Even Worse than the ‘Rape Club,’ Carswell ‘Hospital of Horrors’ Outpaces California Prison in Sexual Abuse Allegations

Unfortunately, it isn’t unique– male prison staff sexually assaulting women in the federal prison system is a problem at other federal corrections facilities, too.

Carswell Federal Medical Center, an all-women prison facility in Fort Worth that serves inmates with chronic medical and mental health issues, outpaces even the infamous “Rape Club” in the number of reported and substantiated claims of abuse. This article looks at those numbers in more detail.

Abuse by the Numbers

Women made up about 7 percent of inmates in state and federal prisons, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics.

However, they account for 22 percent of the cases of sexual victimization (violent assault, sexual abuse/contact and harassment) of inmate-on-inmate victims. The numbers are even worse in local jails, where women are 13 percent of the population, 27 percent of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization cases and 67 percent of staff-on-inmate allegations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a division of the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs.

Another BJS report, titled “Substantiated Incidents of Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2016–2018,” found that 67 percent of all staff-on-inmate incidents (male and female inmates) were committed by female staff and 33 percent by male staff. That sounds surprising based on the criminal prosecutions that make the headlines but makes more sense when you realize that women comprise 58 percent of state and federal corrections staff.

The Dublin FCI staff was predominantly male – which resulted in a recommendation to make the staff 60 percent female. The BOP closed the prison instead. Carswell’s staff, as of Sept. 28, was 70.1 percent male and 29.2 percent female.

According to lists of previous Carswell sex abuse cases included in several civil suits, the only female prison staff to be sentenced for sexual abuse was Yvonne Marrufo, who pled guilty in June 2016 to one count of sexual abuse of an inmate, according to a DOJ press release.

Examples: Highhouse and Imanetti

A follow-up article by Just Detention International reported Marrufo admitted to touching an inmate’s genitals in February 2015. She was sentenced to three years of probation in October 2016. As noted in the DOJ press release, the maximum penalty for the offense was 15 years in prison.

Just Detention International’s motto is “Rape is not part of the penalty.”

The report for 2016-2018 found that legal action was taken against the offending staff member in 38 percent of the incidents and “led to the perpetrator’s discharge, termination or employment contract not being renewed in 44 percent of incidents.”

Most Recent Conviction

Despite the number of “substantiated” claims of abuse at Carswell, there have been few criminal charges filed recently.

The most recent conviction of a Carswell prison guard was in May 2022, when Lt. Luis Curiel pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of an inmate. In his plea agreement, Curiel admitted to sexually abusing at least three inmates in October 2021.

Although the maximum sentence would have been 30 years – 15 years for each count – Curiel was sentenced in September 2022 to “18 months of incarceration and two years of supervised release, as well as ordered to register as a sexual offender,” the DOJ announced in a brief release.

A few months earlier, when Curiel – who was a supervisor of other guards – pled guilty, federal authorities had harsh words and warnings for offenders.

“Curiel abused his authority as a correctional officer and sexually abused several inmates under his supervision,” the U.S. Attorney for Northern Texas said in a press release at the time.

“Sexual abuse of inmates is never tolerated, and the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who engage in this kind of conduct,” DOJ Special Agent in Charge Cloey C. Pierce added.

Shortly after the jaw-dropping sentence was handed down, the Legal Information Services Association (LISA) Foundation wrote that then-new BOP Director Colette Peters would be “grilled” by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin about issues he had with the BOP.

“Peters may as well be asked about the sexual assault scandal at FMC Carswell, the only medical center for women in the BOP system,” LISA wrote. The nonprofit, which focuses on prison-related issues, pointed out that Curiel’s total sentence of 18 months for both crimes is “half the time one of his victims is serving for drug possession.”

U.S. Senate Looks at the Issue

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations met in December 2022 and received startling and shocking figures of sexual abuse of female inmates in federal prisons.

The committee reported that over the course of a decade, BOP had opened 5,415 cases of sexual abuse from male and female inmates by BOP employees and found only 586 were “substantiated.”

Of those substantiated cases, 134 resulted in a BOP employee being convicted of sexually abusing a female prisoner or Internal Affairs substantiating the allegations that a female inmate was sexually abused by a BOP employee.

