NV-CURE (Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants)

540 E. St. Louis Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89104 702.347.1731 website: nevadacure.org email: nevadacure@gmail.com

STRUGGLE IN SOLIDARITY The cruelest tyranny is practiced behind the shield of law and order

INFORMATIONAL BULLETIN NEWSLETTER

Spring 2013

NV-CURE Meetings With NDOC Director Cox

The last two meetings of NV-CURE with NDOC Director Cox have been cancelled. According to the Directors Office, the December 2012 meeting was cancelled because of a scheduling conflict that prevented the Directors legal counsel from attending. NV-CURE attempted to re-schedule the meeting in January to no avail. NV-CURE has continued to attempt to schedule a meeting with Director Cox to no avail. Apparently the Director is too busy with legislative issues, being as the Legislature is currently in session, to meet with NV-CURE to resolve problems within the prison system. The issue of primary concern at present for NV-CURE is the retaliation against NDOC prisoners for filing grievances and lawsuits. This was to be the main issue of discussion with Director Cox at our last two cancelled meetings with Director Cox. This will be the primary issue discussed with Director Cox if and when we meet with him again. NV-CURE will continue to attempt to arrange meetings with NDOC Director Cox to discuss issues of concern to our members and supporters. We believe it is important to meet with the Director to discuss and resolve our concerns. NV-CURE appears to be the only prisoner advocacy organization in Nevada with an interest in securing reform of the Nevada prison and parole systems. We will keep you posted on developments.

NDOC Retaliation Against Prisoners For Filing Grievances

Retaliation against NDOC prisoners for filing grievances and lawsuits is rampant. Anyone that has filed a grievance is familiar with this retaliation. The retaliation comes in many forms and is always detrimental to the prisoner. NDOC officials are notorious for making a prisoner pay a price for voicing their complaint in a grievance. A prisoner that files a grievance against an NDOC staff official for any type of misconduct and/or conditions of confinement is subjected to: disciplinary reports; property destroyed or confiscated during routine cell searches; harassments by staff and/or prisoner agent provocateurs; adverse classification decisions; detrimental parole reports; denial of jobs and/or programing activities; and/or labeling as a snitch or child molester. The list of adverse consequences is long and diverse. Many prisoners refuse to file grievances because of those adverse consequences. NV-CURE salutes those prisoners brave enough to voice their complaints in the grievance process. We commend those prisoners for having the courage to speak out against cruelty and inhumane conditions. Without the voice of the grievant, NDOC staff would have free reign to do and act as they please, without control or oversight, and conditions of 1

confinement would deteriorate to intolerable. The grievant is an advocate for constructive change and should be highly respected by all for speaking up on behalf of the imprisoned. NV-CURE has made stopping retaliation against prisoners for filing grievances the number 1 issue to be resolved by the NDOC. We started this campaign over six (6) months ago and the retaliation has only increased and the consequences have become worse. This is intolerable. We have received numerous retaliation complaints from prisoners and have reported many of those complaints to NDOC Director Cox. Unfortunately, NVCURE has not had an opportunity to meet with Director Cox to discuss this issue personally. NV-CURE is currently in the process of turning over to the U.S. Department of Justice all of the retaliation complaints sent to us by NDOC prisoners over the past nine (9) months. We will request an investigation. Anyone that wants to make their voices heard on retaliation may send an affidavit to: Jonathan Smith, Chief Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Remember, the DOJ is concerned with major systemic problems within the penal system. Retaliation for filing grievance is a major systemic problem and we need to STOP THE RETALIATION. Please copy NV-CURE with any letters or documents sent to the DOJ. We must all work together to STOP ANY AND ALL RETALIATION against prisoners for filing grievances. Reporting each believed instance of retaliation in the grievance process is the first step. Making appropriate authorities

aware of each instance of retaliation is the second step. Please do your part.

