Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-6058 IN THE COHHONWEALTH COURT OF THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JESSICA E. WOLFE Petitioner Vs. WILLIAM F. WARD, Chairman Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole JEFFREY A. BEARD, C~issioner Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. ) CIVIL ACTION PETITION FOR WRIT OF ~ANDAMUS TO the Honorable Judge[s] of this Comonwealth Court: Comes Now, JESSICA E. WOLFE, Petitioner Pro se in accordance with Rule 1095, of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Thus respectfully requesting this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents William F. Ward end Jeffrey A. Beard, commanding the enforcement of there Public Official Duties. For no other adequate remedy exists as a matter of law, Thus represents: 1. The instant petition moves this Court to Grant a Writ of Mandamus by invoking Jurisdiction under and by virtue of: 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 761 - - § 763. 2. Petitioner, is currently in the custody and care of the State Correctional Institution Graterford, at P.O. Box 244, Graterford, Pa. 19426. 3. Petitioner, claims Constitutional Injury, special and peculiar to herself, generally related to psychological mental suffering and the warton infliction of pain. The actions and inactions of abuse at the hands of the Respondents while acting under Color of law, thwarting deprivation of Rights and Privileges under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions, Etc. 4. Jeffrey A. Beard, his successor in office, has been at all times relevant to this action, the C~,..issioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Upon the information and beliefs of the petitioner, respondent Jeffrey A. Beard, any subsequent successor in office is responsible for the development, implementation and administration of all penal and correctional policies for each correctional institution within the Cormnonwealth of Pennsylvania. In those capacities he is required to ensure the proper functioning of each facility under his command, which includes ensuring that each inmate in the Commonwealth Department of Corrections is afforded his or her Constitutional and Civ/1 Rights, the mandatory duties Jeffrey A. Beard, refuses to preform. 5. William F. Ward, his successor in office, has been all times relevant to this action, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole - (P.B.P.P.), Upon the information and beliefs of the petitioner, respondent William F. Ward, any subsequent successor is responsible for the over all /mplementation, administration of all penal and (P.B.P.P.) policies. In those capacities, he is required to ensure the proper functioning of the (P.B.P.P.) which includes ensuring and protecting all Constitutional and Civil Rights of each inmate brought before the (P.B.P.P.) at each State Correctional Institution within the C~,,,,~onwealth of Pennsylvania, the mandatory duties William F. Ward refuses to preform. 6. On 7-25-96, the petitioner faced a couple different criminal charges that she allegedly c~,,,itted and subsequently under duress took a Plea Bargain for incarceration of 5 to 15 years for one count of Rape, EX~T~IT A. 7. On 1-8-2001, Petitioner was seen for institutional staffing for the possibiliW of gaining institutional approval for Parole. 8. Petitioner, avers that institutional approval staffing reviews are done in a negative way that review inmates on all the charges that they originally faced before going to Court, not for the said reason they are incarcerated for, and just like this petitioner, she was not notify in writing why the Petitioner was denied institutional approval for parole. 9. On 3-13-2001, Petitioner seen two agents from the Parole Board who asked several questions and said that they would see me next year. 10. On 3-22-2001, Petitioner, was given her Parole "Green Sheet', denying Parole without giving a reason why, it just states that "the fair administration of justice cannot be achieved through your release on parole.,, Then explained when the Petitioner is next to be reviewed and what they would consider. See EXHIBIT B. 11. On 4-18-2001, Petitioner, filed a Request For Administrative Review with (P.B.P.P.), EX~rBIT C. 12. On 5-10-2001, Petitioner, received a response letter from the (P.B.P.P.) which gave a reason for not excepting the application and what the board considers in determining Parole cases, EX}IIBITD. 