The subcommittee concluded that prison employees sexually abused incarcerated women in 19 of the 29 facilities that held women during that decade.

In one of its most condemning statements, the subcommittee said the BOP “does not systematically analyze complaint data to detect potentially problematic employees or institutions” and noted the bureau “has accrued a backlog of approximately 8,000 cases and does not report case closure rates in a way that would indicate its progress in clearing the backlog.”

All-Women Prisons’ Numbers

Looking only at “substantiated cases” in the six all-female institutions for the period of Jan. 1, 2012 to Nov. 10, 2022, the records showed 22 at Carswell. There were 19 at the much more publicized Dublin prison. The other four institutes’ totals were 14 at Brooklyn Federal Medical Center, 13 at Alderson prison, 11 at Bryan prison and nine at Waseca prison.

The inmate population at Carswell and its adjacent low-security prison camp during that time was between 1,300 and 1,400. Dublin had about 750 low-security inmates at the time, according to a Moss Group consulting firm’s February 2024 report on the Dublin prison.

Another chart provided information on the number of allegations and how they were resolved between Jan. 1, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2021. Looking only at the information for Carswell and Dublin, that report found 77 reported incidents at Carswell, of which 13 were substantiated, 47 unsubstantiated, 11 administratively closed and six still under investigation at that time.

By comparison, Dublin had 43 allegations, eight substantiated, 19 unsubstantiated, three closed by the administration and 13 still open. Of those 13 open cases, 12 were from 2018-2021, when the prison was under intense scrutiny due to numerous reports of prison officials sexually abusing, raping and harassing female inmates.

Subcommittee’s Conclusions

The committee concluded that “BOP failed to detect or prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated women by male BOP employees. The agency’s poor implementation of the audit program and reporting mechanisms required by PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) allowed serious, repeated sexual abuse in at least four facilities to go undetected. BOP’s internal affairs practices have failed to hold employees accountable, and multiple admitted sexual abusers were not criminally prosecuted as a result.”

The report notes there was no action taken to address the issue until the Dublin situation came to light.

“Moving forward, BOP should consider the subcommittee’s findings as it works to implement changes to how it handles sexual abuse of female prisoners by male BOP employees,” the report adds.

Civil Suits Allege Assaults by Recreation Specialist

Two allegations of sexual abuse at Carswell are the subject of civil lawsuits against Carswell correctional recreation specialist Marerllis Nix, who is no longer employed by the BOP.

The first suit, by April Lacey, was filed in December 2023. The second suit, in which the inmate uses the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” was filed in March. All action in that case was postponed for 90 days by an Aug. 12 court order.

Houston attorney Randall Kallinen, who represents the two women, told The Daily Muck there “have been a lot of complaints at Carswell. Our two are certainly not the extent of that problem. There are probably a lot more.”

He said sexual abuse of female inmates by male prison staff “happens too often, that’s for sure. You would think that in a medical facility it would not happen as often. However, because these women are often much more vulnerable, it appears to be ripe for more abuse and not less.”

As of the writing of this article, there have apparently been no criminal charges filed against Nix. An August motion by the DOJ hints that charges may be pending.

The DOJ asked that its brief on the case be sealed – not be available as a public record – because it “contains information about the criminal investigation of defendant Marerllis Nix, who has not yet been indicted, to protect the integrity of the investigation and the interests of victims and the suspect.”

‘Jane Doe’ Claims Nix Raped Her

In the “Jane Doe” suit, the inmate’s attorneys allege Carswell’s staff “created and maintained a sanctuary for male correctional employees to sexually abuse women in custody with impunity.” They contend that “only through the deliberate indifference, recklessness, carelessness, gross negligence, and negligence of other BOP personnel that Nix’s abuses could continue.”

“Jane’s” abuse began in mid-May 2021 and, ironically perhaps, ended on Independence Day when she was finally free of that abuse.

The first incident occurred when Jane was in the recreation area with other inmates, and Nix told her to clean his office. She said she would do it the next day, when it was scheduled for cleaning and when she would have another inmate with her.

Nix then ordered her to clean the office “now.”

Another officer witnessed this but did nothing to “prevent Nix from taking Jane Doe to an area of the prison without cameras, where she would be alone with Nix,” the suit states.