Retaliation Personified Solitary Confinement Symposium

John Witherow and Robert King

NV-CURE President John Witherow met with Robert King at the University of Michigan Symposium on Solitary Confinement on February 2, 2013, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Robert King is the only one of the Angola 3 to be released from solitary confinement. He was released from solitary confinement after 29 years in a 6 x 9 cell because he was found innocent of the crime for which he was confined. Both men support the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment in prison systems worldwide. Robert King, Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox in the early 1970 were placed in solitary confinement by the State of Louisiana for the murder of a prison guard. There was no physical evidence connecting the men to the crime but they were targeted by Angola prison authorities for their activist work seeking to expose continued segregation, systematic corruption and horrific abuses within the prison. Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox will
2

commemorate 41 years in solitary confinement this April 17. These men have clearly been the subjects of retaliation. Anyone interested in securing the release of these men from solitary confinement should have their family and friends go www.angola3.org website and sign the petition to the Governor. The Symposium on Solitary Confinement was interesting and informative. NVCURE met many professors, attorneys, medical experts and others involved in prison issues and interested in ending solitary confinement as a punishment. NV-CURE President John Witherow and Secretary Natalie Smith met with many of those people and established contacts for future reference. The University of Michigan is doing a wonderful job of training their law students in their obligations to our society involving assistance to prisoners. We commend the U of M for their law school programs. The Art of Frustrating Grievances, By Chris Jones
Although the extreme rightwing wiz kids of Congress along with the oppressive Attorney Generals of each state got together and contrived the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), that, in part, requires mandatory exhaustion of all available administrative remedies, i.e. the prison grievance process (AR 740). The Supreme Court has strangely also ruled that there is no right to a grievance process. Therefore, this means that any intentional acts on the part of prison administrators to frustrate our grievances is not a cause of action.

Mann v. Adams, 855F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (and cases cited). Such unjust attempts and wrongful acts of frustrating grievances is all too common throughout NDOC and, in my personal experience, at Southern Desert Correctional Center (SDCC) by and through documented acts of Assistant Warden Burson. In my opinion based on information and belief, the Attorney Generals Offices in a preemptive defense to all inmate civil rights actions sanctions, directed or otherwise encourages the frustration tactic to set the stage for Rule 12 Motions based on failure to exhaust. But all is not lost. The Ninth Circuit in Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813.823 (9th Cir. 2010) held: Exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are effectively unavailable because of improper screening of grievances. Also see Fields v. Bannister, 453 Fed. Appx. 720 (9th Cir. 2011) (Citing Sapp) (Fields attempts to file grievances regarding retaliatory placement in ad-seg. were improperly rejected as duplicative of his excessive force grievance). In short, when prison administrators reject your grievance on some blatantly erroneous position, but you have otherwise adhered to all of the provisions of AR 740, the 9th Circuit, according to Sapp, will deem the issue exhausted. Also, another good ruling exists in Sikonski v. Whorton, 681 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (D. Nev. 2008) in that, if you receive an upheld ruling in your favor at the informal or first levels, you are not required to proceed any further to exhaust. But even if you do, the issue is exhausted even if you receive a subsequent denial or somehow do not complete the later grievance submissions. If you encounter a blatant

attempt to frustrate your grievance by way of a clear misconception upon the part of NDOC officials, simply state: I reiterate the factual statements in the previous level informal or first --, and briefly explain their error, thus giving the next level an opportunity to correct the mistake rejecting your grievance. This will comport with the spirit of administrative exhaustion Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct. 2328 (2006). Be vigilant, and good luck.

Woodford, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 44742; Cole v. Munez 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135412; Stratton v. Buck, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 75042; Dobson v. Vail, 2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 77190; Rhodes v. Alameda County Sheriffs Dept., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11466; Rhodes v. Alameda County Sheriffs Dept. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS18812; Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541; Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813,823 (9th Cir. 2010) (Exhaustion is [Not] required where administrative remedies are effectively unavailable because of improper screening of grievances.

Grievance Process Decisions

The following is a list of grievance process decisions compiled by NV-CURE Members confined by the NDOC. Check out these decisions when navigating the grievance process. Know what you are doing and what needs to be done. Wyatt v. Terhune, 305 F.3d 1033; Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 US 81; Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678; Macias v. Zenk, 495 F.3d 37; Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024; Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717; Panaro v. City of N. Las Vegas, 432 F.3d 949; Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804; Boyd v. Corrections Corp. of America, 380 F.3d 989; Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731; Lane v. Doan, 287 F.Supp 2d 210; Fields v. Bannister, 2011 App LEXIS 20770; Sapp v. Kindrell, 623 F.3d 813; Richardson v. Goord, 347 F.3d 431; Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217; Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077; OGuinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056; Dole v. C/O Chandler, 438 F.3d 804; Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652; Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109; Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736; Barrett v. Cate, 211 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135412; Dillard v. Pierce Co, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 66840; Yates v. King, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 60315; Wakefield v. Indermill, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 46666; Jacobs v. 3