13. On 3-1-2002, Petitioner, Arbitrary denials of Parole, E~c. 14. on 7-23-2002, Petitioner, filed a Civil Class A~tion because of See EXlqIB/TE, El. was seen for institutional staffing for the possibility of gaining Institutional approval for Parole. This staffing was improperly done because it only consisted of two staff members instead of five staff members, plus these two staff members only focused on alleged crimes and personal agendas then the petitioner.s "Flawless conduct record,, or other important accomplishments, Etc. 15. on 9-4-2002, Petitioner seen two Parole Agents that covered several different issues including alleged crime that was never before the Courff, the two agents said that they would be in touch. 16. On 10-8-2002, Petitioner received her "Green Sheet" denying Parole without providing a reason why, it only states that "the fair administration of justice cannot be achieved through your release on parole,,, Etc. See ~/T F. 17. On 10-8-2002, Petitioner filed an Application For Administrative Review (No Reply Back), See EX~IB/~ G. 18. AccordinGly, a mandatory duty fail upon Jeffrey A. Beard, when the legislation amended the parole statutory provision (61 P.S. § 331.19) which include recommendations of each Warden or Superintendent in charge of a particular inmate approaching a scheduled parole board review date. Thus, setting forth a duty to develop, implement and to administrate a DC-ADM policy for "INMATE STAFFINGS and INSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATION PROCEDURES,,, Providing inmates with clarification remedies and a final written statement of reasons for the Warden or Superintendent,s denial or approvals before submission to the (P.B.P.P.), a duty C~.,~dssioner Jeffrey A. Beard refuses to preform. 19. In addition, petitioner clagms that Commissioner Jeffrey A. Beard, has failed to act or refuses to do hfs mandatory official duties, because he know or reasonably should have known that his actions and inactions were and are lawful. These violations inhered when he refused to ensure the proper functioning of the facilities under his command and he refuses to afford or protect inmate's Constitutional and Civil Rights, including those of Jessica E. Wolfe, namely but not limited to: Article 1 § 1,2,7,10,11,13,15,17,20,26 U.S. 1st, 5th, 8th, 14th Amendments. 20. Petitioner, avers that a Writ of Mandamus is an Extraordinary Remedy designed to compel official performance of a M~nisterial Act or Mandatory Duty where there exists a clear legal right and where petitioner has no other legal remedy adequate or available at law. See: 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 976. 21. Further, a mandatory duty fail upon William F. Ward, Chairman of the (P.B.P.P.), when adoptinG 61 P.S. § 331.1 and particularly § 331.22, which states that "a brief statement of the reasons for the board's actions shall be filed of record in the office of the board and shall be at all reasonable times open to public inspection... The actions and inactions William F. Ward, refuses to as a matter of law. See: ?-~fgL~- ~, 802 A. 2d. 705, at 707 No.[S] c~ 708 (2002). "The Board denied parole based on the ' achieving the fair administration of justice' statement. The Court found that this statement did not satisfy statutory mandates and requirements of due process, and the Court directed the Board to file a statement of reasons for it's denial of Parole that met due process requirements.., 22. Moreover, Petitioner claims that William F. Ward, know or reasonably should have known that his actions and inactions were unlawful, for violations inhered when he refused to preform his official mandatory duties as required to be preform, those of which that ensure the proper functioning of the (P.B.P.P.) and protects the Constitutional and Civil RiGhts of each inmate brought before the (P. B. P. P. ), including those of Jessica E. Wolfe, namely but not limited to: Article 1 § 1,2,7,10,11,13,15, 17,20,26--_ U.S. 1st, 5th, 8th, 14th Amendments. 23. In addition, Petitioner claims upon the (P.B.P.P.) own admission "the Board is not required to consider nor dispose of an application for parole - -. an intentional refusal to preform a legislative implemented duty 61 P.S. 331.22, See: EXI4rRI~, D and this E~qTRI~f, H. 24. Further, Petitioner, claims that a "proceeding in Mandamus is available to capel [the] Board of Probation and Parole to Conduct a hearing or [to] correct a mistake in applying the law." ~ V. P.B.P.P., 421 A. Zd. 1021 (1980). 