Nix watched Jane clean the office and told her that “temptation is everywhere.” He then took her to an adjacent workout room and kissed her. When she tried to leave, Nix grabbed her arm and told her not to tell anyone, or he would call her out of her unit so he could be alone with her.

A few days later, Nix took Jane from her unit to the copy office so she could copy personal documents he said were for a real estate class he was taking. Nix took Jane to a supply closet, placed a cleaning cart in front of the door, pulled down her shorts and underwear, and raped her. He ordered her to wipe up his semen with a paper towel and then escorted her back to her unit.

The lawsuit claims Nix raped Jane Doe “several times in the workout room behind his office,” in a shed and in another building in the recreation yard.

‘Always Accusing’ but ‘Nothing Sticks’

When she asked Nix about rumors he was abusing another inmate, he said “people are ‘always accusing him’ and adds ‘but nothing sticks,’” the lawsuit states.

Nix told Jane that Carswell officials wouldn’t punish him because there are no cameras in the workout room, and “at the end of the day they’re not going to do anything without proof.”

Jane’s work assignment was in the recreation room, and Nix was her supervisor. Although she was afraid to report her abuse by Nix, she asked Nix’s supervisor – Lt. Luis Curiel – to change her work assignment.

In something akin to a chicken asking the fox to protect her from the weasel, Jane Doe unknowingly sought help from a staff member who was himself sexually abusing inmates (as detailed earlier in this article and admitted in his plea agreement).

She told Curiel that “she was not happy at her job because she was not getting along with her boss,” the suit recounts. Curiel did nothing to help resolve Jane’s situation but told her to stay quiet, or he could “put her in segregation if she feared for her safety.”

‘That Bitch Snitched …’

Jane Doe began worrying about the possibility of contracting a venereal disease from Nix because he never wore a condom and had admitted to her that he was having sex with other inmates.

She asked a prison nurse to be tested for STDs, but they ignored her. When she asked a second time, the nurse denied the request. It was only then Jane felt compelled to report Nix’s activities to justify her request for an STD test.

The suit contends prison staff did not follow federal law and procedure for handling a report of sexual abuse. The attorneys allege this served “as another example of FMC Carswell protecting employees who commit sexual abuse.”

While Jane Doe was in restrictive housing – the dreaded SHU – while her complaint was “investigated,” a corrections officer told other officers and a female inmate, “that bitch snitched on my homie,” the suit states.

Lacey’s Allegations

Lacey, who chose to use her name in her lawsuit, arrived at Carswell in November 2014. She said she was sexually abused by a Carswell administration employee in 2015, but she did not report the assault.

In December 2020 or January 2021, Nix sexually assaulted her twice while she was sick with COVID-19 and in isolation in the indoor recreation area.

The lawsuit states Nix was supervising Lacey and 30 other female inmates with COVID when he told her “he knew she was a ‘convict,’ and ‘convicts’ keep their mouth shut.’” After the evening inmate count, Nix ordered her to go to a room adjacent to his office. She did as she was told.

Nix had a whiteboard in the room, which he put over the windows. He also had mats on the floor. The suit claims he took “advantage of the power and authority conferred on him, and with express or implicit threat of retaliation if she reported the conduct,” forced her to have sex.

The next day, Nix ordered Lacey to go to a small room in that same area. A BOP case manager asked her why Nix wanted her to go to that room but took no action “to prevent defendant Nix from trapping plaintiff in an area of the prison where he could sexually abuse her,” the suit states.

Lacey obeyed because she feared being punished if she did not obey Nix’s orders. Once they were in the room, Nix forced her to have vaginal and oral sex despite her telling him “No.”

Lacey did not report the rape out of fear of further assaults and retaliation, the suit alleges.

BOP Asks Court to Dismiss Suit

The Bureau of Prisons filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit because Nix’s claimed actions were not “within the scope” of his official duties but rather solely for his personal gratification, and the federal government had not waived its sovereign immunity from being sued without its permission for employees’ acts outside the scope of employment.

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, federal law enforcement officers can be sued for damages for actions they take “within the scope” of their employment, and their employer can be held liable for those actions. BOP employees have been found to be “law enforcement officers” under this provision.

