Charles

We all know that incarceration comes with its own set of hardships. Unfortunately, for some individuals, those challenges don’t only come from the environment itself, but from disciplinary processes that may feel confusing or inconsistent.

Charles, who is currently incarcerated at an unnamed facility, recently shared a situation that raises serious concerns. According to Charles, he was charged with refusing a direct order — an order he maintains he never received.

As a result, he was written up and charged with both a C‑15 and a B‑25 infraction.

Charles reports that no evidence was presented to support the B‑25 charge. He also states that he was told he would not be allowed to attend his disciplinary hearing unless he pleaded guilty. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer found him guilty of both charges.

As a consequence, Charles lost his phone privileges for 50 days, cutting off his ability to contact outside support during this time.

What makes this situation especially concerning is that Charles is scheduled for release next year. If these infractions remain on his record, he fears they could significantly impact his release prospects.

During the same disciplinary process, another individual reportedly faced serious charges that were ultimately dismissed. Charles’ charges, however, were not.

To be clear, I was not present and can only share the account as it was told to me. I cannot independently verify every detail. That said, Charles has consistently presented himself as thoughtful and non‑confrontational, making this situation difficult to reconcile.

Charles believes he may be facing heightened scrutiny due to his prison reform advocacy. I sincerely hope that is not the case. Still, situations like this highlight the importance of transparency, due process, and oversight within disciplinary systems.

I will continue to follow this situation and share updates as they become available.