Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01568 ,', ~ :} ~...; .~ ~ , "i. , ~" .~:;, .->~ .~ 'Ii ,1 ~ n '. " ~ ~ ; i / / , .:~~i :~ I " :.'.:..'...1..... ..h :/-": :'l 14. -'.~, .';':;.. "-.., ~ ~ J '1: .:- -' '..n l -~ ~:~ ,:;%'1 'I _f:~ ~i ~' , PYS510 1996-01568 WALTHOUR Cumberland County Prothonotary's Civil Case Inquiry JOSEPH (VS) PENNSYLVANIA DEPT OF Oftice Page CORR ET A 1 Refer.nce No..1 Filed........1 3/21/~91~ Case TYe......1 COMPLAINT Time..!......: 1 1 01 Judgmeflt.......1 .00 Execut on Date 888 Judg. Assignedl BAYLEY EDGAR B Sat/Dis/Gntd.. 1 1 0 Jury Trial.... Hi~fler Court 1 H her Court 2 .***.**.***......**.....*...***...*...****..........*** ........................ General Index WALTHOUR JOSEPH PLAINTIFF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ROCJtVIEW BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF DEFENDANT ~g~R~JiIONS CAMP HILL PA 1701l GUZZI MARX DEFP.:NDANT BOX 598 CAMP HILL PA 17011 MAZURKIEWICZ JOSEPH DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 MEYERS ROBERT DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA l6823 WHITMAN TERRY DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 GAERTNER GREGORY DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA l6823 STIDD JAY DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 Attorney Info ................................................................................ . Date Entries · .........................***....***.**................*****..........**...***... n~n~u COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION "ON HOLD STATUS" MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS . AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING THE SHERIFF TO MAKE SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANTS ORDER OF COURT - 3/25/96 - IN RE PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - DENIED - COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPY MAILED 3/25/96 - - - PLFF BILLED 3/25/96 ****..**...................................******...................**.......... . End of Case Information · **..***.................................**...............**..................... 03121/96 03/25/96 TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my haIId and seal .t sa at Carlisle PlI" Thl ^ ,I ui "1 _ .l{\.. " DAVID A, UIWCZAK,ISQUIAI NQhtQtitOU..., -~, <11I- , . 'Ufqt ~uptfiof (!fourt of 11tnns1!luama <tffitt at tqt llrotqonObl11! p, o. 10' ;300 .3. MAIN CAPITOL BUIL-OING HAAR'SIUAG, PENNSYLVANIA 17101 ,I 17111772.129. PATA'CIA A.IUI<lIMII: Whi t taker '"II' C~II'IC . , Dear Prothonotary/Clerk of Courts: Civil Docket No.96-l568 RE: C~. P. Court Cumberland CAPTION: Walthour v_,Pa. Deot. of Corrections. Pt. ~1 Returned herein, unfiled, is the notice of appeal received in the Prothonota~y's Office, Superior Court of Pennsylvania for the above-captioned matter to be perfected in compliance with Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure: Pa. R.A.P. 55l thru 56l Filing Fee/IFP/Verified Statement Pa. R.A.P. 906 Service of Notice of Appeal ~IncomPlete Proof of Service Incomplete Caption Pa.R.A.P. 904 (bl Erroneous Filing Pa.R.A.P. 751 & Pa.R.A.P. 905 Date Received in Superior Court to be deemed filed by the trial court Pa. R.A.P. 904 (dl Docket Entries showing Order Appealed OTHER - '-I~ CI.W~ /;n ~ /3 /99(; Date (J' , c: Joseph Walthour CF-2911 SCI Rockview Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823 - Df ,. axm ~ CDIDf I'LDS ~ m ...All> ~, ~ Civil Div1aicn -.. I I I I I I I CIVIt AerIal N 96-1 568 ^'" - Wll'"wt ~ -alia" ~ ........,...."...&Un8, It 111... aw-11.... rur...ori Jal UAVE Oft) ~ All) .... - -- I IN ......._llL PNJP!JWI 'ro 'mE tINlW!LE am:F JU[X;E AND/OR ASSOCIA'l'E JUOOE OF THE cnJR'l'1 AND tOl CXl>lES, yQll' ~tJ.tJ.oner, Joseph Walthour, in ..,.:~1a penooan, who lIlO'.- be!OA the Bar, pursuant to pos.R.A.P. 552, for leaw to file ard ...~ in farma pauperis GIll appeal bofore the Superior 0Jurt. Appt1bl'\t: subn1t:a he is the appellant in this case, that hs 18 · poor pecMlll without the f1nanc1al means to defray the 1ncJ.dental CXl8t:s of ~ jUStiCl8, ard he knows of no CIIl8 who will step forward ard defray the cofta of th1s aotJ.GIIl. ~l1lU1t 18 a legally definable pauper am the redress he SMka, 18 in the publio interest, he is entitled to, as a matter of law, ard is · .1mple 1uUlt of whether or not the eatJ.ons of the defendant DeplIrtment of o..."~ONI located in Oanberlard Q:lunty fall within the jurhdictional boondar1ea of th1s ccurt:. tNrefore, petJ.t:.1al8r ~ully request this ccurt to grant him forma 1llI'lP"""U status to file am proceed GIll appeal, am he shall nly upon the attached affidavit in support: of foxma pauperis, to establish his in:l1~. / ry A lefGlllte, PA 16823 MTEIlI 30 MarCh 1996 '.. -It) PY~510 1996-01568 Cumberland County prothonotary's Office page Civil Case Inquiry WALTHOUR JOSEPH (VS) PENNSYLVANIA DEPT OF CORR ET A 1 R.far.ne. No..: FUed........ I 3/21/19A~ .Ca.. T'JP......: COMPLAINT Time..!......: / /48 Judqmsftt......: .00 Execut on Date 8 RQ 0 Judge Assigned: BAYLEY EDGAR ~ Sat/Dis/Gntd.. ! ~/O 0 Jury Trial.... Hi~fler Court 1 Hi her Court 2 .*********.****.*****...**..**********.****...........* *.*.***...*******...**** G.n.ral Index Attorney Info WALTHOUR JOSEPH PLAINTIFF STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ROC1tVIEW BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF DEFENDANT CORREiTIONS ~5H'LL PA 17011 GUZZI MARX DEFENDANT BOX 598 CAMP HILL PA 17011 MAZURXIEWICZ JOSEPH DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 MEYERS ROBERT DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 WHITMAN TERRY DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 GAERTNER GREGORY DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 STIDD JAY DEFENDANT BOX A BELLEFONTE PA 16823 *******..**.**.*..*****.**..*.***************************.********.****.****.*** . Oat. Entries * ***************.**......****.**........*******.****..................*****...**. 2~/21/96 ~~HBU 03/21/96 03/25/96 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION "ON HOLD STATUS" MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS MOTION FOR COURT ORDER DIRECTING THE SHERIFF TO MAKE SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANTS ORDER OF COURT - 3/25/96 - IN RE PETITION TO PROCEED IN PORMA PAUPERIS - DENIED - COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED - BY EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPY MAILED 3/25/96 - - - PLFF BILLED 3/25/96 *..**.**.*****.**.**.**.*****........**......*.*...*.*...*..****.*************.. * End of Case Information * ................**.....**.***...**.....................................****..*** TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof. I here unto set my haIld and t seal " OIl at Carlisle. ~ Thi ~.L 19~ IN 'mE CDRl' " (IMDf l'tP.AS CDlIlI!RLAf<<) aurrr, PI!IHlYLVMrA C1 vB Oi villion - Law .DlBl'H IflWl'IDR p1ai~if'f z -V'- l'I!HIMNMIA IEPARDtI!:Nl' fR ~rJ.U'4S, Et al.. MlUlIt E. QJIU, '^-:.n. MlUlllUIII!NJX:, illlIlmc:r 1EllDlS, 'l'IlllRlr lIII'DINf, ~~, JAY S'l'IID, CIVIL lIC1'1Df !C. JtIlY 'ftttAL DE!MI\HED Defendillllts. EIch defooo-L,' IRBI indiyldl_lly in their ........l. . '" -'ty olDl in their off1clal ....l...,...U.. APFJDI\VlT IN OlUn'U('r CP runl.d JI(R LEAVE 'ro PIIB NI) ~ -~, IN !'(JlM PADPmU:S 1. I, Joseph Walthour, am the plaintiff in the above matter and because of my financial oondition am unable to pay the fees and CXlSts of prosecutinq or defending this action. 2. I am unable to obtain funds fran anyone, includinq my family and asso::iates, to pay the cost of this litigation. 3. I represent the information below relating to my ability to pay the fees and costs is true and correct. 4. My name is JOIle!il Walthour, my current address is Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823, and my social security m:Dllber is / ~ 1_ S" 2 - /~1'6 5. I am currently 1ncarcerated, I have a prison job, I make less than $50.00 per month, and have been so enployed for the last -'- years. 6. I own no real estate, real property, or autanobile. 7. I own no stocks, bonds, annuitiell, or other financial interest bear1nq instruments. .'. _....-f ,I} IN 'IBB CDR1' or <DlIDf PlDS aJH!RLN<<) <DIft'Y, PIHtSYLVML\ civil Division - Law ....-.rn IIAlJDDIl Plaintiff -v- l'I!tIISILVMIA IEPARl'JBIl' ~ I. 'l:I"-,u :T.J.I.A'Ct, Et al.. IIIlRK B. QJlIII, .............. ~--I--I~, p.. ---..- JlEDRS, 'ft!IlRlC tIIl'MN, ~:JI"'"''''' -. G'Ac.u.d, CIVIL AC'1'ICII tI). Cf" _ 15 G, 8 C-,,~::r ~ JlRY 'ftUAL lHWIJI!D JAY 8'1'J[1), ClItendiInbI. Bach dl6.daL 8IBI 1ndI.yt,._1ty in tbUr .-.....l . ,....~ty ..s in tbUr otf1c1Al -,-u.. ORDER AND ~ this _ day of March _ 1996 upon consideration of the PetitiClllll1'/Plaintiffs' Motion ~ FUe and P...........d In Forma pauperis, Verified Qlq)1a1nt, and Verification, it is ~.-I am 0II.db....d~ That the Plaintiff, JOReph Walthour, is CjrlIllt:ed leave to fUe and p,tooeed in forma pauperis; That the forma pauperis status ocntinues throuqh any appeals, through and including the state Sl.q,n;8,a Coort of Pennsylvania, until such act100 is finally litigated; That the Sheriff of CUmberland county is directed to make service upon the defendants in this case with this oanplaint; That all defemants may be served at the Department of ew,"....--tions' Central Office, located at P.o. Box 598 (Lisbon Road), Camp Hill, PA 17001. Further that the IlDIB is returnable by the _ day of 1996. BY THF alIJRT Judge .!JIM1lIBft' rP 'nIB PARl'IES 3. plaintiff, Joeeph Walthour, is an adult PennSylvania citizen, who 1s pre8<<ltly incarcerated at the state C01TllCtiooal Institution at Rockview, 9clK A Bellefoote, PA 16823. 4. Defendant Depertment of Co1TllCtions, (Hereafter DOC I is a Cabinet; r-l Aqe1tIcy of the Penrulylvania state Governnent, and as such is the emplO'Jex' of each of the following listed defendants. In the official capacity of ~oyer, this defendant is respensible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained ibl' employees to specifically carry out the policy which is the cause of plaintiffs' injury. The cer:tral office is located at 9clK 598, Camp HU1, PA. 5. Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the DOC and is responsible for developing anj carrying out the statewide policy which violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. His office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, FA. 6. Defendant (5) Joseph Mazurkiewicz, ROOert ~leyers, Terry Whitman, and Gregory Gaertner are employeo38 of the DOC and as such carded out the policy which deprived the plsintiff of his dull course, duo process, and Ilq\JaI protectioo rights. Their office is located at Box A, Bellefoote, Pl\ 16823. 7. Defendant Jay Stidd is emplo~j by the DOC as a hearing examiner, and as euch was trained by the DOC, and in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due course, due pl:'OO'.3S and 13qU!\1 prot:ectioo rights. His place of IlIOl'k is Box A, Bellefoote, PA 16823, (/lVWY third week I. 8. Each defendant is sued irv:1ividually and in their official capacities, each defendant can 00 scrwd at the Central office of PennSylvania DP.[Drtment of Corrections. Box 598, CaMp mIl, FA 17001-0598. (2) 8I'A'ftM'M' at TIlE CASE 9. 'l11ia is a civil rights case for a oonstitutional tort, both state and federal, for the failure of the defendants to apply "Due ~ 8IId ~. _ of laII" equally to its incarcerated citizens. 10. The ocx: developed and maintains a policy which permits its 811Ployees to use OWl _.., written, ~ evic:tsIOlIlIII the eole bIIIIiII of aanwstrative findings; in oontraventien of inveterate PennSylvania JuriSprudence, prohibiting this practice. 11. The rule [OC-AMD 801 VI, A (3) Threatening Another PerscnJ is so vague and broad, to be unoonstitutional. There are no elenents to define the prosc:rlption, and as BUCh has been arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the pWntiff. 12. Defendant Jay Stidd, is not, and has never been an objective, impartial fact finder, and en the dat.e in qoostioo unequivocally stated he was not impartial in deciding this case. 13. Each defendant refused to hooor and apply the timely raised affirwatiVfl defense of administrative coUi\teral estoppel and res judicata to the instant case. 15. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory juclgm<>-nt, iniuncti~ relief, and monetary "........'lJElIU113 for this oonstitutiooal tort. PACTS 16. on october 27, 1995 a duly constituted Executive camdttee (of the Drug Rehabilitation p"Oo,j"am at SCI-ROC, conducted an i.nterYI!ntial hMJ.'in!J, where the plaintiff was brought before it, am chal"CJ"'rl with a possible threat to an officer. (3) 17. Officer S. Walbnan statEld specically he did not hear the oonclusion ot plaintiffs' statEl11Elllt, what he heard was 'I couldn't wit until SOlSthing happellI!d I . 18. The Executi1/(J camtitte! concll.ldOO m threats were established and sanctioned the plaintiff to thirty (30) days clean-up duty for an attitudinal adjusbnent. 19. Unsatisfied with the OO'l1n1ttoos' sanction, the officer wroto a miso:n:.iuct report on the plaintiff. 20. This m1sccn'1uct was cl1smissed by defendant Stidd. Ho.<IeVer, the defendant instructed the officer to change the misconduct report fran a threilt to staff, to that of another person, and he l>OUld accept it for a hearing. 21. A m1SCXl1lduct hearing wall convened by defendant Stidd w11':lt'e plaintiff was N'X11 in and denied he IMdc the statEl11Elllt he would cane out of his cell and smash St:l1lI!hody in the face. 22. Timely objections were made to the aclnission of the unsIoIOIll, written hearsay report of officer Waltman. These objections were ignOJ:al. 23. '111e affirmative defen.'le(s) of Artnini9trative Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata were timely raised [citing the fact a duly ~,opOaed and J:eCOp\.hed acinWstrative adjunct whose decrees have the force of law in the program had decided the same issues between the same parties] and denied. 24. A timely request was made for dismissal for want of constitutional specificity, [the charge as outlined by 1101 I has no definition, an:l no definition of its clements. ] thifl defense was denied. (4) 25. plaintiff ch4l1~ the 1Jnptu1:ial1t:y of the examiner, defendant (Stidd), citing his participatioo in the rewrite, directing the officer what to charqe. This challM1<J8 was denied. In the CQUl'1Ie of his adniniatratiWl, quasi-judicial llUlIings, defendant stidd stated '"1M c:r-"hlltty of. tM II1acDIUJct ..........l ... ~., haI'-', I do not -.t: to twit ..1. ana of. Wf offu.n lIICUld 11.,. 26. Three defense witnesses testified in essence, they heaJ:d fIVW'/ word plaintiff said at the Intervention Hearing, that he did not say he - going to ocme out of his cell and smash acmebody in the face. 27. No ftOm evidence was ~ted against the pWntiff, no wia..... or other ev1d1!Jnce was offered agaiNlt plaintiff. 28. Defendant stidd made his aaninistrative finding based solely upon the written, 1.II1S1olOm, hearsay report of Officer Waltman. The finding adjudged the pWntiff guilty, and sanctioned him to time served (sewn days hole time) atld a class I, c1assificatioo of the misoonduct infractioo. 29. plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the P"~CllII Rev1_ o:mnittee (Defendant(s) Meyers, Whitman, atld Gaertner) who by lawful authorization IlUlIt ...:urect oonstitutional violations. at NcMII1ber 16, 1995, each defendant ~ld the policy of the OOC, atld agreed with the ac:tioo of defendant stidd. 