The BOP’s attorneys pointed out that determining the “official scope” of an employee’s job responsibilities follows state law for the location of the alleged actions.

“Under Texas law, an employee acts within the scope of employment if his actions are (1) within the general authority given him, (2) in furtherance of the employer’s business, and (3) for the accomplishment of the object for which the employee was employed,’” the government wrote in its motion to dismiss the case.

“The ‘burden is on the plaintiff to show that the employee acted for the employer, and not for personal reasons,’” the argument continues, citing a previous court ruling on a similar case.

Other points made in the motion include: “Because personal gratification motivates sexual misconduct — instead of serving the employer — courts have held that these acts are not within the scope of employment” and “Even when an employee commits a sexual assault while purporting to act within the scope of his employment … that is not sufficient if that is simply a pretense.”

The federal attorneys said other courts in the 5th Circuit jurisdiction “have found similar claims of sexual assault by prison officers against inmates are barred as the assault falls outside the scope of employment. Because Nix was not operating within the scope of his employment with the BOP when he allegedly committed the sexual assaults against Plaintiff, she has not and cannot plead a legally cognizable claim for relief under the FTCA. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.”

Nix filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy on April 30, about a month after the second lawsuit was filed.

Congressman Gets Involved

The situation at Carswell is so blatant and prevalent that in September 2022, U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey (D.-Dist. 33) asked for a congressional oversight hearing “to examine the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ handling of prisons with reports of high sexual misconduct and coverups by correctional staff.”

In his letter to the House Committee on Judiciary, Veasey said, “We have an obligation to protect the health, rights, and safety of all incarcerated individuals in our nation’s prisons. But that has clearly not been the case at the FMC Carswell facility in the district I represent -– and in many other prisons across the country — where there have been reports of rampant sexual assault and abuse of women prisoners by staff.”

Veasey vowed to “do everything in my power to hold prisons accountable for these heinous actions and advocate for legislation to prevent incidents like these from happening again.”

As bad as the reported numbers are, Veasey said he is concerned “these numbers may likely even be worse than records show due to women’s fear of retaliation for speaking out against this egregious conduct.”

“Prisoners should never face sexual assault as part of their sentence,” he noted in that letter.

History of Abuse and Coverups

Carswell FMC has had sexual abuse cases and civil suits in the past. This is not something that just popped up post-COVID.

A highly-publicized case occurred in 2008 when prison chaplain Vincent Inametti, a Roman Catholic priest, was sentenced to four years in prison for sexually assaulting two female inmates. He was also ordered to pay a $3,000 fine.

Inametti was a naturalized U.S. citizen from Nigeria. It was later alleged the Diocese of Fort Worth was aware of Inametti’s history of inappropriate sexual actions but told the BOP he was a priest “in good standing.” He worked at Carswell from August 2000 to September 2007.

In its press release at the time, the DOJ reported receiving a complaint in March 2007 that “Inametti was sexually involved with a particular inmate.” While investigating that complaint, agents discovered he was also involved with another inmate.

The first woman, identified as D.D., “became acquainted with Inametti in August 2004 when she began attending Catholic services, joining the choir and participating in Bible study classes at FMC Carswell,” the press release said.

The other woman, known as E.R., was assigned to work as a clerk in the prison’s Religious Services Department in November 2004.

According to the reports concerning the criminal case, Inametti “directed D.D. to the chapel library, where he engaged in a sexual act with her. He further admitted that in June or July 2006, he summoned E.R. to a classroom in the chapel where he engaged in a sexual act with her.”

In 2012, Inametti’s period of supervised release was extended by a year when he violated its conditions by “representing himself as a priest.” That period ended in October 2014.

Civil Suit Allegations

The descriptions in the civil cases are much more graphic, detailed and disturbing. D.D. filed suit in February 2008 and amended the filing in September 2008. E.R. also filed a suit.

In her lawsuit, D.D. – who identified herself as Doris Jean Dykes in the suit – alleges Inametti forced himself on a Houston parishioner in 1990 which resulted in pregnancy. When she told Inametti she was pregnant, he “begged her not to tell anyone.”

