HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01051
j
I
I
~
r\4 .1.
....,..1
I
~.
I ~
,U
'-?
I
i
1)/
I oJ
13
I
i
1
I
I
~
lJ
I .
[ ;
1- !
I
l()
o
-
.1
-.9
CT
./
o
z
III
'.-4
C
III rn
; I > 16 '" c I
... c "
>- '.-4 " r;
~ '" rn ... 0 c
i..I '"
C U C =
e E c Ql CIl ~
~ Ql ... 0
.. .. ,;:
I-:- I-:- llo ... i..I
0 ...
... ... u CIl
~ ..-4 ~ 0
> " ... C
'.-4 ~ .c: 0 ...
~
u .. ... ~ ....
:;. ... ... ... ."
... III C ;: .:
11\ Ql Ql <Z:
~I 0 :. E ::< ."
... C ... ... "
I ~ ... ;'. ,.
\Q III ... ."
I ell Co ..
e :!! ~
0 2l 1i e ~ ..
ci 0 U 0 " 0 0 c
z z ct 0 ~ i..I w
-
i!lo
PAGE N>.
---
1 - 7
8 - Ll
l4
15 - 16
17 - 24
25 - 26
27 - 30
3l - 36
38 - lY
40 - 44
AmonH the Record, and Prlll.:t:t:dlll)l" cIHllllcd tn lhe 1.;0111'1 of Common Pic".. In ..And fur the
lit the CllmmOllwcalth of Pcnnsyl\lafllil
~1)Unly tlf ____._.__.~.__._Cum~~._~_~~Q~,t.
No. 2815 C.D. 1996
III Nil, ~!!_-lC!'H_<;;_ly:i.l_i<;trl!!
. .._"____ IS cunt,lIl1cd the followln~
rerrn. II)
COpy O~ ______
___nAppea rance_
,_,____,,____ (lOCKEr FNrRY
JOHN D. WlSE
VS.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANlA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Feb. 27, 1996. Complaint. filed.
Feb. 27,29, 1996. Motion for Leave to Proceed Informa Pauperls. and Order.
filed.
AND NOW, this 29th day of february. 1996. upon consideration of Plain-
tiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In forma Pauperis, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that the said motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall be permitted to pursue
the above-captioned civil action in forma pauperis.
IT IS FUR'lHER ORDERED that the Prothonotary of this Court shall docket
this action in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley. J.
March 19, 1996. Sheriff's Return of Service, filed.
April 4. 1996, Praecipe to Enter Appearance, filed.
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant in the above-
captioned actlon.
By: Shawn P. Kenny. Esq.
April 4. 1996. Preliminary Objections of Defendant in the Nature of a
Demurrer. f Hed.
April 10, 1996, Important Notice. filed.
May 6, 1996, Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objections in
the Nature of a Demurrer, filed.
June 3,6, 1996. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the Proceedings. and Order.
filed.
Denied generally. See concurrent order entered this date setting a
briefing schedule on defendant's prelUninary objections.
By the Court. Edgar B. Bay ley. J.
June 6. 1996, Order of Court. filed.
AND NeW. this 5th day of June. 1996. defendant shall file in the cham-
bers of this judge a brief in support of preliminary objections not later
than thirty (30) days from this date. Plaintiff shall sunilarly file a
response brief not later than sixty (60) days thereafter. Preliminary
objections will be resolved by this jloge on the briefs when received.
By the Court. Edgar B. Bayley. J.
June U. 1996, Praecipe. filed.
Please be advised that I have beell returned to SCI CUllp Hill frcl11
Delaware County. Pennsylvdnid. Pledse lift the stay of-prcJCeedings in the
above-captioned civil mdtter.
Thank you.
Sept. 18. 1996. Order of
Defendant to Plaintiff's
37
By: .John D. Wise. Plaintiff
Court. filed. In Re: PrelUninary CbJections of
Cmlpla int
(over)
.
The Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment states
"[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania bec'\use of the sex of the
individual." This provision does not prohibit differential
treatment among the sexes when that treatment is reasonably and
genuinely based upon physical characteristics unique to one sex.
Fisher v. DeDartment of Public Welfare, 509 Pa. 293, 502 A.2d 114
(1985) .
While that may be the standard employed when viewing the
application of the Equal Rights Amendment to a member of the
general public, it does not apply to the same degree to a prisoner.