NV-CURE Legislative Committee Activities

Juan High, Greg McWilliams, Assemblyman Harvey Munford, Flo Jones and John Witherow Meeting to Discuss Prison Issues

The NV-CURE Legislative Committee consists of Flo Jones and Gale Sanders. The Committee is busy working on issues of concern to prisoners with various Legislators and other concerned parties in the community. Flo is busy researching and writing proposals relevant to a wide variety of issues. She is a powerhouse, with widespread contacts in the political community, and she is working very hard on issues of concern to us. Gale is a paralegal, interested in being involved in the legislative process and in the reformation of the NV criminal just-us system. NV-CURE is working to amend the provisions of NRS 209.385 to require testing all prisoners for the hepatitis C virus

(HCV). That statute already requires the testing of all prisoners for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the amendment to include testing for HCV would not be over burdensome. HCV is a dangerous life threatening disease and is spread in the same manner as HIV. Both are blood borne pathogens and both have a high prevalence within prison systems. We believe that all prisoners should be tested for HCV and those testing positive be treated to prevent the spread of the virus in the community.

Tonja Brown and Gale Sanders Meeting to Discuss Legislative Issues

NV-CURE is also working to amend the provisions of NRS 213.1075 to provide that a person that is the subject of parole and probation information (records) is entitled to receive and review that information. Open government requires that all persons that are the subject of government files and records be permitted to inspect and copy those records. A prisoner being considered for parole should have the right to receive and review all information being considered by the Parole Board in deciding whether to grant or deny parole and have an opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the information considered. NV-CURE is further advocating for: the aggregation of all sentences, with an election provision for retroactive application for all prisoners (SB 71); the elimination of the discretionary parole system;

requiring the Parole Board to comply with Open Meeting Law (NRS Chapter 241); the elimination of the psychological review panel (psych panel), and/or keeping the psych panel subject to Open Meeting Law; the elimination of the Lifetime Supervision sentence; and the elimination of all sex offender registration laws. NV-CURE urges all prisoners to become involved in the Legislative process. For information on proposed and existing legislation, contact: Legislative Counsel Bureau 401 S. Carson St. Carson City, NV 89701-4747 775.684.6827 admin@lcb.state.nv.us Familiarize yourself with the issues and contact the LCB with your views and opinions and a request that all Legislators be made aware of your views and opinions. Make your voice heard. Together, we can make change. Danger in the Prisons Hep C By: Travis N. Barrick, a Las Vegas Attorney and Vice-President of NVCURE, in: Las Vegas Sun, Dec. 17th 2012 - Op-ed. Advocating on behalf of prison inmates can be a lonely task. Politicians and taxpayers are understandably focused on the kids and the kitchen table and are largely unsympathetic to the problems of convicted felons. But theres an issue developing inside prisons thats threatening to move outside those walls. Its looming as a potentially catastrophic public health risk to the mainstream population. The rate of hepatitis C in prison populations has raised red flags for at least a decade at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A 4

2005 study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Infections shows prison inmates are infected at a significantly higher rate than the population as a whole. It also suggests that person-to-person transmission, typically through tattooing, continues during incarceration, making infection all the more likely as more time is spent in an institution. If you dont find this sobering, you should, because more than 95 percent of prison inmates are released back into society, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics. An unacceptable number will carry hepatitis C back into neighborhoods and workplaces, where they will continue living with the undetected disease for decades. They will have ample occasion to spread it in their social circles. The incidence of hepatitis C among Nevada prison inmates is not known because the Nevada Department of Corrections doesnt administer a test for it upon entry. Nevada CURE, a nonprofit group devoted to reforms in the prison system, wants a statute requiring the state to administer a routine hepatitis C test to inmates entering the system. Theres a humanitarian concern: Untreated hepatitis C causes a lingering, painful death, ravaging the liver. But consider, too, the expense of treating the end-stage complications of cirrhosis or cancer, compared with the smaller, controllable cost of the test and some antiviral treatments that are available. Attempts to discuss a hepatitis C testing regimen with the state prison director have been largely ignored. During a face-to-face meeting in June, Director James G. Cox said immediately that cost would be a concern.