When another priest confronted her and asked if she was pregnant with Inametti’s child, she said yes. He told her she was not welcome in the church any longer and that she should “get rid of it or give it to the nuns.”

The suit states that soon after, Inametti was transferred from the Houston area to the Fort Worth Diocese. In 2001, she was struggling financially and applied for state welfare assistance. When asked where the father was, she told the agent about Inametti. The Texas Attorney General’s Office sued Inametti for child support.

When the Diocese learned of the child support case, they “assigned him to prison as a chaplain … where he could explot a population of his preferred prey: vulnerable women,” the suit claims.

A May 6, 2008, report by Courthouse News reported the other woman, E.R., said that when she confronted Inametti about him having sex with another female inmate, he “beat, choked and stomped her, then repeatedly raped her at the prison.

“He bragged that he was ‘divine’ and ‘untouchable,'” the article states, quoting from the civil suit. “He told her that no one would believe her because she was a criminal and he was a ‘priest and a federal officer.'”

The abuse continued for about a year, she said.

Dykes and E.R. settled their suit against the Diocese in 2010, Ms. Magazine reported in a May 17, 2010, article.

The women alleged the Diocese was aware of Inametti’s history of sexual misconduct in other Texas parishes before he came to Fort Worth, but still vouched for him to take the prison chaplan position to be around “the most vulnerable and most helpless population in this country,” D.D.’s attorney Jerry Murad told the magazine.

“They were literally captive victims to his sexual violence,” E.R.’s attorney Tahira Khan Merritt added.

A spokesman for the Diocese told Ms. Magazine the church was unaware of Inametti’s past abuse but had heard “a rumor that he had a child.”

Merritt told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in a May 9, 2008, article (reprinted on the BishopAccountability.org website) the Diocese knew “he’s sexually acting out with women. They had a responsibility to say, ‘Let’s not put him in a position with the most vulnerable women there are – incarcerated women in a medical facility.”

Ms. Magazine pointed out that Inametti was “the eighth man to be convicted of or fired for sexual abuse, including rape, of female prisoners at the facility since 1997. But women there say that sexual abuse is much more rampant than that. The eight cases only became known when women overcame their fears of retribution and reported their attackers.”

McGaugh Case: 12 Months in Prison for ‘Multiple Sex Acts’

In November 2017, mental health case worker Matthew McGaugh was sentenced to one year in federal prison for sexually abusing one of the inmates under his care.

In a brief news release, the DOJ reported that McGaugh had pled guilty in July 2017 and had been free on bond pending his sentencing. He was ordered to report to the BOP to begin his sentence on Dec. 19, 2017.

McGaugh admitted that on Nov. 1, 2016, he engaged “in multiple sexual acts with an inmate” under his supervision. That inmate was later identified publicly as Chantel Dudley when she filed a civil lawsuit in April 2019.

The suit states that on Nov. 1, 2016, in her first visit with McGaugh, he made a sexual comment about the way she was eating a lollipop and then put her hand on the crotch of his pants, “which was covering his erect penis.” He told her he could “make her stay in FMC Carswell really hard or really easy.”

Later that day, she met with McGaugh again. He had some of her records on his desk and asked her to come over and sign them. As she was signing with her right hand, he put her left hand under the desk and once again on his crotch. This time he had removed his penis from his pants and told her to masturbate him.

The suit states she “did not want to do this, but was scared of what would happen if she did not obey her case manager.”

In a third meeting later that day, he again forced her to masturbate him and told her to meet him in a room on the hospital floor that night. She reluctantly did as she was told.

During that meeting, McGaugh kissed her against her will and forced her to perform oral sex on him, according to the suit.

The ‘Orphan’ Argument

While most offenders would celebrate getting only one year in prison for their crimes, McGaugh appealed the sentence as being too harsh. He said the penalty was unfairly upgraded on the basis the victim had an “unusual vulnerability” due to a mental illness.

In something akin to an attorney pleading for mercy for his “poor orphan” client who killed his parents, McGaugh argued that his victim was not “unusually vulnerable” because she was able to preserve DNA evidence and report his actions to authorities.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in August 2018, citing another case that found the court “does not require that the victim be completely incapacitated or incapable of performing certain functions” to be granted “unusual vulnerability” status. “It is plausible that the victim, suffering from mental health issues, was exploited based on her vulnerability, yet knew the act was improper, and so reported McGaugh,” the justices concluded.