A prisoner, by the very tact of his or her conviction and
incarceration, has diminished civil rights. In O'Lone v. Estate of
Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987), the United States Supreme Court
recognized that because of consideration of valid penological
objectives such as deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of
prisoners, and institutional security, prisoners do not share the
same level of constitutional rights as the general public. The
Court then held that a prison regulation does not violate a
prisoner's federal constitutional rights if it is reasonably
related to a legitimate penological interest. This same standard
was applied to a prisoner's claim of discrimination under the Texas
4.
Equal Rights AmendmentS in Morris v. Collins, 916 S.W. 2d 527 (Tex.
Ct. App. 1995).
In Morris, as here, a prisoner challenged a prison
regulation which restricted the hair length of male prisoners but
not female prisoners as violative Clf the Texas Equal Rights
Amendment. The Court ot Appeals for Texas adopted the standard ot
review set forth in O'Lone, and, cO!1cludin'J tho!lt the regulation was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests such as
security, health and safety, atfirmed the dismissal of the
complaint. We adopt the same standard and will uphold a prison
regulation limiting a prisoner's constitutional rights under
Pennsylvania's Equal Rights Amendment if that regulation is
reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective.
Here, the stated purpose of the Department's policy is to
advance security, health and hygiene.
Whether this regulation
advances thesa purposes was previously litigated in Poe, wherein
the United states District Court was presented with the question of
whether the Department's policy of hair length restrictions for
males and not tor females violated the federal equal protection
SThe Texas Equal Rights Amendment states "[e]quality under the
law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color,
creed or national origin. This amendment is self-operative." Tx.
Const. Art I, SJa.
5.
......
The Department filed preliminary objections in the nature
of a demurrer asserting that there were valid penological reasons
tor the dittering treatment of males and females in the policy, and
that the case law was clear that Wise could not prevail on his
claim. The trial court agreed, relying on Poe v. Werner, 386 F.
Supp. 1014 (M.D Pa. 1974), which rejected an equal protection
challenge under the Urlited States Constitution to the Department's
cliUerential treatment of male and female hair length and dismissed
the complaint. This appeal tollowed.1
Wise contends that the trial court erred in sustaining
the demurrer because his claim is based upon the pennsylvania Equal
Rights Amendment, not upon the United States Constitution's equal
protection clause,4 under which the Poe analysis took place. Under
the Equal Rights Amendment, he contends that there can be no
distinction in hair length between male and female prisoners.
3"Our scope of review of a challenge to the sustaining of
preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is whether on
the facts averred, the law states with certainty that no recovery
is possible. The C.:lurt must accept as true all well-pleaded
allegations and material facts averred in the complaint, as well as
reasonable inferences therefrom and any doubt should be resolved in
favor of overruling tho!! demurrer." (citations omitted). Hawks bv
Hawks v. Livermore, 629 A.2d 270, 271 n.3 (pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
4U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sl.
3.
The Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment states
"[e) quality of rights under the law shall not be denisd or abridged
in the Commonwealth ot Pennsylvania because ot the sex ot the
individual." This provision does not prohibit ditferential
treatment among the sexes when that treatment is reasonably and
genuinely based upon physical characteristics unique to one sex.
r!sher v. Deoartment of Public welfare, 509 Pa. 293, 502 A.2d 114
(1985).
While that may be the standard employed ~hen viewing the
appl ication of the Equal Rights Amendment to a member ot the
general public, it does not apply to the same degree to a prisoner.
A prisoner, by the very fact of his or her conviction and
incarceration, has diminished civil rights. In O'Lone v. Estate of
Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987), the United States supreme Court
ret;ognized that because of consideration of valid penological
objectives such as deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of
prisoners, and institutional security, prisoners do not share the
same level of constitutional rights as the general public. The
Court then held that a prison regulation does not violate a
prisoner's federal constitutional rights if it is reasonably
related to a legitimate penological interest. This same standard
was applied to a prisoner's claim of discrimination under th~ Texas
4.
Equal Rights Amendment' in Morris v. Collins, 916 S.W. 2d 527 (Tex.
Ct. App. 1995).
In Morris, as here, a prisoner challenged a prison
regulation which restricted the hair length of male prisoners but
not temale prisoners as violative of the Texas Equal Rights
Amendment. The Court of Appeals for Texas adopted the standard of
review set forth in O'Lone, and, concluding that the regulation was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests such as
security, health and safety, affirmed the dismissal of the
complaint. We adopt the same standard and will uphold a prison
regulation limiting a prisoner's constitutional rights under
Pennsylvania's Equal Rights Amendment it that regulation is
reasonably related to a legitimate penological objective.