30. I'laintiff next raised these issues with defendant Mazuridewicz, who also ill required by lawful authority to ........~.....t CClMtituticnal violations. at t/oV'8lb!r 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the OOC and _-lll(lheld the act100 of defendant(s) stidd, MeyerS, Whitman, and ~t.... (5) 31. Plaintiff raised the issue with t.he Central Office Review Carmittee, lthe OX itself), answering for t-he defendant agency, on January 2, ~996, defendant Mark Cuzzi, uphel,j the actions of '!dch of tho precerUnq ri.~ferd1nts, and a~j with their actions taken in tnis case. 12. Each def",nclant knew or should have known their acts, ,1Ctions, and anissions violated well establisherl principles of p",nnsylvania law, which; prohibited use of hr!Msay evid.mce as the sole hasis of. an cldministrative finJinq; dl~J t!ldt hath federal dud state constitutions required specific (clearly defif\B.l) notice of prr.J1it.itl)f1 behavior. t-~"l' CJ\OOE OF ACTICIl J3. Def"n'klllt Depdrtn~Jlt of Corrections violated pl.1intiffs Due COurse and process riqhts, by developing and enforcing a rolicy which permitted its P.I1lployoos to make admi.1i;;tL'"I:iw Undings, oased exclusively upon timely objected to hearsay evirJence. A p:>licy they knew or should have known violatOO lonq eatdLtishl..od principles of Pennsylvania JurispI'U<"lP.nce which prohibits tlus .,ractice. Plaintiff .looks an injunction expunging his record of all refer",nOiJ to tills administrative Unl.ling. SFlDll) CJ\/JSE CF ACTICIl 34. Defdr.dint Depdrtment of CorrE'Ctions violatoo plaintiffs Due Course ani process riyhts, hy dewloplng am enforc1nq a policy which faUfJd to define with constitutionally l"'-Iulred "pec1ticity, elements of the conduct it souqht to prohihit, by the pronulqatioll ot .ldlninistrative Directivp. 801. Plaintiff s,~_k; <in injunction .~xr.unqlnq his ro.=rd of all rflfnr"!1<y' to this admini6trativu fiJKl1nq. (I,) 'l'RIRD CAlEB r:. AC1'taI 35. OlIfendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to ,~ ClllUne ...s _ .-on of 18' by rnaIdng an adninistrative finding aqainllt him on IOlely, timely cbjecUd to hearsay evidence. In relief plaintiff seeka in exceas of $10,000.00 in """..-usatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expunginq plaintiffs' record of any reference to the Idninistrati.... findinq. n.ua'D CAlEB r:. AC1'taI 36. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffS' right:8 to '418 ClllUne ...s _ ...._ _ of law' by refUllinq to honor the defense of Collateral estoppel, and res judicata. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in """..-lAtory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expunging plaintiffs' ~ of any reference to the adnlnistrative finding. .. .....-UJ CAlEB r:. AC1'taI 37. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to ,~ ...-:- ...s _ .-0 of 18' by issuing a sanct:im for an U1'llXlI'lStitutionally vague proec:ription against sane form of behavior. In relief plaintiff 8MkI in exclIIlI of $10,000.00 in .....",Ausatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunctia\ expunging plaintiffS' record of any reference to the lIlbini.trative findinq. SDmI CAlEB r:. AC1'taI 38. Defendant(s) Mazurkiewicz, MeyerS, Whibnan, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due ccurse and ....~s rights by enforcinq the depaJ:bnent policy which was clearly CXJntrary to well established PennSylvania JUrisprudence which prohibited findings by administrative agencies predicated solely upon lwarsay evidence (timely objected to). (7) .~. " In nllef pWntiff .-ka in excees ot "0,000.00 in .:>..,+-tory ~, $10,000.00 in pmitiw damagu, and an injUl1Ction expunqing plaintiff.' record at any nf...__ to the .aninbtntiw findinq. SIM!Ml'H OIBB c:. JCl'lOI 39. OlJfendant Mark Guui violatw.i plaintiff. due coune and proceu rights by dlrYeloping and canying out, a policy wtdch permitted the ooc'. Iq)loyoMl8 to raake actninistratiw tindings solely upon timely ctJject4d to heanay, written 4~' A policy he knlIw or real!lClMhly should haw known, violated clearly set: established Penn8ylvania Law. In relief plaintiff ..Jca in ~9 of $10,000.00 .in ~1....,Matory damag8ll, $10,000.0t) in plJ1itive damlI9M, and an injunction 8llp.Inging plaintiffs' n...u..d of any refeAnC8 to the IIdd,:1J.stratiw find1n:J. iduoun CJIIllm " ICl'1m 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffs due c:oune ~nd prIX)8lIll rights by deYeloping, canyinq out, and upholding II !lOliey which denied the plaint.1ff due CXlUl'88 and due .....~s of law, by denyiBJ the uae of aff1rmatiw adnilltratiw def_ in adninistratiw hearings. A polley he Ia8r or reaaonably IIhould haw known, violated clearly set: est.abl1shed PeMsylvanJ..l Law. In relief p1aint1ff ..u in e.x<:'aS of S10,000.00 in ......,......._tory ~, $10,000.00 in punitive damage:J, ~"ld an inJlII'lCI:ion expunging plaintiffs' l~d of any reference to the adnin18tratiw fJ.rld1nq. HDmI CADBB ar ICl'1m 41. Defendant(s) Mazurldewicz, Meyers, Whitman, and Caertner violated plaintiffs I due CXlUl'88 and process rights by enforcing the ~ polJ.ey (81 . WUch WU CllMrly ..o.L..ry to w11 _tablUbld PwlMylvaniA~, z~l1:dnq MainUtratiY8 0011atva1 utqlpel am a.. J\ItI1ceta .. .ff1l:mati.... dIIf_ in adnin1atrative twu~. In ntU.f pla1ntiff .-k.e in DlClMa of '10,000.00 in .........._tDry ~, '10,000.00 in pr11tive ~, am lilt injunotian apunq1ng plaintiffs' nt(XlI;d of any ntf_108 to the aiII1niatrative find.1nq. 'l'l!lmI CAIIlB ~ ACl'IOf 42. Each defendant violated plaintiffs right to equal ..~Ual ..... tbe 1w, guaranta.! by both the Ilt.ata am flldera1 ccnatitut:1clna of the t1nited statM of Amarice and Pennsylvania. In relief plaintiff .-k.e in DlClMa of '10,000.00 in .......-watery damages, $10,000.00 in punitiw c1amaqes, and iIIl injunotian expunging plaintiff.' ~.l of any n1ferwlC8 to the adnin1strati.... find.1nq. (Dlr'I' nrnRf 43. Plaintiff has no plain am or: adequate remedy at law, am 8Mks . Declantmy J'Ud.JloMlt, this, am such other relief dellti8d awt"'l'6iate by the court, am he Shall ~ PRy. t.herefore Plaintiff, Joeeph Walthour respectfully JIlC\/8 \:hi. court to grant him the prayer for: relief lIUblItantiated herein. af. In !lox oote, fA 16823 DatedJ 12 March 1996 (9) . IN '!lIB CXlR1' ~ aMOl Pr..EM CD ....AM) aluoU r, PI'HI3YLVMIA ci vll 01 vidoo - Law .....-ra pr--.wl pbh..iff -1lO- PIRIMNMIA IBl'AR'J'M!Wl' ~ . ~ T.u..Ia, Et al.. .. Be QJDI, ~- - 1....._.IIlIII'~, - ""~, 'I'IlIlRlr .uuWf, -...uI ~, JAY lft'III), CIYIL AC'l'ltII 1m. JURY TRIAL IBlNIED o.tl.d..L... BIIch dII.IIrIdl.4. ..-J Udlvf.t.."y in their _~1oJ. .....-"tty lD! in their affidal . -,.-..tt.ie8. VI!':RD'ICA'1'l I, J~ Walthour, do hereby declare under penalty provided by 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 (Ul'l8wom Fals1ficat1oo to AuthoriUes) that the facts asserted in the Verified Canpla1nt are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and infornat1a\. DATED: 12 March 1996 " a /' In ~!aPersonam Belly ,!}&Uefor.te, PA 16823 /' " '~ Jl ... - '~ - 1'1 ,') 1 " i ,,' . 1-" ~ . , r .. ~ >- ex ~ ~ o z w 0'" :r ~ ~o o:r ex~ Q..ex LL. ~ 00 wU U tt o '" "') !: -LLLU I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I , '- I fn, I I . I ~lLLl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ LJ '1'1 ~I ~. _. o. j ~I I I I I I I '" '" ... ... .n -. -- - -I I .. . ::> 0 u 3 .. .... .. III 8 ~ ... :J Qj :J UI ~ 0 a u ,: ,"' . ~ j g f. j ~ .... :J: ,"' .. ... > 0 .~ ,"' .... .... . u i . 0 .. 1 g! ~ 0 CD i .. '" .f on .. .... ~ I '" s: ~ '" .., . .. .... .. .. :z! ~ ~ :J: U ,s c ... .... ~ :J .... '... .1 r.. I I LL , I .- I I '" o .c .. '" ... .. 5 "'0 C ~ - s.. ~ ..c e ::J U C+- o ~ ... C ::J o U M ~ ~ .c .... E- s: 0 ... QI 8 ... .0: QI .... .... al 1: 9I7l1'I!MEHl' (II 'mE P~ 3. Phintiff, Joseph Walthour, is an adult l?ennsylvania citizen, who is presently incarcerated at the state Correctional Institution at Rockview, Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823. 4. Defendant Department of Corrections, (Hereafter roc) is a Cabinet Level Agency of the Pennsylvania state Government, and all such is the ~loyer of each of the following listed dIlfendants. In the official capacity of ~loyer, this dIlfendant is respcrsible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained its' employees to specifically carry out the policy which is the caUll8 of plaintiffs' injury. The central office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA. 5. Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the roc and is responsible for developing and carryilXj out the statewide policy which violated plaintiffs' ccnstitutional rights. His offic>> is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA. 6. Defendant(s) Joseph Mazurldewicz, Robert Meyers, Terry Whibnan, and Gregory Gaertner are employees of the DOC and as such carried out the policy which deprived the plaintiff of his due coorse, clue process, and equal protection rights. Their office is located at Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823. 7. Defendant Jay Stidd is employ>9d by the roc as a hearing examiner, and as such was trained by the roc, and in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due course, due pI'OCf'.3S and '3qUal protection rights. His place of ~ is Box A, Bellefalte, PA 16823, (every third week). 8. Each defendant is sued irrlividually and in their official capacities, each defenclar.t can 00 sl'lI'Wd at the central Office of PllI1llSylvania Department of Corrections. Box 598, OlMp /lill, PA 17001-0598. (2) 81'A'1'l'JII!Nl' or 'l'IIE CASE 9. This 18 a civil rights case for a constitutional tort, both state and federal, for the failure of the deferdants to apply "Due 0cur:'IIe and ~.- of law" equally to its incarcerated citizens. 10. The !XX: developed am maintains a policy which pe:cmits its Bl1ployees to use thR ~.., writtsJ, t.anay w1denoe as the BOle bIIlIia of acin1n1strative findings; in contraventim of inveterate Pennsylvania Jurisprudence, prohibiting this practice. 11. The rule [DC-lIK> 801 VI, A (3) Threatening l\nOther PerSall is so vague and broad, to be unoonstitutional. There are no elements to define the proscriptim, and as such has been arbitrarily and capriciously appl led to the plaintiff. 12. Defendant Jay Stidd, is not, and has never been an objective, iIl1part:ial fact finder, and m the date in g\.II1'.stion unequivocally stated he was not 1mpertial in deciding this case. 13. Each defendant refused to hc:ror and apply the timely raised affimative defense of administrative collateral eIltoppel and res judicata to the instant case. 15. Plaintiff seek,. a declaratory judgment, iniunctlV';l relief, and roonetary l.......'~ for this constitutional tort. PACTS 16. Cl'I October 27, 1995 a duly constituted Executive Camdttee (of the Drug Rehabilitation P~uy.ai11 at SCI-ROC, conducted an int:8rYent:ion ~, where the pla1ntiff was brought before it, and chargOO with a possible threat to an officer. (3) 17. officer S. Walbnan stated specically he did not hear the oooclusion of plaintiffs' statement, what he heard was 'I couldn't wait Witil sanething happelled' . 18. The Executivu carmitte3 ooocluded no threats were established and sanctioned the plaintiff to thirty (30) days clean-up duty for an attitudinal adjusbnent. 19. unsatisfied with the cr:mnittees' sanction, the officor wroto a rnisca1duct report on the plaintiff. 20. 'l1rls misconduct was d1smissed by defendant Stidd. However, the defendant instructed the officer to change the misoonduct nl(lort fran a threat to staff, to that of another person, and he would accept it for a hearing. 21. A misconduct hearing was convened by defendant Stidd whore plaintiff was sworn in and denied he made the statement he tOlld cane out of his cell and smash 8011l!body in the face. 22. Timely objections were made to the adnission of the unsworn, written hearsay report of Officer Waltman. These objections were ignored. 23. 'l't1e affirmative defense(s) of l\ctninistrative Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata were tinely raised [citing the fact a duly <.u.~ and recognized adninistrative adjunct lo.t1ose &:,.;~..6S have the force of law in the pro.,,4d111 had decided the same issues between the same parties) and dIlniecJ. 24. A tinely request was made for dismissal for want of constitutional specificity, [the chiU'qe as outline<! by 801, has no definition, am no definition of its elements.) this defense was denied. (4) 25. PlaintHf challenqed the impartiality of the examiner, defendant (Sti&:l), citing his participation in the rewrite, directing the officer what to charge. ttds challenge was denied. In Ute ..:ow:se of his aGministratiw, quasi-judicial lllISings, defermnt Sti&:l stated -n. c:r;adihtltty of the .....ndJct ~.......L .. quMt1a1able, hioIoIIMsr, I do not vant to ~ CIII8 of ., officers wu1d lie.. 26. Three defense witnesses testified in essence, they heard every word plaintiff said at the Intervention Hearing, that he did not say he was going to cxxre out of his cell and smash sanebody in the face. 27. No sworn evidence was prMSlted against the plaintiff, no witnesses or other evidence was offered against plaintiff. 28. Defendant sti&:l made his adnin1stratiw finding based solely upon the written, unsworn, hearsay report of officer Walbnan. The finding adjudged the plaintiff guilty, and sanctioned him to time served (seven days hole time) and a class I, classification of the misoonduct infraction. 29. Plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the P~uy~..m Review OCmnittee (DefeOOant(s) Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner) who by lawful authorization must uJue.::t oonstitutiooal violations. on NcM!mber 16, 1995, each defendant upheld the policy of the OOC, and agreed with the action of defeOOant Sti&:l. 30. Plaintiff next raised these issues with defendant Mazurkiewicz, who also is required by lawful authority to correct: constitutional \'iolations. on NcM!lItler 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the DOC and a~ upheld the action of defendant(s) stidd, Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner. (51 31. Plaintiff ralsed tho IIlRUU wIth t.h" Cuntral !JHIe'l Hcview Ccmnittee, (the DOC itself), answorinq for thlt dufond.mt aqency, on January 2, 1996, defendant Mark Guzd, upheld the actiolUl of each of tho precedinq defendants, and agreed with treir actions taken in this CftBe. 32. Each defanclant knew or should have known their acts, actions, and anissions violated well establiRhed princIples of pennsylvania law, which; prohibited use of hearsay evi'lt!nce as the sole hash of an administrative finding; I\llU that both fEdora 1 alkl state constitutions required specific (clearly c1afined) nutice of prohibltorl behavior. lflHfIl' CNJflF. Ot' ACI'IOO 33. oefanmnt Dlpclrtment of CorACtiOlUl violated plaintiffs Due Course and procellS r!qhts, by devo1opin" and enforcing a policy which permitted its employoos to Mke adl1linilllL'dl:1vOl findings, based exclullively upon timely objectlld \:0 he!lrsay ftvi~. ^ pll1cy they knew or should have known viulatlld long lllltabUshutl principlea of Punnllylvania Jurisprudence which prohibits thia practice, Plaintiff aoeks an injunction expunging his record of all rofe~nOil to thbl adrninistrative t1nilinq. flfUH) CNJSE CP ACl'IOO 34, Defllncldnt Qapartl1lent of Corrections violated plaintiffs Due Course and process ri<jhtll, by ooV\;lopinq and enforcing a policy which failed to define with constitutionally ~"A1uir...J llpeclticity, elements of the conduct it: sought: to prohibit., by the prollulqation of administrative Directive B01. Plaintiff Sl3<l1<3 an injunction expungIng his record of all reference to this administrative firdinq. (6) '1'HIRD CI\DSB " 1Cl'Iaf 35. Defendant Jay St:iO::I violated plaintiffs' rights to 'cbI ooune and cbI ....: 1 of t.v' by maIdng an adn1nistrative finding aga1n/lt him on solely, timely cbjected to hearsay evidence. In relief plaintiff -'cs in excess of $10,000.00 in ....,..