In February 2020, the court dismissed the government and Warden Jody Upton as defendants in that suit.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that liability for any action or lack of action by Upton would pass to the United States government as his employer, so Upton could not be a defendant in the suit.

Because the government has “sovereign immunity” against being sued based on the actions of an employee operating outside the scope of their employment, the government was also removed from the suit. The rationale is that sexually abusing inmates is not part of the employee’s official duties, so that type of behavior falls outside the “scope of their employment.”

Background on Dudley’s Case

In that ruling, the judge recounted that Dudley was sentenced in Tennessee to 37 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute at least 28 grams of cocaine base. She was sent to Carswell in 2016.

Despite the apparent fact that there were multiple admitted abuses, McGaugh was only charged with one count of sexual abuse.

Dudley told her psychologist the next day that she wanted to be transferred because she “had been assaulted by a case manager.” She did not divulge McGaugh’s name, but a prison lieutenant asked her if it was McGaugh. Dudley said the officer deduced it was McGaugh “because FMC-Carswell had experienced previous problems with McGaugh.”

The civil suit provides additional information on this point.

“Ms. Dudley later found out from another officer that defendant McGaugh had previously worked at the satellite minimum-security camp outside of the prison. However, due to multiple inappropriate allegations made against defendant McGaugh, he was moved inside of the prison, where he was given access to vulnerable inmates such as Ms. Dudley.”

During the investigation of her complaint, McGaugh’s DNA was found on Dudley’s clothes and in her mouth. Faced with this evidence, McGaugh confessed and pled guilty to a single charge of sexual abuse.

Dudley said she was harassed by prison staff and other inmates after reporting McGaugh. Staff and inmates “destroyed her property, spilled ink pens on her, poured out her laundry soap, took her food, and verbally abused her” by calling her “a snitch, a liar, and a whore.”

Dudley asked Upton to transfer her to another prison. She was transferred out of Carswell in February 2017.

Dudley settled her suit against McGaugh in October 2021 prior to trial.

‘Inmate Abuse Runs Rampant’

Dallas attorney James Roberts, who represented Dudley, told The Daily Muck that “inmate abuse in prisons runs rampant across the country, especially in women’s prisons with male guards because they are a much more vulnerable population when dealing with guards who have immense power and authority over them.”

He said it is important for victims to report and take action against such abuse, and it is inherent on the government to do more to prevent and punish these crimes.

“There are two pending civil suits against Carswell right now, including one I have filed,” Roberts said. “It is beyond ridiculous that a guard who commits these kinds of crimes gets 12 months in prison when anyone else in society would be sentenced to 10 to 15 years for the same crimes. Because they are a prison guard, they get a slap on the wrist.

“These women have no recourse,” Roberts continued. “There is no punishment for the men who commit these crimes.”

Summary of Recent Lawsuit

The recent lawsuit Roberts referenced alleges sexual abuse of his client by Curiel in October 2021. She was one of three inmates Curiel admitted to having sex with that month. He was allowed to plead guilty to only two of those offenses.

Betzabell Banda-Martinez, who filed the suit using her name rather than initials or a “Jane Doe” pseudonym, alleges she was “repeatedly victimized due to the terrifying culture of rape and sexual abuse in the facility.”

The most serious incident cited in the lawsuit occurred on Oct. 16, 2021, when Curiel admittedly assaulted her by a staff elevator, raped her and then “stuck his fingers up her vagina, causing her to painfully bleed.” She was later taken to a community hospital, where a rape exam was performed.

The suit contends that BOP knew Curiel was a threat to female inmates because a staff member reported his “inappropriate relationship” with female inmates in June 2021. No action was taken on that report, but the staff member did receive retaliation and was fired, the suit states.

The lawsuit contends that “despite having received information regarding allegations of inappropriate relationships between Curiel and female inmates, Curiel was given access to vulnerable inmates such as Ms. Banda-Martinez.”