We arent sure whether Cox meant the cost of the tests or the cost from the Pandoras box that would surely follow the necessity to give lengthy treatments to the hundreds of inmates who would be expected to test positive. It could conceivably be tens of thousands of dollars per case. And the treatment is not always successful, either. Its a stiff price tag, but its less costly, and less dangerous for everyone, than the current alternative. In fairness, Cox has a challenging package of responsibilities. Hes running a crowded prison system that has had safety and labor issues. Hes doing the job in the face of a tightening state budget that has left him with limited options. At our June meeting, Cox said he would investigate the health procedures related to hepatitis C in other jurisdictions. Despite several follow-up reminders to his office, weve heard nothing back. Since we expect the prison director to take seriously a threat to people inside and outside the walls, we followed up this fall with a public records request for information. The state took longer than the law allows to respond, and the documents we received raise more questions than they answer. Las Vegas is no stranger to the horrors of hepatitis C. Our city is still living with the fallout from an episode in which innocent patients were infected with the virus in a clinical setting. The disease also is in the spotlight nationwide. After discovering a higher-than-expected rate of infection in Baby Boomers, the CDC recently recommended a hepatitis C test for all adults born between 1945 and 1965. The rate among incarcerated people is higher still and cant be

viewed as contained if it isnt even monitored. Nevada CURE does not regularly tug on the sleeve of the average citizen to ask for help getting something done. But we believe this issue is a cause for general alarm.

NV-CURE Members at Monthly Meeting

NV-CURE Members Greg McWilliams, Jeanette Barrick, John Witherow, Larry Ryder, Travis Barrick and Flo Jones at the October 2012 Monthly Meeting

NV-CURE holds monthly meetings at the Las Vegas Law Office of Gallian, Welker and Beckstrom, who have generously offered and allowed NV-CURE to use its office as our headquarters. Travis Barrick, Esq., is a member of the Law Firm and the Vice-president of NV-CURE. The Law Firm of Gallian, Welker and Beckstrom also acts, without renumeration, as our resident agent. We sincerely thank Galliam, Welker and Beckstrom for their kindness and generosity. Without them, we would be without a headquarters. A sincere thank you to all members of the Law Firm of Galliam, Welker and Beckstrom - and particularly to Travis and Jeanette Barrick for all of their efforts on our behalf. Thank you.

Prison Medical Care Deliberate Indifference.

Even after Riker v. Gibbons, the class action lawsuit settled against Ely State Prison, there are serious problems with the medical care in Nevada prisons, and it looks 5

like the 9th Circuit is well-aware of those issues, even if the District Court sometimes acts obliviously. Below is a short summary of cases we are aware of regarding medical care, including one on denial of dental care and one on denial of cataract surgery, two common issues in NDOC. In one particularly egregious case, the District Court incredibly granted summary judgment to the state; however, the 9th Circuit in Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978,989 (9th Cir. 2012) reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. In Aytch v. Sablica et al (D.C. No, 2:08-cv-01773-RLH-LR), the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Aytchs claim that responsible prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his dental problems, citing Hunt v. Dental Dept, 865F2d 198,200 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that delay of treatment where prison officials were aware that the lack of dental treatment caused pain, infection and inability to eat was sufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference under section 1983). In Michaud v. Bannister et al, (2:08-cv-01371-MMD-PAL) the District Court dismissed Michauds claims, the 9th Circuit reversed and the District Court denied the States Motion for Summary Judgment on Michauds deliberate indifference claim for the refusal to provide cataract surgery on remand after finding cataracts can cause blindness untreated. (Order #78). The decision relied upon by the District Court were White v. Snider, 2010 WL 331742 (D.ev. 1/26/10), Hunt v. Mohr, 2012 WL 1537294 (S.D. Ohio 5/1/12) and Morris v. Corr. Medical Services, 2012 WL 5874477 (E.D. MI