-_tory damages, $10,000.00 in ~tive damages, and an injunction expmqinq plaintiffs' 1'I!lC(kd of any reference to the adninistrative finding. FaRl'B CIlIlSE " ACl'lOI 36. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'cbI ooune and cbI .....: - of law' by refUllinq to honor the defer.se of Collateral estoppel, and res judicata. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in OCIlpllSlltory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expunginq plaintiffll' reocmi of any reference to the acininistrative finding. FIr1'B CI\DSB " 1Cl'Iaf 37. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'cbI ooune and cbI ...c'Q- r f of law' by issuinq a sanction for an unoonstitutiCl1ally wque pr:oscr1ption against scnl form of behavior. In relief pla1ntJ.ff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in ......,~tory danages, $10,000.00 in ~tive damages, and an 1n:luncticn ~ plaintiffs' reoorll of any reference to the adn1nistrative finding. SImI CI\DSB " 1Cl'Iaf 38. Defendant(s) Mazurldewicz, Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due oourse and ..........-s rights by enforcinq the department 1X>licy which was clearly contrary to wll established Pennsylvania Jurisprudence which prohibited fi.nd1n;Js by aaninistrative agencies predicated solely upon hearsay evidence (tJ.rnely cbjected to). (7) In relief plaintUf M8ka in exce.s of $10,000.00 in c:anpensatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitiv. d.Imaqu, and an injunction expunging plaintiffll' record of any nfeJ:WlCl8 to the .an1n1lltratiw tinding. 8Il'mmI OUBB CP ACl'Iaf 39. [)Jfendant Mark Gu:ni violate1 plaintifts due courIIe and process rights by dr.Ieloping and carrying out, a policy which permitted the roc's IIIIployMa to IMIut Ittninistratiw tinding. solely upon timely objected to heuaay, written reports. A policy he knew or reasonably should have knl:Mn, violated clearly Nt eatablilhed Pwln8ylvania Law. In relief plaintiff seeks in exc:u. of $10,000.00 in .....,.-'\Ntory dalMges, $10,000.00 in punitive damageI, and an injunction ~ing plaintiffs' reoord of any reference to the Idminiltntiw tindim. lUutmt 0llSIlI: CP AC'1'ltN 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffs due course and process riqhta by ~loping, carrying out, and upholdinq a policy which &>.nied the plaintiff due CXIUl'H and due 1'"..-..5 of law, by denying the use of affirmative adniniltrativ. dlIfenHII in IIdninistrative hearings. A policy he knew or reucnahly ahould haw known, violated clearly set establillhed Pennsylvania lAw. In relief plaintiff IIeek.8 in excess of $10,000.00 in oanpensatory ~, $10,000.00 in punitive dllmagos, i\o-,d an injunction expunging plaintiffs' l't!O<Ad of any reference to the lIdninistrative findinq. tmmI ClImE CP J\C'l'IOO 41. Defendantls) Milzurkiewicz, Meyers, Whibnan, and Cam:tner -nolated plaintiffs' due coorse and process riqhts by enforcing the d.;.partrnent poliC)' (8) which was clearly contrary to well established Pennsylvania Jurisprudence, reoognizinq Adninistrative Collateral Estoppel and Res JUdicata as affirmatiw def_ in adn1n1strative hearings. In relief pla.intitf seek.? in excess of $10,000.00 in .........._tory damages, $10,000.00 in pmitive damages, lIIld an injunct1CX1 expmq1ng plaintiffs' ~..J of any reference to the lIdninistrative timing. 'l'!Rl'B CAmS at ~ 42. Each defendant violated pla.intifts right to equal .....A:...'l1al under the J.., guarante.i by both the state and fede..-al ccnstituticns of the un1ted states of America and Pennsylvania. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in Gu.'t"'IlSlltory damages, $10,000.00 in pmitive damages, and an injunct1CX1 expunging plaintiffs' .cecord of any reference to the adninistrative fiming. (DII"'I'~ 43. Plaintiff has no plain and or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a ne.:-1aratory JUdgment, this, and such other relief deemed appropriate by the CXlllJ:t:, and he Shall E'UeI: Pray. M1erefore Plaintiff, Joseph walthour respectfully I11ClII'B this CXlllJ:t: to grant him the prayer for relief substantiated herein. Datedz 12 March 1996 (9) if IN 'DIE a:rm c:I ~ PUAS aMlI!:RIN<<) ...........n', l'I!HtsYLVAND civil Divisioo - Law ............ MlUJDD.R Pla1ntift -V'- I I I I I I I l'PllN!lYLVNaA rEPARDI'Rl' c:I ~1".I.I.I'IS, Et al.. No. A.D. 199'- _ Is68 e.~..::r~ TYPE OF IXlClJMENl'1 Canplaint Filed on Behalf OFI JOBeph Walthour Plaintiff/Petitioner CXllJNSEL OF REXXJm RR THIS PARTYI Joseph Walthour In Propria Persa1am Box A CF2911 Bellefoote, PA 16823 DATEDI 12 March 1996 b-~ at 1'HE PARrIES 3. plaintiff, Jose!il walt:hour., is an adult Pennsylvania citizen, who is presently J.ncarcerated at the state correctialal Institution at Rockview, Bole A Bellefonte, PA 16823. 4. Defendant Department of corrections, (Hereafter OOC) is a Cabinet Level Aqency of the Pennsylvania state GoverTvnent, am as such is the employer of each of the following listed defendants. In the official capacity of ~loyer, this defeRJant is responsible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained its' employees to specifically carry out the policy which is the cause of plaintiffs' injury. The central office is located at Bole 598, Camp Hill, PA. 5. Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the roc and is re...,alSible for developing and carrying out the statewide policy which violated plaintiffs' ocnstitutional rights. His office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA. 6. DeferKlant(s) Joseph Mazurkiewicz, Robert Meyers, Terry \o4libnan, am Gregory Gaertner are employees of the OOC and as such carried out the policy which deprived the plaintiff of his due course, due prccess, am equal protection rights. Their office is located at Box A, Bellefoote, PA 16823. 7. Defendant Jay Stidd is employOO by the roc as a hearing examiner, am as such was trained by the roc, am in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due course, dup. pI'OOP.5S and '3qUal protectioo rights. His place of work is Box A, Bellefoote, PA 16823, (every third week). 8. Each defendant is sued individually am in their official capacities, each defendant can 00 s~ at: the central Office of PeMsylvania Depnrtment of COrrections. Box 596, emf' Hill, P,' 17001-0598. (2) S'fA'1'!JI!Hl' at' 1'HE CASE 9. This i8 a civil rights case for a constitutional tort, both state and federal, for the failure of the defendants to apply "Due 0CUIw .ad ~..; of Lw" equally to its incarcerated citbens. 10. The roc developed and mainbil1ll a policy which permits its eq>loyMa to use ~ ""u, written, ~ evidenoII as the m1e bIIII1a of adnin.btrative find1ngsj in contravention of inveterate Pennsylvania Jurisprudence, prohibiting this practice. 11. The rule [DC-AKJ 801 VI, A (3) 'l11reat:ening AnotheJ: Person] is 80 vague and broad, to be unoonstitutiooal. There are no elements to define the proscription, and as such has been arbitrarily and capriciously aP{ll1ed to the plaintitt. 12. Defendant Jay Stidd, is not, and !la8 never been an objective, iI11partial fact finder, and en the date in questioo unequivocally stated he was not impartial in decicl1ng this case. 13. Each defendant refused to honor and apply the timely raised affirmative &!fans'l of adninistrative collateral eIltoppel and res judicata to the instant case. 15. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, in1lDlctiV'! relief, and I1D'l8tary r~,~ for this constitutional tort. PACTS 16. On OCtober 27, 1995 a duly constituted Exl!CUtive Camlittee (of the Drug Rehabilitation P~~....m at SCI-ROC, ccnclucted an interwnt:ia1 heIIrlnq, where the plaintiff was brought before it, ann charql'Jd with a possible threat to an officer. (3) 11. officer S. waltman stated spec:ically he did not hear the CXlIlClusion of plaintiffs' statElllellt, what he heard was 'r couldn't wait until sanethinq happened' . 18. The Executilltl cxmnitl:e3 OOl1Clucled no threats were established and sanctiOO8Cl the plaintiff to thirty (30) daytl clean-up duty for an attitudinal adj ustrrent. 19. unsatisfied with the cxmnittees' sanction, the officer wrote a miscon:luct report on the pWntiff. 20. This mi!3C:ClOOuct was dismissed by defendant Stidd. Ha.rIeVer, the defendant instructed the officer to change the misoonduct report fran a threat to staff, to that of another person, and he would accept it for a hearing. 21. A misconduct hearing was c:onvened by defendant stidd whore plaintiff was s~rn in and denied he made the statement he ~uld cane out of his cell and smash somebody in the face. 22. Timely objections were made to the admission of the 1lrlSIoIOm, written hearsay report of Officer Waltman. These objections were igoored. 23. The affirmative defense(s) of l\d'ninistrative Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata were timely raised [citing the fact a duly .....I~ and recognizP.d aaninistrative adjunct whose decrees have the force of law in the program had decided the same issues between the sarre parties] and denied. 24. A timely request was made for dismissal for want of constitutional specificity, [the charge all outlined by 801, has no definition, and no definition of its elElllellts.) this defense was denied. (4) 25. Plaintiff challenqecl the impartiality of the examiner, defendant (Stidd), citing his participation in the rewrite, directing the officer what to charqe. This challenge was denied. In the course uf his adnirJ.sb.ati~, quasi-judicial nusJnqs, defendant Stidd stated "'rtIe cr-'itrlltty of the ~ .........l .. ~e, ~, I do IlCIt WIlt to ....It_ CIl8 of .,. off1cen tiClIld lie.. 26. Three defense witnesses testified in essence, they heard every word plaintiff said at the Intervention Hearing, that he did not say he was going to CXllIlB out of his cell and smash sanebody in the face. 27. No lIWOm evidence was presented against the plaintiff, no witnesses or other evidence was offered against plaintiff. 28. Defendant Stidd made his aaninistrative finding based solely upon the written, unsworn, hearsay report of officer Walbnan. The finding adjudged the plaintiff guilty, and sanctioned him to time served (seven days hole time) and a class I, classification of the misconduct infraction. 29. plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the P"'''Jull1 Review Ccmnittee (Defendant(s) Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner) who by lawful authorization nust oorrect constitutional violations. on NcM!mber 16, 1995, each defendant upheld the policy of the DOC, and agreed with the action of defendant Stidd. 30. Plaintiff next raised these issues with defendant MazurkiewiCZ, who also is required by lawful authority to correct constitutional violations. on NcM!mber 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the DOC and agreed upheld the action of defendant(s) stidd, Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner. (5) 31. Plaintiff raised the issue with the Central Officl~ Review Carmittee, (the OOC itself), answering for the defendant agency, on January 2, 1996, defendant Mark Guzzi, upheld the actions of each of the preceding defendants, and agreed with their actions taken in this case. 32. Each defendant knew or should have known their acts, actions, and anissiol'ls violated wll established principles of Pennsylvania law, which I prohibited use of hearsay evidence as the sole basis of an administrative timing; and that both federal and state constitutions required specific (clearly d<i!finErl) notice of prohibited behavior. FIRSl' CJUm: OF ACl'IOO 33. DefE:lldant Department of COrrections violated plaintiffs Due COurse and process rights, by developing and enforcing a policy which peI1TIitted its employees to make adm1nist~dtiv~ findings, based exclusively upon timely objected to hearsay evidence. A policy they knew or should have known violated long established pdnciplell of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence which prohibits this practice. plaintiff seeks an injunction expunging his record of all reference to this administrative finillng. SfXDI) CJUm: OF ACl'IOO 34. Defer.dant Department of COrrections violated plaintiffs Due COurse and process rights, by developing and enforcing a policy which failed to define with constitutionally l'",,!uirec:l spec1ficity, elements of the conduct it sought to prot,ibit, by the promulgation of administrative Directive 801. Plaintiff se<>.ks an injunction expunging his record of all reference to this administrative firrling. (6) 'ftIIRD CNlBE CI1 ~ 35. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' right. to 'due ~ and ~ ...<)0 of J.t' by mak1nq an aaninistrative finding aqaiNt him 00 solely, tJnaly objected to ManaY evidence. In relief plaintiff .-ka in exc:eas of $10,000.00 in .....,..-_tory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damaqes, and en injunct:1oo expunqing plaintiffs' 40..::0.:11 of any reference to the Idninisb:ative finding. nuG'I1 CAIIlE CI1 JIC1'lDI 36. Defendant Jay stidd violated plaintiffs' right. to 'due ~ and ~ ..... 1 - of J.t' by refusing to hooor the defense of COllateral estoppel, and res judicata. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in .......__tory damages, $10,000.00 in pmitive damages, and en injunct:1cn expunqing plaintiffs' 1'....:l.:d of any reference to the adninistrative findinq. PIP'l'B CAIIlE CI1 JIC1'lDI 37. Deftlldant Jay stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due ~ and due ....>, of law' by isllUing a sanction far en unccnstitutiooally vague proscriptial against sane form of behaviar. In relief plaintiff seeks in ---..- of $10,000.00 in ........._tory damaqes, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunctioo expunging plaintiffs' re.......d of any reference to the Id1dn:l.sb:ative finding. sum CNlBE CI1 llCl'1CIf 38. Defendant(s) Mazurkiewicz, Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due CXA11'lI8 and ~............s rights by enforcing the department policy which was clearly contrary to well established Pennsylvania JUrisprudence which prohibited findings by administrative agencies predicated solely up:ll\ hearsay evidence (timely objected to). (7) In relief plaintiff .