Zorro Jailhouse Lawyer’s Saga—
An Interview with Bryant Arroyo
Unlike the myth of Zorro—who wielded his sword at a moment’s notice to win justice on behalf of a disenfranchised town—in real life Bryant Arroyo, imprisoned in Pennsylvania, is in the vanguard, whipping out his pen like Zorro’s sword to challenge the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections when it violates prisoners’ constitutional rights.
Workers World recently interviewed Arroyo, whose Zorro jailhouse lawyer saga began in January 2024 when he challenged the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Coal Township over medical negligence in failing to accommodate inmates with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Workers World: Can you tell us more about this conflict?
Bryant Arroyo: When I assisted comrade William (Billy) Rinick to get a prosthetic for his left knee and surgery for his atrophied right foot, I was confronted by a posse of officers from the Security Department who expeditiously had me cuffed and whisked away to the Restricted Housing Unit.
My only alleged misconduct charge was rule #29—“engaging in or encouraging unauthorized Group Activity”—for assisting Mr. Rinick to exercise his constitutional rights to receive adequate medical care. While in the Restricted Housing Unit at Coal Township, I was then given three separate misconducts—on February 5, 8 and 20.
Workers World: What happened with these charges?
Bryant Arroyo: The misconduct charges were heard by three different Hearing Examiners. Hearing Examiner T. Knepper dismissed the first misconduct and Hearing Examiner B. Rudzienski dismissed the second misconduct. But Hearing Examiner Rudzienski intentionally failed to dismiss the second misconduct with prejudice, which would have prevented the same unconstitutional charge from being re-filed.
Instead, this irregularity spuriously motivated prison officials to file a third misconduct, which then ended in dismissal with prejudice by Pine Grove’s Hearing Examiner (F. Nunez), whose moniker in general population is “90-day Nunez”—due to his pattern and practice of sanctioning inmates to 90 days’ disciplinary status in the Restricted Housing Unit.
Workers World: What happened next?
Bryant Arroyo: The misconduct charges revealed a disturbing pattern and practice of retaliation and a concerted, active “campaign of harassment” by the Department of Corrections for exercising my First Amendment Constitutional rights.
I was then transferred ten hours away from my home (Eastern Pennsylvania) to SCI-Pine Grove (near Erie). There, prison officials began to shackle me with belts and cuffs during my legal virtual visitation calls. The punitive shackling prevented me from participating in legal virtual visits to “access the courts,” rendering me unable to hold the phone, share documents, write or use the bathroom.
Pine Grove’s administration has created an unconstitutional “chilling effect” as I prepare to prosecute my civil action in federal court for jury trial and has impeded my access to obtain newly-discovered evidence in my criminal case under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) in the Court of Common Pleas to obtain an evidentiary hearing to win a new trial.
Workers World: How did you challenge this unconstitutional policy?
Bryant Arroyo: I filed a grievance on September 25 against prison officials at Pine Grove—Facility Manager Mark Brothers, Deputy Martha Cree, Security Captain E. Box and Captain J. Bouch, the Captain of the Restricted Housing Unit. My grievance asserted that those officials were engaged in a concerted “campaign of harassment” with prison officials at my prior institution—SCI-Coal Township.
In that grievance, I described how I had been unrestrained for the prior 70 weeks of virtual legal visits; but that as soon as prison officials attempted to transfer me to yet another prison and then backed down from that attempt, the shackling began.
In response to my grievance, Major Sumner (C.O. IV) declared, “You are housed in a level 5 housing unit, which requires certain security measures to be followed, which includes 6.5.1 Section K., No. 8 sub. section No. 9, which states ‘appropriate restraints shall remain on the inmate while he/she is in the visiting area.’”
Workers World: So, you challenged Major Sumner by pointing out the ambiguous, punitive and unconstitutional nature of the policy which was selectively and vindictively applied for several reasons. Can you tell us more?
Bryant Arroyo: First, it applies to general visiting areas, not to virtual visitation held in an adjacent, secured room; and especially, not to virtual legal visitations held in a secured room installed with an aperture for removing the restraints. Secondly, the arbitrary policy violated my constitutional right to “access the courts” [Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)] and my Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights, because it renders me unable to hold the phone, share notes and even use the bathroom during legal visits.
The courts have also recognized a Constitutional right to receive adequate assistance from persons trained in the law [Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971)]. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the general doctrine of deference to prison officials in these matters does not apply to communications between inmates and legal counsel [Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)].
Workers World: Despite the Zorro jailhouse lawyer Arroyo’s medical diagnoses of carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis in both hands, he has defiantly managed to file grievances, and his federal lawsuit (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania—Civ. No. 1:23-cv-01083) unprecedentedly brought against all three State Correctional Institutions—Frackville, Coal Township and Pine Grove (each of them moving him further and further away from his family), all serve as evidence that he has been on the receiving end of unconstitutional, vengeful, unlawful and retaliatory actions by prison officials for exercising his First Amendment rights.
His is a saga of David versus Goliath—part of the ongoing daily struggle of inmates within the prison-industrial complex in the United States to fight injustice and uphold their basic humanity. This Zorro jailhouse lawyer knows his pen is mightier than the sword to write out his ironclad Constitutional defenses; to win the dismissal of all three misconducts; and to continue to highlight the pattern and use of retaliation by the the prison-industrial complex which create a “chilling effect” on prison advocacy and on prisoners like him.
Arroyo concluded our interview: “No good deed goes unpunished! The key to freedom is in your mind! Use your pen! Refuse to cower! Speak truth to power! Peace, liberty, justice and freedom to my brothers and sisters!”
—Workers World, December 19, 2025
https://www.workers.org/2025/12/89627/
Write to Bryant Arroyo:
Smart Communications/PA DOC
Bryant Arroyo, CU-1126
SCI-Pine Grove, P.O. Box 33028
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733