I have been reporting on the commissary situation in the Illinois prisons. For many months now, the prisons are serving all soy meals and unless we can shop at the commissary, we either starve or are poisoned.
However, we had hope when we learned that on February 1st (2021), the Warden was supposed fill all commissary staff positions and start running the store right. So, she retaliated by removing 114 items off the store.
A staff member said to me, “Harris, you know all that bitching you did to the director about the commissary. Well, we have to start running it right. But the Warden is taking half the stuff off because of your complaining.”
Retaliation for First Amendment Activity is Illegal
To punish us by stripping the store down to bare bones selection violates the law. (See Bridges-v-Gilbert, 557 F3d 541(7th Cir. 2009) at Key Note 1. & Gomez-v-Randle, 680 F3d 859 (7th Cir. 2012))
These cases hold that “for a prisoner to prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim he must prove up, (1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely deter future First Amendment activity; (3) the First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in the defendants’ decision to take the retaliatory action.” That I and the other prisoners are now suffering deprivation is obvious when you look at the Commissary price list before and after the February commissary change.
Then we have the fact the taxpayer must now make up the lost revenue in commissary sales, for 60 percent of the revenue earned in sales goes back to Springfield, to off-set the prison budget. What is not generated on the prisoner commissary will come out of their taxes—money that could be used to fix roads and bridges, fix schools and pay teachers’ salaries. This amounts to millions a year state wide, all to carry out a grudge against one outspoken prisoner.