About the Assault

Regarding the Oct. 16 assault, Banda-Martinez said she saw Curiel standing by the elevator and attempted to get to the nearby stairwell to avoid him. He ordered her to come over to him, or he would put her in the Special Housing Unit – referred to by inmates as “the hole.” When she came to him, he grabbed her, bit her breast, dropped his pants and raped her. The assault only ended because Curiel received a call on his radio.

On Oct. 20, he accosted her in the kitchen, but she was able to run away. On Oct. 21, she was taken from her cell and interviewed by an investigator who told her they were aware of Curiel’s actions. She was then taken to the community hospital.

She was transferred to the Aliceville Federal Correctional Institution in Alabama in November 2021 “for her own safety due to the sexual assault perpetrated by Curiel,” the suit states.

The federal government has moved to dismiss this case – as it routinely does in such matters – based on its claim that defendants are barred from suing the government due to its “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits and that any “allegations of vicarious liability should similarly be dismissed as ‘Curiel’s actions were clearly not within the scope of his employment,’” the motion states, citing language from a ruling in a similar case.

Roberts filed an answer to the motion to dismiss and the government responded with counter-arguments in support of its motion. The judge will now have to weigh these arguments and decide if the federal government is liable for the acts of its employee or if the suit boils down to a victim against her individual abuser.

Attempts To Make the Punishment Fit the Crime

As readers have seen in this and the articles on the Dublin prison cases, the punishments for federal prison officials do not appear to fit the crimes to which they plead guilty or are convicted. If these offenses were committed against a woman in her private residence, the criminal would – as we say down South – be “put under the jail, not in it.”

For all intents and purposes, a female inmate’s “home” is the prison.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission took steps in 2023 to correct some of the sentencing deficiencies. Those amendments to the sentencing guidelines took effect on Nov. 1, 2023.

Among those was the DOJ Criminal Division’s recommendation, submitted in a Feb. 15, 2023 report to the Sentencing Commission, to overhaul the sentencing guidelines for sexual abuse of inmates in federal custody by corrections employees to be more in line with the federal Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022.

That amendment increases the crime of “sexual abuse of a ward or individual in federal custody from (Level) 14 to 18.” The DOJ had requested the offense be set at Level 22.

The maximum penalty remains at 15 years per offense – which is rarely– if ever– imposed on a correctional officer. The commission said the upgraded offense level “will more appropriately reflect the 15-year statutory maximum penalty for offenses referenced to this guideline and punish the serious sexual conduct involved in these offenses.”

The commission reviewed the average sentences for this crime, noting the average guideline minimum from 2018 to 2022 was 17 months, with the median recommended sentence being a year. The average sentence imposed was 35 months, with the median sentence being 15 months.

Another reason given for the upgrade was that it was more in line with the federal sentencing guideline for sexual abuse of a minor younger than 16, which also carries a 15-year maximum sentence.

That crime is a Level 18, with a four-level enhancement to Level 22 “if the victim is in the care, custody, or supervisory control of the defendant.” The four-level enhancement for “care, custody and control” does not apply to sexual abuse of adult inmates.

The revised penalty continues the government’s position that the offense of sexual abuse of an inmate already includes “care, custody and control” because they are incarcerated. In its recommendations, the DOJ asked for this enhancement. The result was the increase from Level 14 to Level 18.

‘Inadequate’ Penalty for ‘Egregious Criminal Conduct’

Under the sentencing guidelines, a prison official who pleads guilty to an offense is sentenced at two levels below the established one – being given credit for taking responsibility for his actions. In arguing for stiffer penalties, the DOJ noted that a Level 14 sentence range is 15 to 21 months for conviction at trial and 10 to 16 months for a guilty plea.

Its recommendation for a Level 22 upgrade had a base range of 41 to 51 months. The Level 18 sentencing range is 27 to 33 months – the same as for possession of child pornography.

The department said the Level 14 sentencing range is “inadequate to account for this egregious criminal conduct.”

The guidelines are “advisory,” so judges are not required to hand down sentences within the recommended range but must consider the guidelines before sentencing.

In its recommendations, the DOJ said it is “critically important for the commission to strengthen the provisions addressing sexual abuse committed by federal corrections employees against those in their custody and to implement sentencing guidelines for new sexual misconduct statutes that were enacted as part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2022.”