25. Petitioner, claims that she has a clearly established right to relief by Writ of Mandamus, for no other adequate remedy exists as a matter of law. 26. Petitioner, avers that a Writ of Mandamus is an Extraordinary Remedy designed to compel official performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty where there exists a clear legal right and where petitioner has no other legal remedy adequate or available at law. Sec: 42 Pa.c.S.A. § 976. Wherefore, petitioner respectfully prays for this Honorable Court to grant the relief sought by issuing an Order of Writ of Mandamus or any other adequate remedy at law, commanding the named respondents to act in specific performance of there legally mandatorily required official ministerial duties, and pay costs of this action and pay reasonable attorney fees of: $ 500. dollars. Other damages are in appropriate due to pending Civil Action. VEI IFIEI) STATEMENT I ,J]~SSICA E. WOLFE, verify that statements made herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beliefs. I understand that false statements herein are subjected to the penalties of: 18 Pa.c.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Respect fully, ~ ted: // 2. sszc E. WO .FS 0 ~0 © © ©. EXHIBIT, CLIENT NAME: INSTITUTION: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNA. BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE DATE: 03/20/2001 JAMES ELLIOT WOLFE SCI - MAHANOY PAROLE NO: 83620 INSTITVTiON NO: DB0954 AS RRCO~mED ON 03/20/2001 THE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE RENDERED THE FOLr'OWING DECISION IN YOUR CASE: FOLLOWING AN INTERVIEW AND REVIEW OF YOUR FILE, THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED THROUQH YOUR RELEASE ON PAROLE. YOU ARE THEREFORE REFUSED PAROLE AND ORDERED TO: BE REVIEWED IN OR AFTER APRIL, 2002. AT YOUR NEXT INTERVIEW, TEE WHETHER YOU HAVE FOR: SEX WHETHER YOU FROM TEE WHETHER YOU HAVE YOUR FILE AND CONSIDER= COMPLETED A TREATMENT PROQRAM FOR PAROLE AND COMPLETED THE (EAM CLIENT COPY JAMEs ELLIOT WOLFE SCI - MAHANOY P.O. BOX 491, 301 MOREA ROAD FRACKVILLE, PA 17931 DB0954 KATHLEEN ZWIRRZYNA BOARD SECRETARY EXSIBIT, B JESSICA E. WOLFE JANES E. ¥OLFE DB 095q S.C.I. - MAHANOY 301 Morea Rd. Frackville, Pa. 17932 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole 1101 S. Front Street, Suite 5300 Harrisburg, Pa. 17104-2519 RE: APPEAL FOR RELIEF: PAROLE No. 83620 Dated: 4-18-2001 REQUEST FOR ADRINISTRATIVF REVIEW I was reviewed for Parole by the Board on 3-14-2001, and I received my Green-Sheet back on 3-23-2001, providing a 12 month hit and to be reviewed on or after April of 2002. Now Comes, Jessica E. Wolfe Pro se in accordance with the United States Civil Victims Protection Act, namely but not limited to 18 U.S.C.A. § 1513 (a)(2); in concert and participation with the Laws governing this appeal. Thus, avers and objects to the following: Petitioner, Objects to the statement "that the fair administration of Justice cannot be achieved through your release on Parole.,, Because the Board of Probation and Parole is not a Judicial Forum to determine the fair administration of Justice, violat.ing the Separation of Powers. "Similarly broad powers were exercised by the United States Parole Commission. That Commission, which was abolished by the Sentencing Reform Act." The Sentencing Reform Act, was basicly established after the Parole Con~nission violated the Separation of Powers. "The Parole Commission was held not to violate the Separation of Powers,,, and continued to deny inmates Parole due to the nature of their crime or due to ethical back grown or other quality of beliefs, See: Geraghty V. U.S.- p. Commission, 719 F.2d. at 121l (1983); EXHIBIT, C Artez V. Mulcrone, 673 F.2d. 1169 (10th Cir. 1982). The determination for the fair administration of Justice is determined at the time of sentencin§, see: 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9701 et, ~eq. Petitioner, Objects to the statement, "whether you have participated in/successfully completed a treatment program for: sex offenders.,, Programs are not part of the petitioner,s sentence or it would state such in the petitioner,s criminal transcripts. Further, the petitioner was not sentenced as a violent offender or she would have had a Gage on 1,2 hearing after sentencing. Moreover, the petitioner was sentenced to a definite sentence with a specified maximum, changing or adding to a sentence AFTER once imposed violates the