-lea 1n excess of $10,000.00 in ~1~lNtory damag., $10,000.00 1n pun1tiw (.ama<;.3l\, and an 1njuR;'tion expunq1nq plaintiff.' ncord of UI'J refeJ:WlCle to the adt11n1atratiw f1nd1nq. SIM!Ift'H CADBB at' ACl'lOf 39. Dl!fendant &'ark Guui violate1 plaintifta due CQlAe and pl'OOlIIIII right. by deve1op1nq lLrxi c:a:rry1ng out, a polley which permitted the lXlC'. IlI1ployees to I11IIke adn1n1strati... f1nd1n;s solely upon tJ.mely object:Ald to ManaY, written reports. A polley he knew or rMsonably should have known, violated clearly set established P8nn8ylvania Law. In reUef pla1ntiff IIeI!ka 1n exoIIIS of $10,000.00 1n ......,...wutatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damlIgea, and an injunction 8lqUIlJ1nq plaintiffS' record of any reference to the adlninistratiw f~. JS.1I.Iuu ~ (F JC1'IQI 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffs doo course and process rights by dev8lop,tng, carrying out, and upholding a ~Uey which denied the plaintiff due oourse and due ~uCedS of law, by deny1nq the use of affirmative adn1n1stratiw def_ in aan1n18tratiW hearings. A poliey he knew or reuonably should haw 1cncMI, violated clearly set est.abli9hed Pennsylvania Law. In relief p1a1nt.tff seeks 1n exoeBlI of $10,000.00 in ~1~..el1satory ~, $10,000.00 1n pun1tiw damages, MCl an injunction expunq1ng plaintiffs' ~ of any reference to the at:b1n18trative f1nd1nq. NDmI <XIlE at' ACl'lQf 41. Defendant(s) Mazurldewicz, Meyers, WhitJran, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due course and process rights by enforcing the clo?part'JTlent poliC)' (8) lIIh1ch WILl clearly ccntrary to wll utablillhed PenI\Iylvan1a JUrisprudelloe, nooguh1.nq Adniniatrati... Q:lllateral Estoppel and RIle JUdicata .. affb:matiWl det_ in 'Idn1.nietrati... hearings. In relief plaintiff ..u in exou. of $10,000.00 in "'O.....llIlltory dan\ageII, $10,000.00 in punitiWl damages, and an injumtion aplDJing plaintiff.' n.Ard of any referwlO8 to the 8dnini.trati.... finding. 'ftlNl1I CMJSB ar IiC'l'ICfi 42. Each defemant violated plaintiff. right to equal ....A....um \lIIdBE' t:ha laIf, guaranteeS by both the .tate and federal ccnatitutia1ll of the t1n1ted states of Am8rlca and Pennsylvania. In relief p1a.1nt1ff seek8 in exous of $10,000.00 in ...o,"'lSatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expu;IIJing plaintiff.' ..-..)4.] of any reference to the 8dninistrative finding. <DICLllSlDf 43. plaintiff has no plain and or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a Declaratory Judc}nent, this, and such other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and he Shall E\'8r Pray. Wherefore Plaintiff, JoseP1 walthour respectfully move this court to grant him the prayer for relief substantiated herein. In Box efonte, PA 16823 Datedl 12 March 1996 (9) -Y- I I S : CIVIL 1Cl'JDI tIl, JUri 'DUAL [J!J4NO!D IN _ aua' or aMOt l"[.DS (]IIIlEIlINI> cxnm, PI'JlMS'lLVH'IA Civil Division - taw . . ~~ pJ.ainl;iff s . . ~~ or ~r~, Et al.. MNIIt B. QIIZl, ~~OI, .........1 M!'~~, 'l'IIlRf 1aJ;d'WI, ~ GAJ!Rl'!d, JAY 9l'DD, . . S I . . DBf_o..d:S. !'ACh dBf...&Dt ...a indlviflo-lly in tJ18U .......ooal ~.-tty aid in tJ18U off1dal """,.-ttie8. I : YOU have been sued in COlrt. If 'pl wish to defeOO againSt the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twnty (20) days after this CCI1IPlaint and notice are served, by enterlng a written a~ ~llY or by attorneY and filing in writing with the COlrt yo.rr defenses and objections to the clatms set forth againSt you. YOU are warned that if 'pl fail to do 80 the case may prcoeed withoUt furthaX' notice for any rraey c1.a1Jned in the CCI1IPlaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. YOU may loose lI1Or18Y or property or other rights 1Jnportant to 'pl. rcnCE'lUlJU'rHl l(JJ lP'"'IlfD T.NlE 'l'HlS PN'D 'lU 'lOOK UIftfJl AT acE. IF 'tOO DO tOr HAVE A LAJM!R at eM tOr AftOlD am, ro 'lU CR ~ '1'IIE ur.10!: sgr f(lml ~ 'lU I'D<<> 00'l' 1IPB l(JJ eM tZr BBlR. court MmJnistrator 4th Fl. C\IIIberland county c:ourthCJUSl! carlisle, PA 17013 STA'1'IM!Hl' or 'l'HE E'AR'J'IES 3. plaintiff, Josep/'. Walthour, is an adult Pennsylvania citizen, who is present:ly incarcerated at the state Correctional Institution at Rockview, Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823, 4, Deferv.iant Department of Corrections, (Hereafter 1XlC) is a Cabinet Level Agency of the Pennsylvania state Goverm1eIlt, and as such is the employer of each of the following listed deferxlants. In the official capacity of l!IIq)loyer, this defen:lant is responsible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained its' l!IIq)loyees to specifically carry out the policy which is the cause of plaintiffs' injury. The central office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA. 5. Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the DOC and is responsible for develop1.nq am carrying out the statewide policy which violated plaintiffs' CXlIlStitutional rights, His office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA. 6. Defendant(s) Joseph Mazurldewicz, Robert Meyers, Terry Whibnan, am Gregory Gaertner are employees of the DOC am as such carried out the policy which deprived the plaintiff of his due course, due process, and equal protection rights. Their office is located at Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823. 7. Defendant Jay Stidd is employOO by tho DOC as a hearing examiner, am as such was trained by the DOC, am in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due course, due procP.!IS and equal protection rights. His place of wrk is Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823, (every third we)(). 8. Each defen:lant is sued individually am in their official capacities, each defendant can be served at the central office of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Box 598, Camp lIi11, PA 17001-0598. (2) srAl'IM!Hl' or 'nIB CASE 9. Thi.s is a civil rights case for a constitutional tort, both stat. and federal, for t:M failure of the defendants to apply "Due ~ .m 1'&-. .11 of law" equally to its incarcerated citizens. 10. The ccx: developed and maintains a policy which permits its emplOV-S to use 01SI ...., vrlttsl, helInay ev1denoe as the BOle basi8 of adninistrative find1BJS; in contravention of inveterats Pennsylvania Jurisprudence, prohibiting this practice. 11. The rule [DC-AK> 801 VI, A (3) 'ttlreatening Another Person) is so vague and broIIId, to be unconstitutional. There are 00 elements to define the proscription, and as such has been arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the plaintiff. 12, Defendant Jay Stidd, is not, and has newr been an objective, 1Inpart:ial fact finder, and al the date in guestial unequivocally stated he \1OS not impartial in deciding this case. 13. Each defendant refused to honor and apply the timely raised affirmative defansa of administrative collateral estoppel and res judicata to the instant case. 15. plaintiff seeks a declaratory juc1<Jnent, injunctiw relief, and monetary r-.....""'1S8 for this constitutional tort. PACTS 16. Ql October 27, 1995 a duly constituted Executive camdttee (of the Drug Rehabilitation Program at SCI-ROC, c:xnlucted an inteI:Yential heedng, where the plaintiff was brought before it, and chargfld with a possible threat to an officer. (3) 17. officer S. waltman stated specically he did not hear the conclusion of plaintiffs' statement, what he heard was 'I oouldn't wait until sanething haPl* led' , 16. 'l1l8 !':llec:utive ocmn1tte! concluded no threats were established and sanctioned the plaintiff to thirty (30) days clean-up duty for an attitudinal adjustment. 19, unsatisfied with the c:amdttees' sanction, the officer wrote a millCClOOuct report on the plaintiff. '20. This misca1duct was dismissed by defendant Stidd, IIotIever, the defendant instructed the officer to change the misconduct report fran a threat to statt, to that of another person, and he would accept it for a hearing. 21. A misccnduct hear1.nq was convened by defendant stidd whl)re plaintiff was sworn in and denied he made the statement he would ane out of his cell and !lI118sh scmebody in the face. 22. Timely objections were made to the actn1ssion of the 1lllS'NOm, written hearsay report of Office.t' Waltman. These objections ware ignored. 23. The affirmative defense(s) of Adnini9trative Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata were t1nely raised [citing the fact a duly c::o.JIXlSed and El!C09nJ.zP.d administrative adjunct whose decrees have the force of law in the pl()o,juffi had decided the same issues between the same parties] ard denied. 24. A timely request was made for dismissal for want of constitutional specifiCity, [the ch.u:ge as outliner! by 1l01, has no definition, am no definition of its elements.] this defense was denied. (4) 25. Plaintiff challenqed the impartiality of the exar1iner, defendant (Stidd), citing his participation in the rewrite, directing the officer what to charge. This challenge was denied. In the <.:ourse of his iUnirJ.strative, quaai-juclictal nusings, defendant Stidd stated "'rhe cr-'thtltty of the .t---4Jct ..........t _ ~., ~, I do not ~ to ...tt_ one of ., offialn wuld u... 26. 'I'hreI'I de~ense witnesses testified in essence, they heard fNery lolOrd plaintiff said at the Intervention Hearing, that he did not say he was going to ocme out of his cell and smash sanebody in the face, 27, No sworn evidence was presented against the plaintiff, no witnesses or other evidence WILl offered against plaintiff. 28. Defendant Stidd made his administrative finding based solely upon the written, unsworn, hearsay report of Officer Waltman. The findinq adjudged the plaintiff guilty, and sanctioned him to time served (seven days hole time) and a class I, classification of the misconduct infraction. 29. Plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the p.Oo;t.am Review camdttee (Defendant(s) Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner) who by lawful authorization IIIISt .............1: constitutional violations. On November 16, 1995, each defendant upheld the policy of the ro::, and agreed with the action of defendant Stidd. 30, Plaintiff next raised these issues with defendant Mazurkiewicz, who also is required by lawful authority to correct constitutional violations. On November 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the DOC and agree:! upheld the action of defendant(s) Stidd, Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner. (5) 31. Plaintiff raisej the issue with the central Office Roview Committee, (the roc itself), answering for the defendant aqency, on January 2, 1996, defendant Mark Guzzi, upheld the actions of each of the preceding defendants, and agreed with their actions taken in this case. 32. Each defendant knew or should have known their acts, actions, and anissions violated _11 established principles of Pennsylvania law, which; prohibited use of heaJ.'say evidence as the sole basis of an aclmin1strative findinq; alld that both federal and state constitutions required specific (clearly defined) notice of prohibited behavior. FIRSl' cum: OF ACl'IOO 33. Defendant Depd.rtment of Corrections violated plaintiffs OllS Course and process rights, by developing and enforcing a IXllicy which permitted its employees to make adminisLt:ativtl findings, based exclusively upon timely objected to hearsay evidence. A IXlUcy they knew or should have known violated long estabUshccl principles of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence which prohibits this practice. Plaintiff seeks an injunction expungilXJ his record of all reference to thb administrative finilinq. SEXDI> C\llSE OF l\C'l'ICR 34. Defer.dant Department of Corrections violated plaintiffs Due Course and process rights, by deV6lopinq and enforcing a IXllicy which failed to define with constitutionally r",,!uireci specificity, elements of the conduct it sought to prohibit, by the pranulgation at administrative Directive 801. Plaintiff SeP..!<3 an injunction expunging his record of all reference to this ac1n1nistrative finilinq. (6) 'l'HIRD CNJBB or ACl'lOf 35, Defendant Jay st1dd violated plaintiffs' rights to ,~ CXJUne ...s cIu. .... . Tl of :t./' by makinq an adnLnhtrati... finding againIt him on BOlely, t:JnIUy cbjected to hearsay evidence. In relief plaintiff .-ka in exous of $10,000,00 in .....,......llIlll:ory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injlmCtion expung1.nq plaintiffs' record of any refU<<lC8 to the Idninistrati.... finding. PaR1'R CNJBB or ACl'lDf 36, Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due alUI1I8 ...s cIu...... . of law' by mus1.nq to honor the defense of Q:lllatera1 estoppel, and res judicata. In relief plaintiff seeks in 8lCClI8S of $10,000.00 in ......""'l8lltory damages, $10,000.00 in pmitive damages, and an injunction expunr;J1.nq plaintiffs' record of any reference to the adninistrative finding. P'IPM CNJBB or ACl'lOf 37. Defendant Jay St1dd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due CXJUne ...s clJB ..\): of law' by issu1.nq a sanction for an unconstitutionally Vll9U8 proscription against sane form of behavior, In relief plaintiff seeks in ~s of $10,000,00 in .....,...llIlltory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive ~, and an injunction expr.nJ1.nq plaintiffs' reooId of any reference to the Ilininistrative fin:linq, SImI ODSB or ACl'lOf 38. Defendant(a) Mazurldewicz, Meyers, Wh1bnan, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due ccune and process rights by enforc1.nq the department polley which WILl clearly ccntrary to well established Pennsylvania JUrisprudence which prohibited findinga by adninistrative agencies predicated 80lely upon hearsay evidence (t1mely cbjected to). (7) In nlief plaintiff .-k.s in exOllS4 of $10,000.00 in OOII.....,nsatory damages, $10,000.00 in pu;1iti.... Camilges, and an injlllll."tiCXl 8l!pUIlCJing plaintiffs' record of any nferwlCe to the adninistraUve finding, llIM!!ft'H CIlIJBE or JCI'Il>>f 39. Defendsnt Mark Guzzi violate:! plaintiff8 due c:x:RIrlMI and process rights by developing and carrying out, . policy which permitted the lXlC's ~ to make actninistrative find1n;r8 solely upon timely objected to hearaay, written reports. A policy he knew or reasonably should hAve known, violated clearly set established Pennsylvania taw, In relief plaintiff seeks in woee. of $10,000.00 in .....,..-lAtory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expunging plaintiffs' record of any reference to the administrative finding. IU.....UI CIllEE c:r AC'fI(If 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffs din course and process rights by dev8lopinq, carrying out, and upholding a policy which denied the plaintiff due course and due .............8 of law, by deny1.nq the use of affimative adn1n1stratiw defenses in acbinistrative hearin]s. A policy he knew or reasonably should have known, violated clearly set established PennsylvCU1i.l Law. In relief plaintiff seeks in &""""1I of $10,000.00 in canpensatory ~, $10,000.00 in punitiw cZnaqes, AAcl an injunction expJnging plaintiffs' re....&d of any reference to the actninistrative finding. NDmI CNJSE or ~ 41, Defendant(s) Mazurkiewicz, Meyers, Whitman, and Caertner '1iolat:ed plaintiffs' due course and process rights by enforcing the d'<'partment policy (81 which WILl clearly ccntrary to well establ.illhed Pennsylvania JUrisprudence, xeoogn.izing iV:ln.in.i.trative Q:lllatera1 Estoppel and Res Judicata All aff.irmatiw def__e j.n adninietrative hearings. In relief plaintHf eeeklI .in excess of $10,000,00 in <A.O,....usatory damaqllS, $10,000.00 in punitive damagu, and an injumtion expung1.nq plaintiffs' ~d of any reference to the lIIinin.istratiw fWing. 'nltmI omB C1i' ACl'IBf 42, Each defendant violated plaintiffs right to equal ....A-tim \lIIdBE' the laIf, guaranteeS by both the state and federal constitutions of the united states of Amerlca and Pennsylvania. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in <A.O,~tory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expung1.nq plaintiffs' record of any reference to the lIIinin.istrati.... fWing. <DlCUmCN 43. plaintHf has no plain and or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a Declaratory J\ldgIrent, this, and such other relief deel,ej appropriate by the court, alki he Shall E\'8r Pray. Wherefore Plaintiff, JoseP1 walthour respectfully move this court to grant him the prayer for relief substantiated herein. Datedl 12 March 1996 (9) IN 'l'BE CDRl' r.- aJMJI PU'AS a.IIERINC) <Dl.Ifl'Y, mHlYLVNfIA Civil Divisioo - Law Jall::l'H NN..~ PWntiff . -II'- PIlIINSlILVMlA IEPl\RltBft' CIf \............:&"IulB, a: al.. _ B. aJIII, ~~.LCZ, .. ,.~, 'l'IIlRlI' 1II1'JMl\H, ._......-I~, CIVIL 1C1'ltIf te. JtRY '!RIAL II'H\IIJ!D JAY 91'IID, Daf..dbntII. !a::h dBtaodtuL 8UI!ld 1nd1vf"'_l1y in their _....-1 . ,,- ity Iftf in their official ....p-i u.. 1mu.ruu ClVIL aJtPrADft' Plaintiff, JOfIeph l'ialthour, an incarcerated individual, brings this actioo in propria personam, in good faith, alleq1.nq the defen:lants have deprived him 'Due 0auI:88 of Law', 'Due taU -- of law', and 'equal pcatec:t:ial ..... the law'. S'l'N1DEN1' or .:JtIUSDIC.l'lm 1. The jurisdiction of this court is predicated upon the Pennsylvania Ccn8titutioo, Article I, 5 11, which states in pertinent part: "All Courts shall be operll and every man for an injury done to him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have ~ by due course of law, and right aM justice adnin1stt'ld without sale, cJE..n1al or deby." 2. The Court of Carmon Pleas of ClJnberland County, Fo..nnsylvania further has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C,S. ~ 912, 913 Et. Seq. 3. The venue of this CXlurt is based 00 Pa.R.Civ.P. RtJLB 1006 (A) . an action against an imividual may be brought in and only in the " . . . CXlUIlty in which . . . tha cause of action arose or where i\ transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action aI"ClM . . ." 8rM'I!HI'Nl' (II' 'l'HE PARl'IES 3. ?laintiff, Joserh walthour, is an. adult Pennsylvania citizen, who is presently incarcerated at the state Q:lrrectional Institution at Rockview, Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823, 4. Defendant Department of Q:lrrections, (Hereafter 1XlC) is a Cabinet Level Agerx:y of the Pennsylvania state covemnent, and as such is the employer of eacll of the follow1lYJ listed defendants. In the official CApacity of employer, this defendant is responsible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained its' employees to specifically carry out the policy which is the cause of plaintiffs' injury, 'rtle central offioe is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA. 5. Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the lX)C and is responsible for developing and carryilYJ out the statewide policy which violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. His office is located at Box 598, CdlIIp Hill., PA. 6, Defendant(s) Joseph Mazurkiewicz, Robert Meyers, Terry Whibnan, and Gregory Gaertner are employees of the lX)C and as such carried out the policy which deprived the plaintiff of his due course, due process, and f!CJUiIl protection rights. Their office is located at Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823. 7. Defendant Jay Stidd is employo;rl by the lX)C as a hear1.nq examiner, and as such was trained by the roc, and in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due course, due prooP-ss and equal protection rights, His place of work is Box A, Bellefoote, PA 16823, (every third week). 8. Each defendant is sued individually and in their official capacities, each defendant can be served at: the Central Office of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Box 598, Camp Hill, P,\ 17001-0598. (2) S'1'A'1'f'JII!N or 'ftIE CMB 9. 'l1lis is a civil rights oase for a constitutional tort, both state and federal, for the failure of the defendants to apply "nJe 0June and 1'..... of 1.-" equally to its incarcerated citizens. 10, 'l1le DOC developed and mainWns a policy which permits its ~loyees to use OWl au, mtt81, t.arsay ev1dBnclI .. the 80le I:l8s1s of adninistrative Undings; in contravention of inveterate Pennsylvania Jurisprudence, prch1bit1.nq this practice. 11. 'l1le rule [DC-AMD 801 VI, A (3) Threatening Another Person] is 80 vague and broIId, to be unconstitutional. There are no elElllElllts to define the proecrlpUon, and as such has been arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the plaintiff. 12. Defendant Jay Stidd, is not, and has never been an objective, impartial fact f1OOer, and on the date in questioo unequivocally stated he was not ~al in deciding this case. 13. Each defendant refused to honor and apply the timely raised affirmative defensa of adlIIinistrative collateral estoppal and res judicata to the instant case. 15. plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, in1unctill'!! relief, and rraletary r-.....'......_ for this constitutional tort. PACTS 16. ~ OCtober 27, 1995 a duly constituted Executive Catmittee (of the Drug Rehabilitation P.vy...m at SCI-ROC, ooncIucted an interwntJcn M8ring, where the plaintiff was brought before it, and charged with a possible threat: to an officer. (3) 17. Officer S. waltman stated specically he did not hear the conclusion of plaintiffs' statement, what he heard was 'r couldn't wait until sanething happeJ led' . 18. The r.xecutiVII c:cmnitt:ea CXlIlCluded no threats were established and sanctiooecl the plaintiff to thirty (30) days clean-up duty for an attitudinal ad:! ustment. 19, Unsatisfied with the ocmn1ttees' sanction, the officer wrote a misc:orduct repxt on the plaintiff. 20. This misccnduct was dismissed by defendant stidd. However, the defendant instructed the officer to change the misocnduct report fran a threat to staff, to that of another person, and he would accept it for a hearing. 21, A miSCXXlduct hear1.nq was convened by defendant stidd whore plaintiff was sworn in and denied he made the statement he would cane out of his cell and smash sanebody in the face. 22. Tilrely objections were made to the admission of the unsworn, written hearsay report of Officer Walbnan. These objections were igl1OIed. 23. 'l11e affirmative defense(s) of Arbini9trative Q:lUateral Estoppel and Res Judicata were t:inely raised [cit1.nq the fact a duly e<:allfOsed and recoyH.l.ZP.d aaninistrative adjunct whose decrees have the force of law in the 1'I"();4...n had decided the same issues between the same parties] and denied, 24. A timely request was made for dismissal for want of constitutional specifiCity, [the chilrge as outlined by 801, has no definition, and no definition of its elements.] this defense was denied, (4) 25. Plaintiff challenged the impartiality of the examiner, defendant (Stidd), citing his participation in the re.T1te, directinq the officer what to charge. This challenge was denied. In the CXJUrll8 of his adninistrativei quasi-judicial rrusin.Js, defendant Stidd stated "'l't1e c:r-'Hhiltty of the on-U1dd .....-t we ~e, ha_, I do not ~ to ....14-118 cne of "" offl.oen wuld lie.. 26. Tl1ree defense witnesses testified in essence, they heard fIVer'( word plaintiff said at the Intervention Hearinq, that he did not say he was going to CX1Ire out of his cell and smash sanebody in the face. 27. No sworn evidence was presented against the plaintiff, no witnesses or other evidence was offered against plaintiff. 28. Defendant stidd made his acininistrative finding based solely upon the written, unsworn, hearsay report of Officer Walbnan. 'l11e finding adjudged the plaintiff guilty, and sanctioned him to time served (seven days hole time) and a class I, classification of the misconduct infraction. 29. Plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the Program Review CamI1ttee (Defendant(s) Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner) who by lawful authorization lII1St conect constitutional violations. on Nc:M!mber 16, 1995, each defendant upheld the policy of the 1XlC, and agreed with the action of defendant Stic}j. 30. Plaintiff next raised these issues with defendant MazurkiewiCZ, who also is required by lawful authority to correct constitutional violatiOllll. on Nov8nber 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the IXlC and agreed upheld the act100 of defendant(s) stidd, Meyers, Whibnan, and GlIert:nu:. (5) 31. Plaintiff raised the issue with the Central Office Review Carmittee, (the DOC itself), ans~ing for the defendant agency, on January 2, 1996, defendant Mark Guzzi, upheld the actions of each of the prececUng deferdants, and agreed with their actions taken in this case. 32. Each defendant knew or should have known their acts, actioos, and anissions violated well established principles of Pennsylvania law, which; prohibited use of hearsay evidence as the sole basis of an administrative fin::ling; aJld that both federal and state constitutions required s?eCific (cleady defined) notice of prohibited behavior. FIRSl' CAmE (F AC'l'ICfi 3J. Defendant Department of Corrections violated plaintiffs Due COurse and process rights, by developing and enforcing a policy which permitted its employees to make adninisb:..Uve findings, based exclusivaly upon timely objected to hearsay evidence. A policy they knew or should have known violatad loog established principles of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence which prohibits this practice. plaintiff seeks an injunction expunging his record of all reference to thIs aaninistrative finUing. SHIRl CAmE CP AC'MOO J4. Defer.dant Department of Corrections violated plaintiffs Due COurse and process ri"hts, by developing and enforcing a policy which failed to define with constitutionally r~uired specificity, elements of the cooduct it sought to prohibit, by the pranulgation of ackninistrative Directive 801. Plaintiff seek3 an lnjunction expunging his record of all reference to this ac1n1nistrative finding. (6) 'ftIIRD CJlUSB CF AC'l'IOf 35. Defendant Jay stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'duB alUnII am duB .... : of laIf' by making an adnin1atrative finding againat him on solely, tiIlely objected to hei1nay evidence. In relief plaintiff 8Mk.8 in excess of $10,000.00 in ~I""_tory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injumtion expunq1.nq plaintiffs' reooxd of any reference to the adninistrative finding. 1'U.Kl1l CJlUSB or ACrICIf 36. Defendant Jay stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'duB coune am duB..... - of Jaw' by refusing to honor the defense of Q:lllatera1 estoppel, am res judicata. In relief plaintiff seeks in e:a:lll8S of $10,000.00 in ~_llIlltory damages, $10,000.00 in pmitive damages, and an injunction expung1.nq plaintiffs' record of any reference to the adnin1strative finding. P'IPl'H CJlUSB or AC'l'IOf 37. Defendant Jay stidd violated plaintiffs I rights to 'duB coune am ciJa .... "~ of Jaw' by issuing a sanction for an unconstitutionally vague ...o....dption against sane form of behavior. In relief plaintiff seeks in eJCIC8SS of $10,000.00 in ~I"""tory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive damages, am an injunction expunginq plaintiffs' 1........x<1 of any reference to the adninistrative finding, SIX'l'B CJlUSB or AC'l'IOf 38. Defendant(s) Mazurldewicz, Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due course and process rights by enforc1.nq the departl1&lt policy which was clearly contrary to well established Pennsylvania JUrisprudence which prdUbited f1nd1ngs by aar.1n1strative agencies predicated 8Ole1y upon hearsay evidence (timely objected to). (7) In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in ~''''lBatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, .and an injunctia'1 expung.l.nq r-laintiffs' record of any ref8J.'WlC8 to the adninistrative find1nq. SEVI!tmI CADSB or AC1'Iaf 39. Do!fendant Mark Guzzi violatfrl plaintiffs due course and prooesa rights by developing and carrying out, a policy which permitted the lXlC's l!II'()loyeeos to make adninistrative findings solely upon timely objected to hearsay, written reports. A policy he knew or rea9Olll1hly Bhould have known, violated clearly set established Pennsylvania Law, In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in ~I..,ensatory damages, $10,000.00 in plDlitive darnaqes, and an injunction elqXll'lqing plaintiffs' reom:d of any reference to the administrative fWin:J. .I5J.~J.1f ClI[lSE Q!' AC1'Im 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffs dua courae and prQ:l8SS rights by develop1.nq, carrying out, and upholding a policy which denied the plaintiff due course and due ~l.A.OODS of law, by denyinq the use of affirmative 8dninistrative defenses in adninistrative hearings. A policy he knew or reasa'lably should have known, violated clearly set est:ablillhed Pennsylvani.!. Law. In relief plaintiff seeks in 8lI''''''''' of $10,000.00 in ~1~lSatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitiw c2magtlS, iIl".cl an injunction expmging plaintiffs' rec::mll of any reference to the adniniutrative fin.ding. tmmI ODSE or 1C1'ICtf 41. Defendant(s) Mazurldewicz, Meyers, Whibnan, and Ca~ violated plaintiffs' due course and process rights by enforcing the ck>partment policy (8) . .....ar I .', ~ch was clearly ccnt:rarY to wll ..tab1ishlld Penl\lYlvania Jur1a~, ~..oognidng Adnini.trati.... collateral Estoppel ani IllIW Judicata as aftirmatiWl dI1fenM18 in adnirl1strative Marings. In relief plaintiff ..u in excess of $10,000,00 in .......~tory daInagM, $10,000,00 in pll'litiw dIImageII, and III 1njunct1on expunging plaintiff.' 1..........1 of any reference to the adm1n1stratiWl Unling. 'ftIlmI CNJSB or ACl'1Qf 42. Each defendant violated plaintiffs right to ~ ....Alaction ~ t:ha laIf, guaranteud by both the state and federal constitutionS of the t1n1ted states of AmBdca and PenIl8Ylvania. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in ......,~tory damageS, $10,000.00 in pmitiw damages, and III 1njunction expunging plaintiffs' l~d of any refeI'ClC8 to the adm1n1strative finding. (IP"'I' JWI1nI 43. plaintiff has no plain and or adequate ~eonedy at law, and seeks a ceclaratory J\.tdyauent, this, and such other relief dB ,M appropriate by the court, and he Sball Eve Pray. Wherefore plaintiff, JoseP1 walthour respectfully move this court to grant him the prayer for relief substantiated herein. In Box efonte, PA 16823 oatedl 12 MarCh 1996 (9) IN 'l'HE alR1' ar <XIMlf PIDS CDIER[NI) a:nn'Y, Pl!2HNLVMIA civil Division - t,l!lW ~ WlWl'IIX<iR p1a.1nt.1ff . . -yo : s s s a : CIVIL AC'1'lm NO. JtRY ftIAL tBlND'D l'IIRMNMIA IEPAR11lRfl' ar ~n.utS, Et al" K7l'ICIf PeR U'AVE '10 FILE AM) l'OO' ~ I IN l'alMA PMJll!RIS 'lU TIlE IDX)RABLE CHIEF JlJDGl); lIND/at JUDGE SITl'IOO BY DESIGlATION IN 'mE CXlURT OF a:MOl PLEAS roR TIlE CClUN1'Y OF c.umERLANOl lIND to, roms, yoor Petitioner, Joseph Walthour, in propria personam, who moves before the Bar, for leave to file and proceed in forma pauperis through each stage of the this prooeecling, inclusive of any appeals in the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts. Petitioner subnJ.ts he is the Plaintiff in this case, that he is a oa>r person without the financial means to defray the incidental coets of seeking justice, an:) he knows of no one who will step forward and defray the costs of this ACtion. Petitioner is 11 legally definable pauper an:) the redress he seeks, is in the public interest, an:) he is entit:led to, as a matter of law. Wherefore, petl.tioner respectfully request this court to grant him forma pauperis stat1JS throughout this proceeding; and he shall rely upon the attached affidavit in support of forma pauperiS, to establish his indigence. DATED: 12 March 1996 IN 'mE <DRl' ar ~ PU'AS aHlP.Rr.AM) a:.lIf'l'Y, I'IHIBYLVMIA civil Division - Law ~ IW4'IIDl Plaintiff -yo. : : : I S I S I S S I S : CIVIL IiC'l'ICfi M>. PIlRI'.lYI.VNlI t'fPARMIft' " I: I -'1-". T~, Et al.. Ml\RK B. QJIII, JOecrn ,~.I.un", -.." M!VBRS, '1'IlIlRJ' 1IIl'1MIlR, ~-~#...tt G\uQ~, .JAr 9I'JIIl, JURY TRIAL 1I!JWIJl!D Daf.1lo L..' w. F.ach def....L 8lBI indl".",..l1y in their _......al .,,-1ty IIId in their offic1al .... - of tt.. ORDBR AND oow this _ day of March _ 1996 upon CXlnlIideration of the Petitioner/Plaintiffs' Motion To FUe and ~ In Forma Pauperis, Verif1ed CClmplaint, and Verification, it is oe.........d IIId Cb.dtou.adol That the 1>laint:iff, Joseph Walthour, is granted leave to fUe and ps:o..