It also stated that “accountability and deterrence are key elements of any effective strategy to eliminate sexual abuse in prison, including through criminal prosecution and proportionate sentencing.”

In addition, the DOJ said corrections officers who sexually abuse inmates in their custody “exploit the defenseless and abuse the public trust.”

The DOJ report specifically referenced the case of two prison chaplains who were sentenced for sexually abusing female inmates – James Highhouse at Dublin prison and the aforementioned Vincent Inametti at Carswell – as examples of the shortcomings of the sentencing guidelines.

In August 2022, the recommended sentence for Highhouse using the guidelines was 24 to 31 months for pleading guilty to sexually abusing an inmate for nine months and then lying to investigators.

“In granting an upward variance and imposing an 84-month sentence, the judge stated he ‘was amazed when [he] saw what the guidelines range for this conduct is. It seems radically inconsistent with the actual nature of the harm done,’” the report stated.

In that case, the judge pointed out the “unique vulnerability” of incarcerated women.

“The defendant relied on the inherent coercion that came with this victim and the other victims being inmates at a prison,” they quoted the judge. “He essentially preyed on women who could not consent and were not free to say no. And beyond that, the defendant used his position as a chaplain to further the coercion and predation that he committed in this offense.”

The DOJ then referenced the Inametti case in 2008.

“At that time, the maximum penalty for each violation was five years in prison, and the applicable guidelines range was 10 to 16 months,” the report said. “In varying upward and  imposing a sentence of 48 months, the court noted that ‘the nature and circumstances of the offense are surprisingly heinous and shocking, especially so given the relatively gentle guideline range produced by the total offense level and the criminal history category. The offenses, while euphemistically described in the information and the statute as sexual abuse of a ward, are actually rape and sodomy.’”

No Force or Threat Required

The DOJ also said there was too great a jump in offense level from sexual abuse to the next sexual misconduct charge of aggravated sexual abuse, which is a level 32 offense. Aggravated sexual abuse involves the use of force or the threat of force against the victim.

“Such a large disparity fails to capture the inherently coercive nature of the prison environment and the power that corrections employees wield over inmates,” the DOJ said. “These dynamics enable a corrections employee to abuse a victim, often without needing to resort to physical violence, threats, or overt coercion.”

The DOJ said victims “are less likely to report their abuse for fear of losing access to privileges and vital services like drug treatment, psychological or spiritual counsel, or access to vocational training. Indeed, in some instances, the very BOP employees who provide those lifelines (i.e., the drug treatment counselor, the education specialist, the prison chaplain) are the ones committing the abuse.

“Moreover, inmate-victims of sexual abuse also fear that if they report abuse, they will be transferred to another facility farther from their family or placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) to protect them from retaliation,” the DOJ said. “Corrections employees can exploit these dynamics and commit sexual assault without employing physical force or expressly threatening their victims.”

Lengthier Sentences Will ‘Deter Future Misconduct’

The DOJ said the proposed amendments to the guidelines “will not only provide more just punishment but also should help deter future misconduct. Deterrence is particularly important where law enforcement officers abuse their authority, as they occupy positions that give them ‘the freedom to commit a difficult-to-detect wrong.’ That is all the more true with respect to sexual misconduct, which is often hard to detect, particularly where the victims are abused by those with authority over them and fear they will not be believed.”

The report again references the Highhouse case, noting the chaplain “abused multiple victims who sought spiritual counseling, telling one victim that even if she did report him, he would merely get ‘a slap on the wrist.’”

The DOJ concluded that “lengthier sentences tend to change the culture in individual prisons and deter future misconduct. The proposed amendments will help send the message that corrections employees who sexually abuse inmates will face serious consequences.”

For more in-depth articles on this and other important topics, subscribe to The Daily Muck newsletter.

Note: This article looks only at the issue of sexual abuse of inmates by prison employees. The tales of medical abuse and incompetence are even more disturbing. An investigative report by the Fort Worth Weekly in October 2005, reprinted on the Texas ACLU website, is not for the faint of heart or the easily enraged, but The Daily Muck believes it is worth a link for readers who want to know more about the place known as the “Hospital of Horrors.” We will conduct a follow-up on this issue in the near future to determine the current state of healthcare at the nation’s federal medical center for female inmates.