Here, the stated purposE'. of the Department's policy is to
advance securi ty , hea 1 th and hygiene.
Whether this regulation
advances these purposes was previously litigated in Poe, wherein
the United states District Court was presented with the question of
whether the Department's policy of hair length restrictions for
males and not fQr females violated the federal equal protection
'The Texas Equal Rights Amendment states n[e]quality under the
law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color,
creed or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.n Tx.
Const. Art !, SJa.
5.
",""
..
C~:RTH'ICATE ANO TRANSMITTAl. or R~:CORO
UN[)~:f(
!,_EN.!l~!I,"~NJ!,_~!!~~:_~~~,I\I~PEI.I.I\T~:_ PROCEOlJRE:_!9}1.. (cl
To the Prothonotary of the Appelldt" Court to which the
within matter has been appedled:
CI:MO>WFAl;rn cnJRT OF PElN3YINANlA
THE UNDEflSIGNED, Prothonotdry of the Court of Common Pleas
ot Cumberland County, the sdid court being d court of record,
do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and correct copy
of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court
as required by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits,
if any on file, the transcript of the proceedings, if any. and the
docket entries in the following matter:
Case No. 96-1051 Civil Term: No. 2815 C.D. 1996
JOliN D. WISE
VS.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
The documents comprising the record have been numbered
from No. 1 to No. 56 , and attached hereto as Exhibit A is a
list of the documents correspondingly numbered and identified with
reasonable definiteness. including with respect to each document.
the number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the
appellate court is November 20. 1996
(Seal of Court)
~"L-U'n~L 1..'. Jv" i~ /J<tl.L~
/
Prothonotary
An ad~itional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please
sign and d3te copy. thereby acknowledging receipt of this record.
RECORD RECEIVED:
vf1N.t1J..~IIl!H.._____
lllnoO ~ 1 i~P3!i~r-!HIOO
03111'1\~ ~ . \L,~]lI
96. WJ LE Z
!fAUN _un
(signature & title)
III
.~
C
III 1/1
; I > c ~, c I
... 0 c "
.~ g 3
'" ~ 1/1 ... :", ~ .
C t; Q .
E e c III :lC ..
- III ~ - ;
u " - .:
I-:' I- '" ~ ...
0 ...
... ~ CJ :lC
~ ... . 0 Q
> :l ...
.... . &: 0 ...
-
CJ u .. :::: ."
;,. .... ... .., '"
... III C ~ .!!
...., II III lZ:
~I Q e ~ '"
... C ... ... c
I I ~ ~ ,.
'" ~ ... '"
'" "
I ~ ~ -
21 .E e ':;; "
.; .; U .: u c c C
Z Z "" 0 - ("J u.i
..
.
.
.
.
Amtln~ thl' f{~l'llrd.. .Hld Prllu.(dllll.!.... I..'nr.dkd In Ihl,.' I.:Ollrt 1\1 ("'II11fIIl)n Pk~I'" In .Inll fnr (he
(lllln!\ III Cumberldnd
No. 2815 C.D. 1996
,,,',, 96-l05l Civil Term
III !h( l "!T1JJ\,'I1'~C~lllh III P~'1n.,\h.lnl;1
I ":\ I';
I', t 'dlLl'Il,'d the.' l,dl! l'.\IIli!"
-
PN:E tv.
1 - 7
8 - 13
14
15 - 16
17 - 24
25 - 26
27 - 30
31 - 36
38 - 39
40 - 44
.
.
"~
.~-------_._,
... HU_' __ ________
.-,--....,.,.._--,
.....-~.--_._--...-.
'\nlOll/.( Ihe Ml.:1.:urd., .wd .'rOl"I.'t:dlll).!'> ~nrlllkd III the \:ourl of ("'11111\1111 Pic,,, 111 ,&nd fur lhe
i.;uunl.., nl ~u",~er L.~_I1_<:t_
No. 2815 C.D. 1996
,,,",, ,,!/!_- J~UC iY:.H1'erm
In the ('lllllrthll1\oh.'.&llh Ill" PCIlIl:\..,I...Jnh&
rcrm, III . I~ ~nnt.Hncd the lolloWll1tf
COpy ll~____.___._,_, "ppearance
no('l(,f r F" rR Y
JOHN D. WISE
VS.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAN[A
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
37
Feb. 27, 1996, Canplaint, fited.