-d in forma pauperis; That the forma pauperis status continues through any appeals, through and including the state SUprerre Court of Pennsylvania, until such action is finally litigated; That the Sheriff of CUmberland County is directed to make service upon the defemants in this case with this canplaint; That all defen:lants may be served at the Department of Corrections' central Office, located at P.O. Box 598 (Lisbon Road), Camp Hill, PA 17001, Further that the RDIZ is returnable by the day of 1996. BY THE a:lURT Judge ~~ p~f _'I- "'.... _ at - """ ~ -. -- Civil Division - Law ~~ or ~.)1JI!B, Et al,. ..- B. ~~ .,.....4R ~- , ~~' 'l'IJ1!1<< ~--, Ci-Jl! ~, Jt.Y grIIJ), oeflill,dl.l1t9 . p.ac:b ~ sued 1JG1,M'_ny in th81X P-~ tll'lI. -"~ ard in ~ offi.clal ~ -"~. s s : : s : , : : I I S : CIVIL ~ lC), JUlY 'EflDL ~ "" _ _ .... in -,. If yo> wi'" '" '"''''' "".... .... c""" ... ""'" In .... """""" _. yo> -' ..,.. """" wi.... -"" ,2OJ .. ..... _ _,.,.. "" ...... ... ........ '" ........ a ""-"'" .~.....,. ,...-.Uy a< '" .._ ... ,,- in ""..... wi'" .... -' ;::;;-...- ... "",- '" .... .".... ... ,- ..,.,.., "",. "" ... ....... _ " "'" ,ail '" "" '" .... _ "" ....... wi""" - """" "" "'" _ cia1o-' in .... ____ c< ,a< "'" ""'" ola1> a< "'la' _"" '" .... pla1""'" Y<>> "" ~ ..- a< ~ a< ""'" ,~.. ~t to yOU- ~CI!: '1'Q ~...Il - "iOJ ~ ~ 'l'BIS ~ 'lU ~ ~ ra aCB. 11' "iOJ ~ !Of -.VE ,. ~ (It eN' !Of ~ (Ie, 00 'lO CR ~ 1BB \JOE ~ _ fCl\'l'll1lEJD'l 'lU I'DI> (J1f ___ "iOJ eN' c# SlO. court ~strator 4th fl. cuneerlard ~ty~ carlisle, PA 17013 IN '!lIB 01R!' or Cl] I Of I'UAS aM3EmNO a:urrr, Pl!2HM.VAHIA Ci vll Division - raw JCSE.fR w,'DDJIl Plaint1tf .y- s s : a : s : s s s s s : CIVIL ACl'IQf fD. PIHlISUNAHIA IlfPftR1tBf1' or .....,.'."...A"AI..I'CI, Bt al.. MNlK B. GOIZI, ~ ~~Cll, ~1. M!:!BRS, '1'I:llRr 1IIl'DIlN, ""'PI~ .Z' <.a!RltIER, .)tRY '1'RIAL IBWD!D JAY !1lIID, Dltf.u.nt.l. l!'adl dIIf..dud. sued ind1vf",...l1y in their _.......J. . ....l.-t ty 1ft! in their official ~u.. YERD'Im CIVIL CXH'tAIl'f1' Pla1nt:l.ft', JOIIeph Walthour, an incarcerated individual, brings this action in prtlpria personam, in good faith, alleq1.nq the defendants have deprived htm 'Due Olune of Law', 'Due .............. of law', and 'equal lAut-.-tf.a1 .... the law'. ~ or JtlRI.SDlC'l']Q 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is PAdicated upon the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, 5 11, which states in pertinent partl "All COUrts shall be open: and every man for an injury dQM to htm in his 1an:Is, goods, person or reputation shall have Ul"e:!'f by due course of law, and right and justice adninistAd without sale, ck>.nial or delay." 2. The Court of 0............ Pleas of CUmberland County, P<>..nnsylvania further has jurisdiction rursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. ~ 912, 913 Et. Seq. 3. The venue of this Court is based on Pa.R.Civ.P, RIlLE 1006 (A) , an action against an individual l'1ay be brought in and only in the " . . . county in which . , . the cause of action arose or where l\ transaction or occurrenoe took place out of which the cause of action arollf\ . . ." &ud'IM'JfI' r. 'ftIB PAR1'IJlS 3. Plaintiff, JOIIeph Walthour, is an adult Pennsylvania citiz~, who is presently incarcerated at the state Q:lrrectional Institution at Rockview, Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823. 4. Defendant Department of Corrections, (Hereafter 1XlC) is a Cabinet Level Agercf of the Pennsylvania state Gowrnnent, and as such is the employer of each of the following listed defendants. In the official capacity of employer, this defendant is responsible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained its' employees to specifically carry out the policy which is the cause of plaintiffs' injury, The central office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA. 5. Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the DJC and is responsible for developing and carrying out the statewide policy which violated plaintiffs' ccnatitutional rights. His office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA, 6. Defendant(s) Joseph Mazurldewicz, Robert: Meyers, Terry Whibnan, and Gregory Gaertner are employees of the IXlC and as such carried out the policy which depriVed the plaintiff of his due course, due pI'0Ce99, and equal protection rights. '111eJ.r office is located at Box A, Bellefonte, Pl\ 16823. 7, Defendant Jay stidd is employ-.d by the IXlC as a hearing examiner, and as such was trained by the DJC, and in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due course, due proc:P.3S i!nd '3qUal protection rights. His place of IolOX'k is Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823, (every third week). 8. Each defendant is sued imividually and in their official capacities, each defendant can 00 sCrvOO at the central office of Pennsylvania DIJ[Xlrtrnent of Q:lu_tions. Box 598, Oll!lp 11111, PA 11001-0598. (2) I1l'A'l'I!IENl' ar 'nIB CASE 9. This is a civU rights case for a constitutional tort, both state and federal, for the faUure of the defendants to apply "DuB 0r:lUr3t and h.. of law" equally to its incarcerated citizens. 10. The IXlC developed and maintains a policy which permits its employees to use 0l8I -'" vdttsl, t.arsay evidBnc8 as the sole basis of adninistrative findings; in contravention of inveterate Pennsylvania JUrisprudence, prch1biting this practice. 11. The rule [OC-AK> 801 VI, A (3) 'I11reat:eninq Another Person) is 80 vague and broad, to be UI"lCClI'lStitutional. There are no elements to define the proscription, and as such has been arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the plaintiff. 12, Defendant Jay Stidd, is not, and has never been an objective, impartial fact finder, and on the date in qtIl".stion tmeqUivocally stated he was not impartial in deciding this case. 13. Each defendant refused to I'lcIlC\r and apply the timely raised affimative defensa of administrative collateral estoppel and res judicata to the instant case. 15. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and mcnetary re....,.,..,.,nse for this constitutional tort. PACTS 16. en October 27, 1995 a duly c:onstituted Executive Camdttee (of the Druq Rehabilitation P~uy....lI at SCI-RCC, oonducted an 1.ntsnoent1c:n Maring, where the plaintiff was brought before it, am chargAd with a possible threat to an officer. (3) 17, Officer S. waltman sl:dtad llpecically he did not hear the conclusion of plaintiffs' statl!lllellt, what he heard was 'I oouldn't wait until sanething happelled' . 18, The E:xecutivv cannitte! concluded ro threats wre established and sanctimed the plaintiff to thirty (30) days clean-lIp duty for an attitudinal adjustment. 19, unsatisfied with the o::mnitt:ees' sanction, the officor wrote a misocrdud: ~t on the plaintiff, 20. This miscxn:1uct was dismissed by defendant Stidd. 1IaweVer, the defendant instructed the officer to change the misocnduct report fran a threat to staff, to that of another penon, and he l>OUld accept it for a hearing. 21. A misccnduct hear1.nq was c:onvened by defendant stidd whlJt"e plaintiff WILl sworn in and denied he made the statement he ~d cane out of his cell and SlllBsh sonebody in the face. 22, Timely objections ware made to the acin1ssion of the unsworn, written hearsay report of Officer Waltman. These objections wre iCJllOIed. 23. The affirmative defense(s) of Artnini9trative Q:lllat....ral Estoppel and Res Judicata were t:inely raised [citing the fact a duly c:anposed and recogn.1ZP.d adninistrative adjunct whose decrees have the force of law in the p%~",n had decided the same issues between the same parties] and denied. 24, A timely request was made for dismissal for want of constitutional specificity, (thf! charge as outlinerl by 801, has no definition, am no definition of its elements.] this defense was denied. (4) 25. Plaintiff challenqerl the iJnpartiaUty of the examiner, defendant (SticXl), citing his participation 1n the rewrite, directing the officer what to charge. This challenge was denied. In \:he course of his adnin18traU...., quasi-judicial llI1sings, defendant SticXl stated ..". a-HhfHty of the ort_n4lct ..~L _ ~e, haL_._, I do not wnt: to tw1f-M on. of -V offioBn wuld Ue.. 26. Three defense witnesses testified in essence, they heard fIIVer'/ word plaintiff lI<'id at the Intsrwntion Hearing, that he did not say he was qoinq to CXIII\8 out of his cell and snash sanebody in the face. 27. No 81oIOJ:l1 evidence was presented against the plaintiff, no witnesses or other evidence was offered against plaintiff. 28. Defendant Stidd made his aaninistrative finding based solely upon the written, unsworn, hearsay report of OfUcer Waltman. The finting adjudged the plaintiff guilty, and sanctioned him to time served (seven days hole time) and a class I, classification of the misoonduct: infraction. 29. Plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the P~U'j.....n Review COmIittee (Defendant(s) Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner) who by lawful authorization must correct CalStitutional violations. on November 16, 1995, each defendant upheld the policy of the OOC:, and agreed with the action of defendant SticXl. 30. Plaintiff next raised these issues with defendant Mazurldewicz, who also is requiretl by lawful authority to correct: CalStitutional violations. on November 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the IXlC and agreed upheld the action of defendant(s) stidd, Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner. (5) 31. Plaintiff raised the issue with the Central Office Review Catlnittee, (the c:oc itself), answering for the defendant agency, on January 2, 1996, defendant Mark Guzzi, upheld the actions of each of the praced1ng defen:lants, and agreed with their actions taken in this case. 32. Each defen:lant knew or should have known their acts, actions, and anissions violated well established principles of Pennsylvania law, which; prohibited use of hearsay evidence as the 80le basis of an adninistraUve tin:ling; aslC.l that both federal and state constitutions required specific (clearly defined) notice of prohibited behavior. FIRSl' CJ\mE OF ~ 33. Defendant Department of Corrections violated plaintiffs Due course and process rights, by developing and enforcing a policy which permitted its employees to make actn1niSb:dtiVtl findings, based exclusively u(Xln timely objected to hearsay evidence. A (Xllicy they knew or should have known violated long established principles of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence which prohibits this practice. plaintiff seeks an injunction expung1.nq his record of all referenoa to this administrative firxling. SEXXH> CJWSE OF AC'l'IOO 34. Defendant Department of Corrections violated plaintiffs Due Course and process rights, by deve.loping and enforcing a policy which failed to define with constitutionally n".juired specificity, elements of the conduct it sought to prohibit, by the prcxnulgaUon of administrative Directive B01. plaintiff seP..Ks an injunction expunging his record of all reference to this administrative f1n:l1nq. (6) 'l'HIRD CNJSB or IC1'IQf 35. OlIfendant Jay stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'eme ocune IIIId eme...: of J..' by IIIlIldng an adnini.trative finding against him on lIOlely, timely objected to ManaY evidence, In mi.f plaintiff .-ka in excess of $10,000.00 in .........,ensatory damageS, $10,000.00 in pmitive damages, lInd an injunction expI!lging plaintiffs' reooxd of any refexenoe to the 8dnini.trati.... finding. raJmI CNJSB or IC1'IQf 36. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'eme ocune am eme...-- - of law' by retus1.nq to honor the defense of Collateral est:cpp&l, and res judicata, In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000,00 1n .......~tory damageII, $10,000.00 in pmitive damaqeS, and an injW1Ction expI!lging plaintiff.' 1'wwO'd of any reference to the adnin1strative finding. rD'lB CNJSB or IC1'IQf 37. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' righte to 'eme ocune and 4Ie ...<- ~ of law' by issuing a sanction for an unconstitutionally vague .,coec%iption against sane form of behavior. In relief plaintiff seeks in ~. of $10,000.00 in ~tory daInageS, $10,000.00 in pmitive daIIIages, and an injunction expDJing plaintiffs' J:.........d of any reference to the adniniatrati... finding. SDmI CNJSB or N:TIaf 38. Defendant(s) Mazurkiewicz, MeyerS, Whibnan, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due oourse and pl'OOllSs rights by enforcing the department policy which WILl clearly contrary to well established PennSylvania JUrisprudence which pJ:Ohibited findings by adninistrative agencies predicated 801ely upon hearsay evidsnce (timely objected to), (7) In relief plaintiff -u in exceSlI of $10,000,00 in .........,ellsatory dIunages, $10,000.00 in punitiWl damages, and an injW1Ction expunginl;, pl.&J.nt.1tfs' record . of any ref8EWlCe to the lIdninistrative findinq. SIMIIft'H CMJBB or ACl'1aI 39, Defendant Mark Guzzi violate:! plaintiffs due course and ~ rights by d8velopinq and carrying cut, . policy which pezmitted the OOC's Iqlloyees to make adninistratLve findings !IOlely upon timely cbject:ed to hearsay, written reports. " policy he knew or reasonably should have known, violated clearly set established Pem8ylvania Law. In relief plaintiff seeks in WQMS of $10,000.00 in ","",..,nsatory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive damages, and an injunction elqU'Iging plaintiffs' record of any reference to the administrative finding. ..........~... CI\DSfl cr AC1'lCII 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffS dua course !Ind process rights by developing, carrying out, and upholding a policy which den.1ed the plaintiff due CXlUr&e and due .....oc-s of law, by denying the use of affirmative adDinistrative defenses in adninistrative hearings. A policy he knew or reasalably should have known, violated clearly set established PenllSylvani.1 Law. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in OOIu.,..etlSlltory dFIi'}M, $10,000.00 in punitiv!! damages, <\.