domain:
[E]ducation in what constitutes a healthy, mature adult humanity; immediate
consequences for violations of those established norms . . . and reward for moral
prosocial behavior. In other words, a tripartite model of moral education, i.e.,
immediate consequences for violations of the moral good and psychological
processing in search of the faulty thinking and/or feeling that resulted in the
[inmate’s] behavior choice(s).244
However, SOCF’s Clinical Director notes that for this model of “moral
formation/reformation” to function, both a punitive side and an aspect of reward
must exist.245 For ODRC, the “reward” exists in the lowering of security level
thereby awarding greater privileges and access to educational and vocational
resources.246 The punitive side, conversely, manifests in an immediate disciplinary
action in response to a violation by an inmate.247 Connecting both consequence and
reward, a practice long supported by psychological research, will result in the
reduction of recidivism within ODRC, especially that within a maximum-security
setting.248
As discussed in previous sections, ODRC MSF inmates are lulled into
complacency and relative ease through the receipt of creature comforts and
privileges extending far beyond those required by the Constitution, legislature, and
the courts. As a result, the model described by SOCF’s Clinical Director cannot be
achieved. Though the 3-Tier System and its security classifications seek to serve
as a system of consequence and reward, there is not a compelling consequence in
being placed into a facility with large commissary spending limits, ping-pong
tournaments, significant out-of-cell time, personal televisions, and being provided
with a state-issued WiFi-enabled tablet capable of downloading music and calling
friends and family at any time.
CONCLUSION
The answer is not easy, nor is it easy to implement. However, ODRC, charged
with rehabilitating Ohio’s offenders and reducing the recidivism of our shared
community, is approaching a crucial decision point. ODRC must decide whether
to continue placating its MSF population through vast creature comforts and
privileges, or utilize its authority and constitutional bounds to make its MSFs
undesirable confinements. In doing so, it is assessed that Ohio’s MSF population,
243. Id.
244. Stephen G. Virginia Letter, supra note 234.
245. Id.
246. Id.
247. Id.
248. Id. Dr. Virginia notes that the scope of his brief reflection does not address all relevant issues
regarding MSFs and recidivism and should not be construed to reflect so.
with its comforts and privileges reduced to constitutional minimums, will be

properly motivated to adhere to departmental rules and regulations.
By ODRC’s Tier System design, upon proper behavior, inmates will be
reclassified to lower-security institutions, where comforts and privileges shall be
permitted. Even more importantly, inmates will be provided with greater
educational and vocational programming. It is not the televisions, recreational
activities, or commissary allowances that will prepare Ohio’s inmate population
for reintegration into society. Successful reintegration is achieved through proper
programming, treatment, and skill-building not suitable for implementation in an
MSF environment based on the behavior and comportment of the inmates. Like all
states, Ohio will always be home to inmates who consistently chose violence, rule-
breaking, and outright refusal to adhere to societal standards. For these obstinate
MSF inmates, it is not only counterintuitive, but insulting, to the law-abiding
Ohioan to allow these types of inmates to exist in such comfort within MSFs.
Without ODRC utilizing its vast deference in restricting the freedoms, comforts,
and privileges currently given to MSF inmates, the system will continue to fail its
employees, inmates, and society at large.249
249. This author contacted ODRC in October 2020 and June 2021 requesting a comment from
Director Chambers-Smith or Assistant Director Stu Hudson regarding the nature of this Note and did
not receive a response.

Maximum Security, Minimal Appreciation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maximum Security, Minimal Appreciation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAXIMUM SECURITY, MINIMAL APPRECIATION: THE

UNIQUE AND NECESSARY MISSION THAT OHIO’S

A. Correctional Officers Within Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

I. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION

A. Scope of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

ODRC maintains and operates all state correctional facilities while

7. See discussion infra Section III. A.

Education Services in addition to “institutional operations” and “other

UNIT MANAGEMENT $3.68

2021 Incarcerated Adult Cost Per Day

ODRC defines its mission as to “[r]educe recidivism among those we

14. Id. at 49-50.

B. Overview of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Tier System

27. Classification, OHIO DEP’T OF REHAB. & CORR., https://www.drc.ohio.gov/policies/cl

offering incentives and privileges, such as a less restrictive environment[.]”34 In

II. WHY MAXIMUM-SECURITY FACILITIES ARE NECESSARY

A. Maximum-Security Facilities Serve as a Deterrent

An often-overlooked benefit of MSFs exists in their implicit effect of

States of America in an attempt to be transferred out of SOCF.50 As mentioned

B. Maximum Security Facilities Separate Problematic Inmates from Non-

MSFs, inherent with a design to maximize deterrence, also serve to separate

C. Maximum Security Facilities Create an Environment that Fosters the Safety

73. Taylor, 662 N.E.2d at 1160.

III. INTERSECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, SUPREME COURT RULINGS, AND

A. The Supreme Court Has Given Broad Deference to Prison Administrators

The Supreme Court has given significant deference to prison administrators

deferred “to the informed discretion of corrections officials”95 to determine what

95. Id. at 90-91.

isolation cell is not sufficient to give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim.110 In

administrators, should assess other disciplinary measures within prisons. The

117. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994).

indifference.130 However, as the Farmer Court recognized, recklessness is defined

130. Id. at 836.

regulations.139 In reaching its holding, compared against the factual circumstances

139. Id. at 486.

IV. OPERATIONS OF AN OHIO MAXIMUM-SECURITY FACILITY

A. Correctional Officers Within Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

ODRC requires that CO applicants possess a high school diploma or GED

154. MEARS, supra note 48, at 5.

B. Inmate Privileges and Comforts Within an Ohio Maximum-Security Facility

SOCF houses inmates ranging from three security classifications: ERH165 is

167. SOCF HANDBOOK, supra note 42, at 3.

and arguably most troubling, while incarcerated in an MSF, inmates receive

C. One Year’s Worth of Incidents of Violence Within an Ohio Maximum-

In 2016,179 the Correctional Institution Inspection Committee (“CIIC”), the

assault, for both inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff, at SOCF was

D. Examples of Things Going Wrong

Casey Pigge, an inmate currently incarcerated at OSP in Youngstown, Ohio,

V. DETERRING FURTHER VIOLENCE AND UNNECESSARY DISRUPTION

In 1983, the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts, Civil

B. Accounting for Statistical Differences Between Southern Ohio Correctional

ODRC currently maintains three institutions dedicated for Level 4 or

For example, in Level 4, such as some of SOCF’s population, inmates can

As demonstrated in the preceding paragraph, the majority of SOCF inmates

221. SOCF HANDBOOK supra note 42, at 7.

C. A Clinician’s Perspective on Reform in a Maximum-Security Facility

with its comforts and privileges reduced to constitutional minimums, will be

You might also like