Feb. 27,29, 1996, r-btion for Ledve to Proceed [nforma Pauperis, and Order,
filed.
AND NCW, this 29th ddY of Februdry, 1996, upon consideration of Plain-
tiff's Motlon for Leave to Pr(~eed [n Forma Pauperis, [T [S HEREBY ORDERED
that the said mtion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shdll be permitted to pursue
the above-captioned civil action in farm<! pauperis.
IT [5 FURTHER ORDERED that the Prothonotary of this Court shall docket
this action in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J.
March 19, 1996, Sheriff's Return of Service, filed.
April 4, 1996, Praecipe to Enter Appearance, filed.
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant in the above-
captioned action.
By: Shawn P. Kenny, Esq.
April 4. 1996. Preliminary Objections of Defendant in t~..: "lature of a
Demurrer, filed.
April la, 1996, Important Notice, filed.
May 6, 1996, Plaint Hf 's Answer to Defendant's Prel iminary Objections in
the Nature of a Demurrer, filed.
June 3,6, 1996. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the Proceedings, and Order,
filed.
Denied generally. See concurrent order entered this date setting a
briefing schedule on defendant's preliminary objections.
By the Court, Edgar B. Bay I.ey , J.
June 6, 1996, Order of CO:.Jrt, filed.
AND NCW, this 5th day of June, 1996, defendant shall file in the cham-
bers of this judge a brief in support of preliminary objections not later
than thirty (30) days fran this d.lte. Plaintiff shall similarly file a
response brief not later than sixty (60) ddYs thereafter. Preliminary
objections will be renolved by this judge on the briefs when received.
By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J.
June 12, 1996. Praecipe, fited.
Please be advised that I have been returned to seI Camp Hill fran
Delaware County, Pennsyl.vania. Pl.edse lift the stay of-proceedings in the
above-captioned civil. matter.
Thank you. By: John D. Wise, Plaintiff
Sept. 18, 1996, Order of Court, filed. In Re: Preliminary Objections of
Defendant to Plaintiff's Complaint
(over)
~
"""
5. The poLicy in qUt!stion directs that ffidle prisoners' hitir length
shall not fall below the top of the shirt coLlar in natural length.
6. This poLicy permits, however. that generally uccepted feminine
hairstyles shall be permitted for female inmates.
7. Noreover, the policy provides an exception for male prisoners
who practice certain religions, and permit.s these maLes to allow their
hair to grow longer than other males are permitted.
8. The polley contains d claus" that states that an Inmates' failure
to comply with this dlrectlv" will result in discipLinary sanctions being
Imposed upon him.
COUNT I
Sexual Discrimination
9. Paragraphs l through 8 are Incorporated by reference as If they
have been fully set forth herein.
10. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Article I, Section
28 of the Constit.ution of PennsylvanIa.
11. The policy that has been enacted and enforced, known as DC-ADN
807, requires Plaintiff and all other maLes who are incarcerated and
in the custody of the Defendant discriminates against Plaintiff and all
other male prisoners simpLy because they are of the maLe gender.
12. This polley violates Article I, Section 28 of the Pennsylvania
Const ltut Ion
insofar as
that
section
forbids
discrimination
by
the
Commonwealth based on u person's gen(ler.
WHEREFORE.
PLlintlff
,John D. Wise respectfuLly pruys that this
Honorable Court enter a judgml'nt In the nature nf a permanent Injunct ion
')
;3
"""
""
against the Defend,lnt rt'qlllrll1~ thdt Dt>tt.'nddnt rt'fLll.ll from l:~nfnrci.ng
poLicy DC-AJ)~1 ~{)7 insof.lr tll,.lt it reljui.re,~ m.llp prLsoner:-i to ke(lp their
h air at" "p L' C if i .. die n g t h .
COUNT [I
Discrimination by the Commonwealth
13. Pardgrdph" I through 11 are incorporated by reference as if
they hdve been fully .~et forth herein.
l4. Pl.llntlff brings thi... action pursuant to Article I, Section
26 of the Constitution of Pennsylvanid.
15.