-.d an injunction expIID;J1.nq plaintiffs' """'-AAd of any reference to the adninistrative findinq. NDmI ODSE or ACl'ICtf 41. Defendant(s) Mazurkiewicz, Meyers, Whitman, and Ca&tner violated plaintiffs' due course and j.lt"00ElIl9 rights by enforcing the d...plU"tnwlnt policy (8) ...... ..,,,. -- IoIh1ch WILl clearly contrary to wll established Pennsylvania JUrillpl'Udenoe, reoogn1z1.nq Adninilltrative Q:lllateral Estoppel and Res JUdicata lllI aUirmatiWl def_ in adninistrative hearirw;rs, In relief plaintiff seeks in exoull of $10,000.00 in ...:lI,....lAtory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive dalMges, and an injunction expunginq plaintiffll' ~d of any reference to the adnin1strative findinq. 'ftlNl1I OIIIB or AC'l'Df 42. Each defendant violated plaintiffs right to equal ....A..Uan \lIIdBE' the laIf, guaranteed by both the state and federal OCIlStitutions of the t1n1ted states of America and Pennsylvania, In relief p1a.1nt1ff seek8 in excess of $10,000.00 in .....,..-.satory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive damages, and an injulIction expunging plaintiffs' 1~<1 of any reference to the adninistrative fWinq. aP"~ 43. Plaintiff has no plain and or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a Declaratory Judgment, this, and such other relief dSl!l,18d aW'-"l-"-iate by the court, and he Shall EYer Pray. Wherefore Plaintiff, JoseP1 walthour respectfully move this oourt to grant him the prayer for relief substantiated herein. Dated I 12 March 1996 (9) IN 'l'HB caRl' or aJMJt I'UA9 ClIIJI!IlLAM) autrr, P!HlSYLVHIIA Civil Dlv1s10l1 - rAW ....-:.rn tiW1'IDR Plaintiff ." . -yo. s : s s s s CIVIL ACTIaI !D. JtM' 'I'RIM.. t1!MNDD PIHlIMNMIA IEPAR'ftI'Rl' or ..............Tl..n9, Et al., ftlrlU'l ~ LDVE '10 nu: AtI) pro. P~" IN J'(JlM P~ TO TIlE IUIORJ\BLE OilEE' JUDGE AND/OR JUIXiE Srrt'IOO BY DESIGlATION IN TIlE OJURT OF a::MOl PLEAS FOR TIlE CXlUNl"i OF aJMBEm.AND1 AND ~l rolES, yw.r Petitioner, Joseph Walthour, in propria personam, who moves before the Bar, for leave to file and proceed in forma pauperis through each stage of the this p~i~, inclusive of any appeals in the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts. Pet:itioner subnit.'i be is the Plaintiff in this case, that: he is a poor f?8ISOh without the financial l1lP.ans to defray the incidental ooets of seeking justice, and he knows of no one who will step forward and defray the cosh of this lICt:ion. Petitioner is a legally definablo:! pauper and the redress he seeks, is in the p1bl1c interest, and he is entitled to, as a matter of law. Wherefore, petitioner respectfully requP.st this court to grant him forma pauperis status throughout this prcceecling; and he shall rely upon the attached affidavit in support of forma pauperiS, to establish his indigence. DATED: 12 March 1996 IN 'ftIE (DR!' (R a:IMJf l"[&\S ~ a:omr, Pl'H6YLVMIA Civil Division - Law ............ WlU.1!UlR Plaintiff . . -Y- s : s : I : : : ClVIL l\Cl'IW re. JmY 'l'RIAL IBWUD m4B!LVNaA tDl\Rl'tUl'l' or ~u.ftS, Et al., _ B. aJIZI, ........,....~, ~. MEYERS, 'l'I&Irl 1IRl'DWf, ~I~, JAY S'l'IID, . . : . . Defendants. I Each dIIf.dud. fU!d 1nd1vMII"ny in their .-.....11I1 ."l~ty and in their official ....pov-t ties. VDUPIm CIVIL <DlPIAIlfl' Plaintiff, JOEIeph Nalthour, an incarcerated individual, brings this action in propria persooam, in good faith, alleqing the defendants have deprived him 'Due Qlune of Law', 'Due ........-.. of !w', and 'equal pEOt:ect:ian lDiElr tbe !w'. S'l'MDlENl' or .roRISD1Cl'ICtf 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon the Pennsylvania OonstLtution, Article I, 5 11, which states in pertinent partl "All courts shall be open: and every man for an injury done to him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have rnnedy by due course of law, anr.l right and justice adnin1stAd without sale, dr;>nial or delay." 2. The Court of Comnon plEll!ls of Cl.lnberland County, pa..nnsylvania further has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C,S. ~ 912, 913 Et. Seq. 3. The venue of this Court is based on Pa.R.Civ.P. RllLB 1006 (AI . ", . . an IIction against an individual may be brought in and only in the oounty in which . , . t:h<! caU98 of action arose or where 1\ transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action ~ . . ," STNI'IM!Hl' (p 'l'BB PARl'IES 3. Phinttff. JoseP1 Walthour, is an adult Pennsylvania citizen, who is presently incarcerated at the state Q:lrrectional Institution at Rockview, Bole A Bellefonte, PA 16823. 4. Defendant Department of Corrections, (Hereafter DOC) is a Cabinet Level Agercy of the Pennsylvania state Goverm1ent, and as such is the employer of each of the following listed defendants. In the official capacity of employer, this defendant is responsible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained its' employees to specifically carry out the policy which is the cause of plaintiffs' injury. The central office is located at Bole 598, Camp Hill, PA. 5, Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the roc and is responsible for developing and carrying out the statewide policy 1<Ihich violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. His office is located at Bole 598, Camp Hill, PA. 6. Defendant(s) Joseph Mazurldewicz, Robert Meyers, Terry Whitman, an:l Gregory Gaertner are employees of the DOC and as such carried out the policy which deprived the plaintiff of his due =sa, due proceS9, and equal protection rights. TI1e1r offlce is located at Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823, 7. Defendant Jay stic:kl is employOO by the DOC as a hearing examiner, and as such was trained by the roc, and in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due =sa, due procP..9S and equal protection rights. His place of work is Box A, &lllefonte, PA 16823, (every third week). 8. Each defendant is sued individually and in their official capacities, each defendant can 00 served at the Central office of Pennsylvania ~partment of Corrections. Box 596, ClMp HU1, PA 17001-0598. (2) 9l'A'ft!IoIfBl' ar '1'IIB CASE 9. This is a civil rights CAse for a constitutional tort, both state and federal, for the failure of the defendants to apply "Due COurse and ~, .: of law" equally to its incarcerated citizens. 10, The OOC developed and mainWns a policy which permits its enployees to use ~'" written, heanay evidence as the sole basis of aanin1strative f1~s; in contravention of inveterate Pennsylvania Jurisprudence, prohibiting this practice. 11. The rule [DC-AMD 801 VI, A (3) 'l1lreatenJ.ng Another Person] is so vague and broad, to be unconstitutional. There are no elements to define the proscription, and as such has been arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the plaintiff. 12, Defendant Jay Stidd, is not, and has never bee.'\ an objective, impartial fact finder, and on the date in question unequivocally stated he was not impartial in deciding this case. 13. Each defendant refused to honor and apply the timely raised affirmative defensa of administrative collateral estoppel and res judicata to the instant case. 15. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctil/o.l relief, and ITallltary re......,~ for this constitutional tort. PACTS 16. at october 27, 1995 a duly c:oostituted Executive Camdttee (of the Drug Rehabilitation Program at SCI-ROC, conducted an intervention '-rln9, where the plaintiff was bralght before it, and charged with a possible threat to an officer. (3) 17. Officer S. waltman stated specically he did not hear the conclusion of pla.1ntiffs' statement, what he heard was '! oouldn I t wait until scmsthinq happeiled I . 18. The Execlltive cxmnittea concluded no threats were established and sanctia18d the plaintiff to thirty (30) days clean-up duty for an attitudinal lIdj ustment. 19. unsatisfied with the carmitteP.s' sanction, the officer wrote a misconduct report on the plaintiff, 20. This miscxniuct was dismissed by defendant Stidd. Ha.lever, the defendant instructed the officer to change the misoonduct report fran a threat to steff, to that of another person, and he liOUld accept it for a hearing. 21. A misocnduct hear1.nq was c:cnvened by defendant stidd wIv.lre plaintiff was IIIolOm in and denied he made the statement he t.OUld cx:me out of his cell and smash sonebody in the face. 22, Timely objections were made to the admission of the unsworn, written hearsay report of Officer Waltman. These objections tIere ignored. 23. The affirmative defense(s) of ArbinhtratLve Q:lUateral Estoppel and Res Judicata were timaly raised [cit1.nq the fact a duly canposed and recognizad adnWstrative adjlUlct whose decrees have the force of law in the i'AOo,tAdI1I had dedde<1 the same issues between the same parties] and denied. 24. A timely request was made for dismissal for want of constitutional specificity, (the charge as outlined by 1301, has no definition, and no defWtioo of its elements.] this defensa was denied. (4) 25. Plaintiff challenqecl the impartiality of the examiner, defendant (Stidd), citing his participation in the rewrite, directing the officer what to charge. This challenge was denied. In the oourse of his administrative, quasi-judicial lI1.ISings, defendant Stidd stated "'dIe c:r-Mhn.ty of the at...",,4Ict .........t _ ~e, hoMMIr, I do not ~ to ....Hwe al8 of rIIf offialrs 1iDuld lie.. 26. Three defense witnesses testified in essence, they heard flVer'/ word plaintiff said at the Intervention Hearing, that he did not say he was going to a:me out of his cell and smash sanebody in the face. 27. No sworn evidence was presented against the plaintiff, no witnesses or other evidence was offered against plaintiff, 28. Defendant sUdd made his acininistrative finding based 80lely upon the written, unsworn, hearsay report of Officer Waltman. The fiOOing adjudged the plaintiff guilty, and sanctioned him to time served (seven days hole time) and a class I, classification of the misoonduct infraction. 29. plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the P.Oy...m Review CCmnitt:ee (Defenclant(s) Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner) who by lawful authorization IIIlSt ....,...ect constitutional violations. on November 16, 1995, each defendant upheld the policy of the DOC, and agreed with the action of defendant Stidd. 30. plaintiff next raised these issues with defendant Mazurkiewicz, who also is required by lawful authority to correct constitutional violatia1ll. on Nov8nber 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the IXlC and agreed upheld the action of defendant(s) stidd, Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner, (5) 31. Plaintiff raised the issue with the Central aftic\-! ({ovi_ CUt1nittee, (the OOC itself), ~ing for the defendant aqency, on January 2, 1996, defendant Mark Guzzi, upheld the actions of each of tho precerlilYJ defendants, am agreed with their actions taken in this case, 32. Each defemant knew or should have known their acts, actions, and anissions violated -.ell established principles of Pennsylvania llIw, which I prohibite:l use of hearsay evidence as the sole basis of an adninistratlWl f1ndinq; alld that both federal and state constitUtionA requirl!ll spqc1fic (clearly dt!finedl notice of prohibited behavior. FIRSl' CNm: <F N:rJ.m 33. Defendant Oepdrbnent of COrrectionll violated plaintiffn Due COUrlle and process rights, by developing and entorcing a policy which permitted its employees to make aantnillb:atlvtl findings, based excluslVl'!ly UpJrl ti/llllly objected to hearsay evidence, A policy they knew or should have known violatad lOl'llJ established principles ot PtInJ1Hylvania Jurispru1enoe which prohibits this practice. Plaintiff seeks an injunction expunging his neord of all referenc:.it to this administrative fil1Lling, SBDI> Cl\IEE <F ACl'IOO 34, Defer.dant Department of Corrections violated plaintiffs Due caurll8 and process right>!, by dew loping and enforcing a policy which f"iled to define with constitutionally I:lOljulnld llpeclt1c1ty, elements of thtt conduct it sought to prohibit, by the pranulgation ot administrative Dh:ectiVl!l 801. Plaintiff se<>..ks an injunction expunging his recorrl of all rotet'efICQ to thl, administrative finding. (61 '1'HIRD CAIIm or ACl'Iaf 35, Defendant J~y Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due ocune am due ..... of _' by making an adninistrative finding againat him on 8Olely, timely objected to hearsay evidence. In relief plaintiff ..u in excess of $10,000,00 in \AA'~tory damages, $10,000,00 in pmitive damages, and an injunction 8lqUlg1.nq plaintiffs' l-eooro of any reference to the adninistrative finding. RlR1'II CAIIm or AC1'ICIf 36. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due coune am du8 ...ue::-s of law' by refusing to honor the defense of Q:lllateral estoppel, and res judicata. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in <XIIIpeIlBatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expung1.nq plaintiffs' record of any reference to the adninistrative finding, PIPm CAIIm or ACl'Iaf 37. Defendant Jay stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due """""'... am du8 .-:<'- of Jaw' by issuing a sanction for an unconstitutionally vague proscription against sane form of behavior, In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in \AA1,...easatory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive "-9'""', and an injunction 8lqUlging plaintiffs' ............d of any reference to the adninistrative finding. SDmI CAUSE or JlC.l'Jaf 38. Defendant(sl Mazurkiewicz, Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner violated plaintiffs' due course am process rights by enforcing the department policy which was clearly contrary to well established Pennsylwnia JUrisprur:1enoa which prch1bited findings by administrative agencies predicated 8Ole1y upon hearsay evidence (timely objected to). (7) In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in ......'~llIlltory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expung1.nq plaintiffs' record of any reference to the adninllltrative finding. SIMlfft'H ODSI!: or ACl'JDf 39. Dafendant Mark Guzzi violate:! plaintiffs due 00U1"H and procl8IIs rights by developing and carryinq out, a policy which permitted the 1XlC'. eq:Iloyees to make administrative findings solely upon timaly objected to hearsay, written reports. A policy he knew or reaSOlll.lhly Mould hllWl known, violated clearly set established Pennsylvania Law. In relief plaintiff .-ke in excess of $10,000.00 in .....,'l-"""\Slltory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive damages, and an in:lunction expunging plaintiffs' reoord of any reference to the administrative f1nd1.nq. Klumlt ClI!lSI': OF JlC'1'Im 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffs due! ccurse end prooess rights by developing, carrying out, and upholding II policy which dmJ.ed tho plaintiff due course and due """........:IS of law, by deny1.nq the use of affirmative adninistraUve defenses in administrative hearings. A policy he knew or reasonably should have known, violated clearly IIfIt 8lltablifll1ed Pennsyl....Mi.!. taw. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in canpensatory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive dMlagc9, Md an injunction expung1.nq plaintiffs' reooxd of any reference to the Ildn1nistratiWl findinq. NIN1'B ODSI!: or ACl'JDf 41, Defendant/s) MilZurkiewicz, MeyQrll, Whitman, IInd Caortner violated plaintiffs I due course and process rights IJy enforcing the d...partment policy (8) which WILl clearly contrary to well established Pennllylvania JUrisprudence, reoogniz1.nq Adninistrative Q:lllateral Estoppel and Res Judicata as affirmative defenses in acF\inistrative hearings. In relief plaiJltiff seeks in excess of $10,000,00 in ...........,nsatory damages, $10,000.00 in puniti... damages, and an injunction expunging plaintiffs' record of any reference to the adn1n1strative fJ.JVl1ng. 