11/20/12). The Court also found that, although constitutional claims cannot attach on a theory of respondeat superior, a grievance respondor may be liable on a personally responsible theory for failing to correct the problem by denying the grievance. Order (#78), pp. 14-16, and Starr v. Baca, 652 F.2d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011), quoting Redman, 942 F.2d 1435, 1447, and Watkins, 145 F.3d 1087, 1093. Other recent cases of interest include Leavitt v. Correctional Medical Services (Deliberate indifference for failure to treat HIV.) and Jones v. Johnson, F.2d 769 (Financial restraints are not justification for denial of adequate medical care.) The Ninth Circuit 9th test for deliberate indifference standard consists of two parts. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds. First, the Plaintiff must show a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat her or his condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain; and, second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants response to the need was deliberately indifferent by showing (a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoners pain or possible medical need and b) harm caused by the indifference. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th cir. 2006). When you prevail in a case, or hear about someone who has, please send NV-CURE the citation so that we may make it available to those who need it. All prisoners need to be aware of the authorities that will assist them in prevailing in their action.

ADA Disability Complaints

NV-CURE has received numerous complaints of mistreatment of disabled prisoners, including physical abuse, destruction of devices to assist disabled people and lack of medical care. We have also received reports of the lack of accessibility of disabled visitors to NDOC facilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) is a wide-ranging civil-rights law that prohibits, under certain conditions, discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to people with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin and other characteristics illegal. The ADA was created to regulate state and local government programs, whether or not those state entities receive federal funding. To bring a lawsuit under the ADA and/or the Rehabilitation Act, disabled prisoners must show: (1) that they are disabled within the meaning of the statutes, (2) that they are qualified to participate in the program, and (3) that they are excluded from, are not allowed to benefit from, or have been subjected to discrimination in the program because of their disability. Disabled prisoners have sued to get equal access to facilities, programs and services. Deaf and hearing-impaired prisoners have won cases to get sign language interpreters for disciplinary hearings, classification decisions, HIV-AIDS counseling, and educational and vocational programs. Disabled prisoners have challenged inadequate medical care and prison officials' failure to provide them with medical supplies or devices such as wheelchairs or canes. These cases may combine ADA claims with arguments that prison 6

officials have violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by being deliberately indifferent to prisoners serious medical needs. Disabled prisoners have challenged their confinement in isolation and segregation units under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. In one case, for example, the Seventh Circuit ruled that prison officials discriminated against a quadriplegic prisoner in Indiana who was housed in an infirmary unit for over one year and was thereby denied access to the dining hall, recreation area, visiting, church, work, transitional programs and the library. Visitors with disabilities must be provided with reasonable accommodations to enable them to visit prisoners in state facilities. Prisoners who believe they have been discriminated against due to a disability may request a Title II Complaint form from: U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights NYAV 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20530 ADA statutes may be found in 42 USC 12101, et seq. If you are not familiar with the Law Library and research procedures, consult a Law Clerk or jailhouse lawyer. Anyone with relevant ADA prisoner case law, provide NV-CURE with a cite and a very brief description of the issue dealt with. We will try to publish in our next newsletter.

NV-CURE on Sex Offender Hysteria NV-CURE believe that sex offender are the target of widespread political hype and hysteria in our country and that, instead of spending billions of dollars for sex offender civil commitments and registration requirements and limitations, the

money should be spent on rehabilitative programs and economic assistance to all offenders being reintegrated into our society. Are we, in the future, going to require all persons convicted of a felony to be civilly committed and subjected to similar registration requirements and limitations? NV-CURE thinks not. All offenders should be entitled to rehabilitative programs and economic assistance and opportunities when their sentences are completed. Check the facts and learn the actual facts BEFORE you form an opinion.
SEX OFFENDER LAWS AND BELIEFS IN NEVADA ARE WE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