The policy
that has
been
which
is
known as
DC-ADN
H07
enacted and enforced by the Defendant,
amounts to discrimination by the
Commonwealth
in that
not
only
are
female
inmates
exempted by the policy,
also exempted from this
but males who practice certain religions dre
policy as well.
16. Article I, Section 1h of the Constitution of Pennsylvania forbids
the Commonwealth or any of l~s subdivisions to discriminate against
anyone.
l7. This policy discriminates against Plaintiff In that because
he does not practice a religion th,lt forbids him to cut his hair, he
is required by the Defendant to keep his hair at a certain length.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/ahn D. Wise respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court enter d judgment in thf' nature of a permanent injunction
against the Defendant rl:.'quirin~ that f)('fpndant refrain from enforcing
policy DC-ADN SIl? insofar that it rp'iuirt's Plaintiff to keep his hair
at i:l cei."tain length beCilU.'ie hl' dOl'S not pr.lct ice il fpi igLoo that \youLd
J
,)
J
\ i
..
'~
u
.. ,-, b ~
; I" --;t
III~ C
C,) -- tf\
r~ fj
C'
C.:. , "
t. . \'.,. cr:
f;.'., r
I I
I l .
1... "~-I
,
.....,..,.
J- U r 1
'% Wl 1-
- . .J
- " ':.
)
,J/ :) E u
u <:: 7
<.; ~ -, 'in
!.A- i) r- I" ,
;' f~ ,j'
..J 0.- rt. /
--- .:
. '-
""CJ J !:J '- ..~
'. ,; -,
,. ~
- l... ~
l.... .,.. j
l,{ .::;
'..J (-;- "-'
'....'
...........-
~
3. Both counts of Plaintiffs complaint are premised upon a challenge to the
Department of Corrections Policy DC-ADM 807 which is repeatedly referred to in the
complaint. Thul!., a copy of DC-ADM 807 is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as if set forth at length.
4. Neither count cf Plaintiffs complaint states a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
5, With respect to count one of Plaintiffs complaint, DC-ADM 807 does not violate
Article 1 Section 28 of the Pennsylvania Constitution in that there are valid
penological concerns and objectives which justify the differential treatment of
inmates with respect to their hair style and length based upon their sex, including
without limitation, issues such as order and discipline, security, rehabilitation,
concealment of contraband, the imposition of personal discipline, personal hygiene
and sanitation, and altered appearances, Case law has uniformly rejected this
claim,
6. With respect to count two of Plaintiffs complaint wherein he alleges discrimination
by the Commonwealth in violation of Article 1 Section 26 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution, Plaintiff has no right to a hairstyle or hair length of his choice,
Furthermore, lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation
upon many privileges and rights possessed by ordinary citizens which are justified
by considerations underlying our penal system.
2
18
C. Groomina Services (continuedl
J. At institutions housing certified barber/cosmetology
programs, there may be occasions where special grooming
procedures ,require the use of "models". In such
instances, the instructor may request authorization from
the Superintendent tor such procedures to be performed on
inmate volunteers. The Superintendent shall make a
determination and advise the instructor of the decision.
4. Hairpieces may be permitted when .t is necessary to
present a normal appearance due to inability to grow hair
as a result of an accident, injury, or disease as
certified by the institution physician.
D. Security
1. Inmates who refuse to comply with the provisions of this
directive are subject to disciplinary action pursuant to
DC-ADM B01.
. -
2. All hairstyles must be able to be searched by 'institutton
statt utilizing institutional security equipment or pat
.earches.
J. Any grooming activity which appreciably changes the
appearance of the inmate must be reported to the Records
Otfice tor immediate review and possible issue ot a new
identification photo.
E. ExceDt iODl!
Exceptions to the provisions of this directive may be granted
tor 199itimate religious reasons on a case by case ~asis upon
approval as outlined under DC-ADM B19.
F. Personal Hvaiene
Inmates are expected to maintain acceptable personal hygiene.
Inmates who retuse to maintain personal cleanliness may be
subject to a misconduct.
VII. Suspensions During An Emergency
In an extended emergency situation or extended disruption of normal
institution operation, any provisions or section ot this policy may
be suspended upon approval ot the Commissioner of Corrections.
)
.;< ,),
-
4. Buth cuunt~ of PL,lintiff's C(lmpl"lint ~.;tatl' d cl.aLm upon which the
requested relief Cdn be granted.