'ftlNl1I CAmB or AC'l'Im 42. Each defendant violated plaintiffs right to equal ....A:.aG1:ion under the laIf, guaranteed by both the state and federal oonstitutialS of the t1n1ted states of Amerlca and Pennsylvania. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000,00 in .........,ellSatory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive damages, and an injumtion expunging plaintiffs' ~d of any reference to the adnin1strative fJ.JVl1ng. CXHLOSIDf 43. Plaintiff has no plain and or adequate remedy at law, and seeks a Declaratory JWYlllellt, this, and such other relief deemed appropriate by the court, and he Shall E\'8r Pray, tomereforePlaintiff, JoseP1 walthour respectfully move this court to grant him the prayer for relief substantiated herein, Dated: 12 March 1996 (9) IN TIlE aIm' Cf' aJKIf PIDS aMlERLNI) aun'Y, mRiYLVANIA Civil Division - Law ......-n Nl\r~. Plaintiff -Y- l'I!tlN!MNNfIA IEl'ARIMI1M' or u..a<lUlIf.,;.l~, Bt al., lIMIt B. CIJZZI, ...-.. ~...CZ, _~ taIlRS, '1'J!RRr -...U'IftN, ~~, JAY 81'IID, CIVIL 1tCl'Itlf m. olOllC 'mIMo IEMl\lCB) Defeld.iu. Bach deferdt.d. IRB! indivf",..l1y in their ........onId. . ~l-ty and in their official . ___,..... ties. VDUFICATICft I, JosePt Walthour, do hereby declare under penalty provided by 18 Pa,C.S, 4904 (Ullsl.om Falsification to Authorities) that the facts asserted in the Verified CCmplaint are true and oorrect: to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information. DATEDI 12 March 1996 - IN 'nIB <Dm ar (IHDf PLFAS aIlIERtNC) aumt', Pl!IftM.VANIA Civil Division - taw ~ NIWDILcl . P1aint1tt -Y- s : I I S S CIVIL AC1'lXJl f<<l. 5'PlftM.VANIA lEPARDEm' or .................u.nlI, Et aI" IWlK E, QJZII, ...-.rn MlUltJlJaI!JaCI, ~. tER:RS, 'D!RRY tIII'DWf, -.au' GllERltER, JAr 91'.DD, . . JlItY TRIAL a!MNIlPJ) 1lBf8nlBnb, BlIIch defeBlbL 8l811nd1v""..l1y in their .............l. . ~...:1 ty end in tbe1r off1da1 ..,....-1tt.. I I I I S S ORDER AND rGl this _ day of March _ 1996 upon consideration of the P\!ltitioner/Plaintiffs' Motion To File and Proceed In Forma pauperis, Verified Complaint, and Veriticatioo, it is Dt..o.....d end OLdb....d: That the Plaintiff, JOlIeph Walthour, is granted leave to file and px~ in forma pauperis; That the forma pauperis status continues through any appeals, through and 1nclud1.nq the state SUprete Court of Pennsylvania, until such action is finally litigated; That the Sheriff of Cl.anberland OJunty is directed to make service upon the defendants in this case with this c:anplaint; That all defendants may be served at the Department of Correctiorw' Central Office, located at P.O. Box 598 (Lisbon RoacH, Camp Hill, PA 17001. FUrther that the RDLB 13 returnable by the _ day of 1996. bY THE <DlJRT Judge 9l'A'.l'fJef1' CF 'l'HE PARl'IES 3. plaintiff, JoseP1 Walthour, is an adult Pennsylvania citizen, who is presently incarcerated at the state Q:lrrectional Institution at Rocleview, Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823. 4, Ilefendant Department of Corrections, (Hereafter 1XlC) is a Cabinet Level Aqe<<:y of the Pennsylvania state Goverrment, and as such is the employer of each of the followiB:J listed defendants. In the official capacity of 811ployer, this defendant is responsible for the policy that injured the plaintiff, and trained its' employees to specifically carry out the policy which is the cause of plaintiffs' injury. The central office is located at Box 598, Camp Hill, PA, 5. Defendant Mark Guzzi is employed by the roc and is responsible for develop1.nq and canyiB:J out the statewide policy Io'hich violated plaintiffs' ooostitutional rights, His office is located at Box 598, camp Hill, PA. 6. Oefendant(s) JoseP1 Mazurldewicz, Robert ~leyers, Terry Whitman, and Gregory Gaertner are employees of the IXlC and as such carried out the policy Io'hich deprived the plaintiff of his due cx:urse, due process, and equal protection rights. Their office is located at Box A, Bellefonte, PA 16823. 7. Defendant Jay Stidd is employOO by tho IXlC as a hear1.nq examiner, and as such was trained by the roc, and in that capacity, used his official power to deprive the plaintiff his of due course, due procP.3S and equal protection rights. His place of ~ is Bo:lx A, Bellefonte, PA 16823, (every third week). 8. Each defendant is sued individually and in their official capacities, each defendant can be served at the central office of pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Box 598, C<~p lIill, Ph 17001-0598. (2) SI'A'l'IM!Nl' ar 'nIB CASE 9. 'tt1is is a civil rights case for a constitutional tort, both state and federal, for the failure of the defendants to apply "Due coune lIIId h", of law" equally to its incarcerated citizens. 10. The IXlC developed and maintains a policy which permits it. employees to use OWl ...., written, hearsay 8YidlInce as the BOle buis of adn1n1strative findings; in CXlIltraventiOO of inveterate Pennsylvania Jurisprudence, prohibit1.nq this practice. 11. The rule [DC-AMJ 801 VI, A (3) 'l11reatening Another Person] is so vague and broad, to be uno:lIlStitutional. There are no elements to define the proscription, and as such has been arbitrarily and capriciously applied to the plaintiff, 12. Defemant Jay Stidd, is not, and has never been an objective, 1IIIpart:ial fact finder, aoo on the date in question unequivocally stated he was not 1mpart:1al in deciding this case, 13. Each defendant refused to honor and apply the timely l'8ised affirmative d9fens!! of administrative collateral estoppal and res jw.'l1cata to the instant case. 15, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctill'!l relief, and rronetary n.xllI~1lIe for this constitutional tort. PACTS 16. Cl'I OCtober 27, 1995 a ct..lly constituted Executive CamI1ttee (of the Drug Rehabilitation Program at SCI-ROC, concluded an il1t:erYent:ion helIri.ng, where the plaintiff was brought before it, and chartjOO with a possible threat to an officer. (3) 17. Officer S. waltman Il:dtad specically he did not hear the conclusion of plaintiffs' statement, what he heard \or.\S 'I couldn't wait until sanething happ811ed ' . 16. The I.':llecUtive camU.tte1 concluded no threats were established and sanctioned the plaintiff to thirty (30) days clean-up duty for an attitudinal adjustment. 19. unsatisfied with the camU.ttees' sanction, the officor wrote a misconhlct: report on the plaintiff. 20. This miscxnfuct: was dismissed by defendant Stidd. Hc7w'eVer, the defendant instruct.ed the officer to change the misoonduct report fran a threat to staff, to that of another person, and he l>Ould accept it for a hearing. 21. A misconhlct: hearing was convened by defendant Stidd w'3re plaintiff was SIooOm in and denied he made the statement he would cane out of his cell and smash snnebody in the face, 22, T1Irely objections were made to the acin1ssion of the 1lIl.S1oOrl\, written hearsay report of Officer Waltman. These objections were ignored. 23. The affirmative defense(s) of Adninistrative Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata were t.1Irely raised [Citing the fact a duly CXlI\posed and ~1Ll.ZP.d adninistrative adjunct wose decrees have the force of law in the ~roy.....n had decided the 8aIII9 issues between the same parties] and denied, 24. A t:ine1y request was made for di<Jmissal for want of constitutional spocificity, [tM cMrqe as outlined by 801, has no definition, and no definition of its elements,] this defense was denied. (4) 25. Plaintiff challenqed the impartiality of the examiner, defendant (Stidd), citing his participation in the rewrite, directinq the officer what to charqe. This challenge was denied. In the CXlUrS8 of his adninbtrativw, quasi-judicial nusi~s, defendant stidd stated "'l't1e a-'liM ltty of t:Iw mi....dIet ..........l MIS ~e, hl:nJ8vIIr, I do not -.t: to hAUTVlI cae of Illy off1oen 1iDUld lie.. 26. Three defense witnesses testified in essence, they heard every word plaintiff said at the Intervention Hearing, that he did not say he was 9Oi~ to cane out of his cell and lIIl1ilsh sanebody in the face. 27. No awm evidence was presented against the plaintiff, no witMsses or other evidence was offered against plaintiff. 28. Defendant Stidd made his adninistrative finding based solely upon the written, UIlSW1"Il, hearsay report of Officer waltman. 'l11e finding adjudged the plaintiff guilty, and sanctionec1 him to time served (seven clays hole t1rre) and a class I, classification of the misconduct infraction. 29. Plaintiff raised the issues sub judice before the P.""'.....n Rerlew OCmnittee (Defendant(s) Meyers, Whitman, and Gaertner) who by lawful authorization nust couect; constitutional violations. on November 16, 1995, each defendant upheld the polie)' of the DOC, and agreed with the action of defendant Stidd. 30. Plaintiff next raised these issues with defendant MazurkiewiCZ, who also is required by lawful authority to correct constitutional violatiONl. on Novanber 20, 1995, this defendant carried out the policy of the IXlC and agreed upheld the action of defendant(s) Stidd, Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner. (5) 31. Plaintiff raised the issue with the Central Office kcview Cannittee, (the cxx: itself), answer1.nq for the defendant aqency, on January 2, 1996, defendant Mark Guzzi, upheld the actions of ~ch of the precedinq defendants, and agreed with their actions taken in this case. 32. Each defendant knew or should have known their. acts, actions, and anissions violated well established principles of Pennsylvania law, 1Ohich; prohibited use of hearsay evidence as the sole basis of an administrative rindinq; and that both federal and state constitutions required specific (cleady d.aftnedl notice of prohibited behavior. FIRSl' CNJSE or H:'l'IaoI 33. Defendant Oepdrtment of corrections violated plaintiffs Due course and proceSfl riqhts, by developing and entorc1nq a policy which permitted its employees to make administZ:cltiVl:! findings, based exclusively upon timely objected to hearsay eviclence. A poliCY they knew or should have known violatad long established principles of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence 10hich prohibits this practice. Plaintiff seeks an injunction expunqinq his record of all referenoa to this administrative f1nU1ng. SRXHI CNJSE CF ACl'Ictl 34. Defer.dant Deparbnent of corrections violated plaintiffS Due course and process rights, by delrolopinq and enforcing a policy 10hich failed to define with constitutionally l"o::quired specificity, elements of the conduct it sought to prohibit, by the pranulqation of administrative Directive 801. Plaintiff S<..>f>..k3 an injunction expunging his record of all reference to this administrative finllnq. (6) THIJm OUSE or ~ 35, Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due ooune and due .... _ 1 1 of law' by mald.nq an adnin1strative finding against him on solely, timely objected to hearsay evidence, In relief plaintiff -.klI in exous of $10,000.00 in .....,...\8atory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expung1.nq plaintiffs' r~d of any reference to the lIdn1n1l1trative finding, 1'\A.K111 0IlSB or ~ 36. Defendant Jay Stidd violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due ooune and due .......- of law' by refusing to honor the defense of collateral estoppel, and res judicata. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in oanpensatory damages, $10,000.00 in pm1tive damages, and an injunction expunginq plaintiffs' record of any reference to the adninistrative findinq. !'.D'DI OUSE or JIC'1'J.af 37. Defendant Jay St1dcl violated plaintiffs' rights to 'due ccune and due ....- of law' by issuing a sanction for an unconstitut1cnally vague proecdption against sane form of behavior. In relief plaintiff seeks in excess of $10,000.00 in .....lIf:'&lSllt.ory damages, $10,000.00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expunging plaintiffs' record of any ref~ to the adninistrative fin:1ing. SDmI OUSE or AC'l'l:m 38. Defendant(s) Mazurldewicz, Meyers, Whibnan, and Gaertner violatad plaintiffs' due course and process rights by enforcing the departll8lt policy which was clearly contrary to well established Pennsylvania Jurisprudence which prohibited findings by administrative agencies predicated solely upon hearsay evidence (timely objected to). (7) ,} In relief plaintiff ..u in excess of $10,000.00 in ,-""..-lIatory damilges, $10,000.00 in punitive ~, and an 1r.junction expung1.nq plaintiffs' record of any ret........... to the adninistr.U.... finding. SBVINl'H ODBB or IlCI'l'CIf 39. lll,fendant Mark Guzzi viola~ plaintifb m. CCltIrM and process rights by 1Ww1op1.nq and c:arrying out, . polLcy which permitted the lXlC's tn;l1oyees to IIIIIIce adninistrative UndingIJ solely upon timaly objected to hearsay, written reports. A policy he lcneIi or rea80Mhly should have known, violated clearly set established Pennsylvania Law. In relief plaintiff seeks in ~. of $10,000.00 in ......,~tory dalMges, $10,000.00 in punitive dama<:Jes, and an injunction expunging plaintiff.' l'6CIOcl of any reference to the admini.tratiw tindim, ..1Ua.... Cl\DII2 or ACrIm 40. Defendant Mark Guzzi violated plaintiffs due course end process rights by developing, carrying out, and upholdinq a policy which derUed the plaintiff due CICIlrS8 and due ."...-alS of law, by denyinq the use of .ffirmative adlliniatrative defenses in adninistrative hearings. A polLcy he knew or reasonably should haw known, violated clearly set established PennsylvaniJ. Law. In relief plaintiff seek8 in 8XOlIlI8 of $10,000.00 in ...o.~lSatory ~, $10,000.00 in punitill'3 damages, ilnd an injunction expunging plaintiffs' record of any reference to the adninistrative findinq. NINl'II CNm: or ACl'Iaf 41. Defendant(s) Mi1Zurldew1cz, Meyers, Whitman, and Ca€lrl:ner 'r1olated plaintiffs' due course and II.('OO$dS rights by enforcing the d$partment polLey (81 which WILl clearly contrary to well ut.abliehed Pennsylvania Jur1spruderICII, recogn1z1.nq Aaniniatrative Q:lllateral Estoppel and RIle JUdicata .. att1J:mati.... det_ tn adniniatrative l)eari.nqs. In. relief plaintiff H8k8 in excesa of $10,000,00 in ......'.....llIlltory dama9M, $10,000,00 in punitive dama9M, and an injunct:1on expunqing plaintiffs' nMli.d of any reference to the adn1n1stratiWl findinq. '1'IImI 0IlSB ~ ~ 42, Each detendant violated plaintiffs right to equal ....A...1:1cD \lIIdBE' the ~, guaranteeS by both the state and federal constitutions of the t1n1ted states of America and Pennsylvania. In relief plaintiff seek8 in exous of $10,000,00 in ......,~tory damages, $10,000,00 in punitive damages, and an injunction expung1.nq plaintiffs' ~d of any reference to the adn1n1strative f1n:ll.nq, (Dn"ZIR1Bf 43. Plaintiff has no plain and or adequate remedy at law, and H8k8 a Declaratory J\.Idl:pnent, this, and such other relief Jeellled aW'o~1ate by the court, and he Shall E\'8r Pray. Wherefore PWntiff, Joseph Walthour respectfully move this court to grant him the prayer for relief substantiated herein. Oiltedl 12 March 1996 (9)