Statistics, both nationally and locally reveal that Sex Offenders, once caught, are the least likely to recommit another similar crime and recidivate than any other class of criminal. The 2001 US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics survey reveals that only 5% of sex offenders who spent time in prison were rearrested for a new sex crime and that only 3.5% were convicted. The 1997 Nevada Legislature passed a law (NRS 179A.270 290) requiring the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History to collect statistical sex offender recidivism data. Unfortunately, the agency refused to compile this data, stating: Although the 1997 Legislature added this requirement to Chapter 179A, the Central Repository has never collected the information. The agency has neither the staffing nor the technical expertise

to assess recidivism rates of sex offenders. The agency presented Assembly Bill 81 to the 2009 Legislature to change NRS sections 179A.270-290 and remove this responsibility from the Central Repository. Until we know the facts about sex offender recidivism, how can we protect our society through meaningful laws based upon facts? We cannot. Nevada Legislators must fund the Central Repository so that personnel can compile this data. We must reenact NRS179A.270-290, repealed in 2009, to create factual records on sex offender recidivism, which can: 1) calm public hysteria; and 2) diffuse the widespread stigma against Nevada sex offenders. Most sex offenders, not yet apprehended, do not seek counseling. Why? Counselors must report their clients' sex offenses. This is a complex issue that needs thoughtful answers not based in hysteria. Are we going in the wrong direction when we put more restrictions and costly supervision on those recovering, in compliance and who are the least likely to reoffend? What about the Adam Walsh Act that bases the sex offenders likelihood to reoffend only on the crime that they are convicted of? This does not take into account how long ago the crime was committed, whether or not offenders are in counseling or how long they have been living in the community with no new offenses after serving their sentence. These are determining factors not included in this questionable Act.
7

Nevada officials currently take all this into account when classifying sex offender tier levels. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the permanent injunction that Nevada placed on the Adam Walsh Act bill. Nevada may be reenacting Assembly Bill AB579 (The Adam Walsh Act). This would force Nevada taxpayers to spend more tax dollars for sex offender supervision --where it is not needed. Enacting the Adam Walsh Act would be a very costly and unnecessary venture. Please read Human Rights Watch recommendation concerning the Adam Walsh Act. In closing, again ask yourself: Are We Going In The Right Direction With Sex Offender Laws and Beliefs In Nevada? The answer is, "No," we are not. With your help, however, we can move in the right direction. NV-CURE Mail and Correspondence
NV-CURE receives between 10 and 50 letters per week from prisoners. Some contain affidavits about unconstitutional conditions of confinement. We have received affidavits on denial of medical care, physical abuse, retaliation, denial of proper food/nutrition/hygiene, visitation issues, threats by staff, sexual abuse by staff, NDOCs refusal to provide devices for the disabled. We also receive mail from several pre-trial detainees. We receive requests for information on the grievance process and referrals to attorneys, as well as questions on time computation and problems with the now infamous computer glitch. We have received several requests for assistance obtaining documents and/or housing upon release.

The list is long. Keep those letters and affidavits coming. We try to answer all mail within 30 days; however, occasionally, the mail will pile up. Please have patience: We work on answering mail everyday. Keep NV-CURE in mind for donations of money or stamps, please. Answering that much mail costs money, and we survive solely off donations and one small grant we were awarded this year. Any small donation is greatly appreciated.

WANT TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM? DO YOUR PART. STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.

NV-CURE Telephone Calls

NV-CURE can be reached at 702.347.1731. All calls to NV-CURE must be prepaid. We do not have the funds necessary to accept collect calls.

NV-CURE Informational Bulletin Newsletters

NV-CURE will attempt to publish an Informational Bulleting Newsletter quarterly. It will depend on support from our Members and Supporters. It costs approximately $500.00 to produce and mail this newsletter to approximately 400 people. Your help will determine whether the newsletter will publish quarterly.

Important Notice Please take notice that, due to the lack of financial resources, NV-CURE will be removing all non-members from our mailing list for Informational Bulletin Newsletters. Please join NV-CURE as a member and renew your annual membership to remain on our mailing list and to assist us in the struggle for justice and fairness for all. We need your help. Struggle in Solidarity NV-CURE Membership
NV-CURE Membership for prisoners ($2.00), basic ($10.00), family ($20.00), sustaining ($50.00) and lifetime ($100.00) is ANNUAL. Each person needs to track their membership date and make a renewal membership donation yearly.

Documents
Please do not send us documents you want returned or copied. We will no longer return or copy documents. Send us only copies of documents we may retain. Articles and Information Wanted Please provide NV-CURE with suggestions for articles and information you may want included in our Newsletter. We are interested in bringing you information on events and issues related to the prison and parole systems. We will attempt to gather information on issues of concern and write articles that may be of interest to all. Thank you. Struggle in Solidarity