5. Defendant contends that DC..ADM >J1l7 does not V io late Art ic Ie I,
Sectlon 28 of the Pennsylv.lnia ConstitlJti.on and Defendant further claims
that there are valid penological concerns and objectives which justify
thp dlfferentlal treatment of inmates based upon their sex, including
without Limitatiun, issues such as order and discipline, security,
rehabilitation, concealment of contraband, the imposition of personal
discipline, personal hygiene and sanitation, and altered appearances.
Defendant further contends that caseiaw has uniformly rejected this claim.
What Defendant Is trying to say is If a man has long hair there will not
be order and discipline and security will be in jeopardy. It is also
apparent that Defendant believes that women cannot conceal contrband in
their hair and women who ha.e long hair do not have personal hygiene and
sanitation problems if their hair is long. Another reason Defendant cites
is rehabilitation and the imposition of personal discipline. Is Defendant
saying that is a man has long hair, he needs to be rehabilitated and
have personal discipline Imposed upon him. Are they saying that Jesus
Christ needs to be rehabilitated and have "personal discipline" Imposed
upon him because he had long hair? A final reason Defendant cites is
altered appearances. It may be true that if Plaintiff could grow his hair
long, it could be considered that his appearance has been altered. However,
this reason must fall along with the others in that (ll the Defendant
takes an updated photograph of all inmates every year for this very
purpose; and (1) if a woman enters SCI-Nuncy with short hair, she is
~
~'jf
Motion fnr pf}:~t Cnrlvlcr.Lnll C'Jll.lr~.'rdl Relief. Pl.jlnt:i.ffts hl:.',lrln~ h,J~; been
s c he d L u e (J d n d p Q S t P () n t: d t \If i L e, d n \1 hI! d Ill.':-oj 11 '.J t k n <1 w t h 1-' (H.'.'( t hI;;' ,j r i n.~ (Ll t e .
7. Be<.";-Juse Pl;]intiff (,.lnnl)t el:fl:.l(tiVt:,lv littgdtL' r.ht~ ilettun while he
is in the Det':lwdre County Pri::;IJIl, he re...,pectflllly re11uest.':i thi:i Honrlrahle
Court to stay this dction until PlaIntiff is returne~ tu Sef-Camp Hill.
8. fn order for Plaintiff to L.itigolte this actlon while he is in the
Delaware Count y Pr ison, he will h,lve to furw.Hd a i I documents re LHed to
this action to his mother oln~ "tHpfather for them to make all necessary
copies and flle and se~ve the same.
9. To continue litigating this actiun in soch a manner would be burden-
some on Plaintiff's family and would creolte delays in this action.
10. Plalntlff makes this motion in good faith and not to delay these
proceedings.
II. Defendant will not suffer substantlal prejudice if this motion is
granted.
12. The interests of justice will be served If this motion is granted.
13. Plaintiff has not had a prior opportunity to prepare and file
this motion.
l4. Upon his return to SCI-Camp Hill, Piaintlff will file a Praecipe
with the Prothonotary of this Court Infurming the Court and the Defendant
that Plaintiff has been returned to SCf-Camp Hill.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court will
enter an Order staying this action and not make a decision as to the
2
33
JOHN D, WISE,
PLAINTIFF
V,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT :
OF CORRECTIONS,
DEFENDANT
96-1051 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 1996, defendant shall file in the chambers of
this judge a brief in support of preliminary objections not later than thirty (30) days
from this date, Plaintiff shall similarly file a response brief not later than sixty (60)
days thereafter. Prellmin81Y objections will be resolved by this judge on the briefs
when received.
.'
/
By the Court,
'Y<.~
Edgar B, Ba ley, J.
7
John D. Wise, #961596
Delaware County Prison
P,O. Box 23A
Thornton, PA 19373-0023
,'1"'-4-...(0: (. l
l..j" I 'It..
1<. ~>
Shawn P. Kenny, Esquire
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 596
Utley Drive
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0598
C- '-S.l..'-" ~
:saa
.....M.
'" /tZ f ~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN[A
JOHN D. WISE.
NO. 96-l0~1 CIvil Term
Plaintiff
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAN[A,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendant
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY AND DEPENDANT:
Please be advised that I have been returned to SC[-Camp Hill from
Delaware County, Pennsylvan ia. Please II ft the stay of proceed ings in
the above-captioned civil matter.
Thank you.
I! ()~
~HN D. WISE, ~ ~,
Plaintiff
John D. Wise, # AS-2l0?
State Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200
Date: June 8, 1996
(', , j ,..,
,- v' :;~j
,
-~ . .- ..
r . :"
, ,.-
; 1"1 :8
. , '
~ . (')
'~
,.
,',
0) Irq
'-' .,.
>1
..,;
~' ..
,
- 'r
~. UI
~'; .. "
~; r.J ,)
, . ~~~ , j
...I.....
"l.r' "
C(,. ::-..1 (":~1
~2' -
',1.. .
fCl' . , .!l_l...
r-- ::-}
,,' ~J
U. ~O '_J
0 () ,
~
---
95-1051 CIVIL TERM
noted that it must assess the reasonableness of the prison regulation in relation to its
purpose and reconcile the arguably protected constitutional right with the legitimate
penal Interest ot the state, The Court identified the govemmental interest at stake as
the preservation of internal order and discipline, the maintenance of institutional
security, and the rehabilitation of the prisoner. The Court concluded that the
regulation of the hair length of male prisoners furthered the substantial penal interest
of security, order, prisoner hygiene, and rehabilitation, and that those government
interests outweighed the arguably protected constitutional right of the prisoner, The
Court concluded that the regulation of male hair length does not impinge on the
exercise of a fundamental right, and no suspect classification is created. Thus, on the
prisoner's equal protection claim, the Court held that because the different treatment
of the length of hair of men and women rests upon a reasonable and substantial
relation to the legitimate. object of the regulation, the regulation is not unconstitutional.
Challenges to the male hair length regulation of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections on the basis of an inmate's First Amendment right to practice his religion
have also been dismissed in Dreibelbis v. Marks, 742 F.2d 792 (1984), and Wilson
v. Schillinger, 761 F,2d 921 (1985),
In the case sub iudice, we conclude that a challenge to the male hair length
regulation of the Department of Corrections under Article 1, Sections 26 and 28 of the
Constitution of Pennsylvania requires the same reasonable basis rationality test as a
challenge under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution, It has
-3-
43
PYS510
1996 -0 1051
WISE
Cumra~land County p~othonot4rY'8 ~ttlce paqe
C 1 v 11 Case I '1qu 1 ry
JOHN D \..:1) PENNSVLVANIA COMl'ION\tIt:At:l" Of
I
Reference No..: "lied.. .. .. .. : V~711998
Case Type..... I COMPLA INT l' lm.. .. .. .. .. : 11015
Judgment.. . .. . : .00 EXllcutlon Date O/og/O 0
Judge Assigned: BAYLEY EDGAR B Sat/Dl./Gntd,. % /0000
,Iury T~lal...~
Ili~rler Court
III he~ Court
I...................................................... ........................
Gene~al Index Attorney Into
WISE JOHN D Pl.AINTIFF PRO SF.
STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
PO BOX 200
CAMP HILL PA 17001 0200
PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF DEFENDANT ~~NNY SHAWN P
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
~520 LISBURN RD PO BOX 5S8
CAMP HILL PA 17001 0598
..t__....t.........................._...........................................
.. Date Entries ..
........*......*.....*.....~...,..,..............,......*...............*~......
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAIJPf:R I S
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ORDER OF COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY JUDGE 2/2~/96
IN RE-IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRAN'rEO
SHERIFF'S RETURN (SERVED DEPT OF CORRECTIONS 3/4/96)
SHERIFF'S COSTS S28.~0-
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DE"T BY SIlAWN P KENNY ESO
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEfENDANT IN TilE NATURE OF A DEMURRER
IMPORTANT NOTICE FIl.ED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PRF.l.1MINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE
NATURE OF A DEMURRER
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY TilE PROCEEDINGS
ORDER - DA1'ED 6/5/96 - IN RE PLAIN'rlFf'S MOTION TO STAY THE
PROCEED1NGS - DENIED GENERALLY - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/'/~6 " DEFENCANT SHALL FILE BRIEF AND
PLAINTIfF SHALL FILE A RESPONSE TO BR1EF - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J -
COPIES MAILED 5/6/96
PRAECIPE TO LIFT filE STAY OF PRCCEEDINGS BY JOHN D WISE PRO Sf
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
OPINION AND ORDER OF ':OUR'f - DATED 9/l~/')5 - IN RE PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT TO Pl.AINTIFF'S COMPLAINT - DEFENDANT'S
DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED - PI,AIN'rln'S ':OMPI.A1NT IS DISMISSED - BY
EDGAR B BAYLE'l J - COP1ES MAIl,ED 3/l8/96
*.....-.........................................................................
.. End of Case Info~mdt Ion ..
.............................................,..................................
02127/91
82/27/9
2/27/9
02/29/9
03/19/96
8~~8~~U
04/10/96
05/06/96
06/03/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/12/96
86/12196
9/18/96
-~ ,~ (("'I (~"'I'.\ ?'~CORD
.- . ;:10
1,].
., ...,ti..
;.~ '"
-j,:..~
".r"'"!-
j'1,1.1. ~? 'i,~.
/1. J:.tr........_......
;.- .dLC:~t..1i-.1
IN TH!~MMONWEALTH COURT OF PENN~~V~~IA
NOTICE OF DOCKETING APPEAL
Docket No: ~815 C.D. 1996 Filed D~te: 10/16/96
Re: WISE v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
Lower Court No.: 96-1056" civ
(H - to ')1
A Notice ot Appeal, a copy ot which is enclosed, trom an order ot
your court has been docketed in the Commonwealth Court ot Pennsylvania.
The docket number in the Commonwealth Court is endorsed on this notice.
The Commonwealth Court docket number must be on all correspondence
and documents tiled with the Court.
Under Chapter 19 ot the Pennsylvania Rules ot Appellate Procedure,
the Notice ot Appeal has the ettect ot directing the Court to transmit
the certitied record in the matter to the Prothonotary of the
Commonwealth Court.
The complete record, including the opinion ot the trial judge,
should be torwarded to the Commonwealth Court within torty (40) days
ot the date ot tiling ot the Notice ot Appeal. Do not transmit a
partial record.
Pa. R.A.P. 1921 to 1933 provides the standards tor preparation,
certitication and transmission ot the record.
The address to which the Court is to transmit the record is set
torth on page 2 ot this notice.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
A copy ot this notice is being sent to all parties or counsel
indicated on the proot ot service accompanying the Notice ot Appeal.
The appearance of all counsel has been entered on the record in the
Commonwealth Court. Counsel has thirty (30) days trom the date of
filing ot the Notice of Appeal to tile a praecipe to withdraw their
appearance pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 901(b).
Appellant or Appellant's attorney should ~eview the record of the
trial court, in order to insure that it is complete, prior to
certification to this Court. (Note: A copy ot the Zoning Ordinance
must accompany records in Zoning Appeal cases).
The addresses to whiCh you are to transmit documents to this Court
are set torth on Page 2 of this Notice.
It you have special needs, please contact this court in writing as
soon as possible.
Lower Court Judge: Honorable Edgar Bayley Jr.
Attorney: John D. Wise AS-2101
Attorney: Sarah Vandenbraak
Attorney: Shawn P. Kenny
Notices Exit: 11/01/96 Prothonotary
, ,
J
,
" .'\
,..1
,)2-
OJ . / ~- , ';-0, .!
-, 0 I... ) I '.L
COMMON Pl.!AS OF CUMBeRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
!)f)/)Cf)9&/
Plaintiff
.
.
NO. 96-l.Q>6"CIVIL TERM
105" I
y.
:
"
) I
, -
.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT or CORRECTIO~S.
Defendant
.
.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff John D. Wi~e hereby appeals
to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from the Crder entered
in this matter on Sept~mber l~, 1996. Thl~ Ord'H has been reduced
to Jud'lment ,lnd ento,lro,l<! int,) the .jocke~ as evidenced by the attached
copy of the docket entries.
/ 'I C' /-----;;
J())fN D. WISe-r-pr,) ~,
?[aLnt iff
lohn D. Wise, t AS-;:[07
Stat~ Correctional rn:;titut~on
P.O. Bot 200
C a 'n pHi I I, P;\ [ 7 ,) 0 l - i) ;: I) /]
D'l : e: I) 0: t 'I b" r i", I 'I 'J Ii
TRUE COpy FROM RECORD
In T::~:mony '<..i~:r:,;t.; f~.:;,,~ lJ'1'r:. vt r"\" h.lnd
al~J flie: 'j':dl cf 3,IIJ (')Jri M (Jr!i51.~, FJ.
Th.s H C'-. d,:; of c.C ct." 19 ...?~
'(' . ~:)
.~'b~l;~~;r~lh~~~"--