Separation of Powers; Double Jeopardy Clause of both the Pa. and the U.S. Constitutions. Further, programs were established for inmates to make self assentive goals to better them selves before release, it is not a statutory sentencing enhancement, nor was it meant to be an imperative for Parole, see: Austin V. Pa.D.O.C., 876 F.Supp. 1437 (1995). Although, the Co~nonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the Board of Probation and Parole have initiated a self serving miss appropriation of Federal Funding for the sole purpose of job security. Thus violating both the 5th and the 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and, but not limited too. Petitioner, Objects to the statement, ,, whether you have received/maintained a favorable recommendation for Parole from the Department of Corrections.,, Petitioner, avers that she personally knows several inmates who were released without institutional approval. Thus, denying petitioner equal protection of the law, specificly for no other EXHIBIT, C reason then the petitioner,s having a pending Civil Law Suit against the Department of Corrections, and so stated by the Regional Parole Agent. In violation of Pa. Articl~ 1 § 15; 26 - - The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; including but not limited too, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1513 (a)(2). Moreover, the person who signed the petitioner,s Green-Sheet is a former Civil defendant, as if to rub it into the plaintiff,s face in spit of the matter. Finely, petitioner Objects to the statement, ,, whether you have received/maintained a clear conduct record and completed the Department of Correction,s Prescriptive Program(s).,, Because, none of the petitioner,s conduct records, Etc., was ever gone over, which are flawless and the Prescriptive Program issues is addressed above. Further, the required issues to make Parole are to broadly drafted to complete, in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Moreover, the new administrative policies, rules and regulations, Etc., violate the Ex Post Facto law and don't apply to this petitioner. Wherefore, the petitioner hopes the Board of Probation and Parole finds these appeal issues to be exigent circumstances and cause immediate action to rectify the situation in the near future. Respectfully Submitted, Jessica E. Wolfe COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE May 1~ 2001 Office of the Board Secretary Case Analysis Division 1101 South Front Street, Suite 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17104-2519 (717) 787-5699 ext. 278 James E. Wolfe, DB-0954 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 Parole No. 8362-0 Dear Mr. Wolfe: This is to acknowledge receipt of your request for Administrative Review dated April 18, 2001. Please be advised under 61 P.S. 331.22, the Board is not required to consider nor dispose of an application for parole by an inmate or his attorney when the Board has issued a parole decision on that case within one year from the date of the current Board decision. Therefore, the Board will not respond to your request at this time. For your information, the following is a list of factors thai the Board considers when determining parole: The facts of crime for which inmate was convicted; entire criminal history; general character and background; notes of testimony from the sentencing judge, physical, mental and behavioral state and history; history of family violence, input from sentencing judge and district attorney, input from victims, if any; recommendation from the Warden or Superintendent where inmate is housed; and a face-to-face interview. Also keep in mind the Board's mission and legislative mandate is to protect the safety of the public. Your appeal, along with attachments will remain with your permanent file for the Board's consideration at your next review. Sincerely, Selvey Staff Technician Division of Case Analysis EXSIBIT, ~ SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA INMATES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS THOMAS W. CORBETT, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS OFFICE, JEFFREY A. BEARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, WILLIAM F. WARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-2687 TO: (NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEFENDANT) YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiff's Attomey (Name and Address) Jessica E. Wolfe, Pro Se PO Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426-0244 an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Michael E. Kunz, Clerk of Court Date: May 3, 2002 (By) Deputy Clerk, ADRIENNE MANN EXHIBIT, £ IN TIq~E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PIZNNSYLVANIA INMATES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS CIVIL ACTION THOMAS W, CORBETT, IR.., ET AL. NO. 02-2687 ' ~ ~ ORDER AND NOW, this day of September, 20'02, it is Ordered that the Clerk is directed to select an attorney to represent the plaintiffs in tiffs class action case. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. EDUARDO C. ROBREN ENTERED ~HIBIT, E1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE 1101 S. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa. 17104 - 2519 NOTICE OF BOARD DECISION NAME: JAMES ELLIOT WOLFE INSTITUTION: SCI - GRATERFORD PAROLE NO: 83620 INSTITUTION NO: DB0954 AS RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 THE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE RENDERED THE FOLLOWING DECISION IN YOUR CASE: FOLLOWING AN INTERVIEW AND REVIEW OF YOUR FILE, THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED THROUGH YOUR RELEASE ON PAROLE. YOU ARE THEREFORE REFUSED PAROLE AND ORDERED TO: BE REVIEWED IN OR AFTER SEPTEMBER, 2004. AT YOUR NEXT INTERVIEW, THE BOARD WILL REVIEW YOUR FILE AND CONSIDER: WHETHER YOU HAVE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR: SEX OFFENDERS. WHETHER YOU HAVE RECEIVED A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR PAROLE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. WHETHER YOU HAVE MAINTAINED A CLEAR CONDUCT RECORD AND COMPLETED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS' PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM(S). KLD 09/24/2002 CLIENT COPY JAMES ELLIOT WOLFE SCI - GRATERFORD .P.O. BOX 244 GRATERFORD, PA 19426 ~ rgc~ived my cog¥ of this notice DB0954 EXHIBIT, F Kathleen Zwierzyna Board Secretary Notice of Board D~cision PBPP 15(08/02) 1 ofl JESSICA E. /OLFE DB 0954 S. C. I · Graterford Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 October 15, 2002 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole 1101S. Front Street, Suite 5300 Harrisburg, Pa. 17104-2519 RE: APPEAL FOR RELIEF; PAROLE NO. ~ FOR ADRI#ISTRATXVF REVIEI I was reviewed for Parole By the Board on 9-4-02 , and I received my Green-Sheet on 10-8-20 , unlawfully providing a 2 year hit reviewed on or after September, 2004. 1. Petitioner avers that, when a State adopts a Parole System that applies general standards of eligibility, petitioner justifiably expect that Parole will be granted fairly and accordingly to the law whenever those standards are met. 2. Petitioner, claims that those standards don't alter the Fundamental Due Process Rights of a parolee, or arbitrary decisions founded on impermissible criteria. 3. The arbitrary decisions and impermissible criteria inhered when the Pa. Department of Corrections (D.O.C.) and Board of Probation- and Parole (P.B.P.P.), conspired with the intent to arbitrary deny Jessica E. Wolfe Parole in violation of, namely but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. § 241, confirmed at 61Pa.C.S.A. § 331.16(b) No.8, and at § 331.19. 4. Moreover, it is to the petitioner's information and belief that C~m[,issioner Jeffry A. Beard talked to Chairman William F. Ward, who talk to HIBIT, 6 Superintendent Donald T. Vaugh, to direct Unit Managers Skip Fields and Michael Wenerowicz, to hole an improper Parole staffing by themselves to set forth an arbitrary institutional review, without a written statement of the denial by Donald T. Vaughn, who delivered his will upon the Parole Board staff Ms. Dasher and'Mr. Shallon, who opinionatedly reviewed petitioner about several different issues, including petitioners pending law suit that continued back to unnamed individuals at the (P.B.P.P.) who arbitrarily denied petitioner Parole, found at namely but not limit to: 61 P.S. § 331.1 and § 331.22, Boyd V. Ward, 802 A.2d. 705, at 708 (2002'). "The Court directed the Board to file a statsment of reasons for its denial of parole that met due process reguir~ents." Which, the Board intentionally failed to meet the standards again. Wherefore, petitioner m~bmits this application for administrative review. 7002 0510 0002 1525 7830 Respectfully Submitted,/~ 'Jessica E. Wolfe L/' DB 0954 BOX 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: I 710 X [] Agent [] Addresm D. Is deliver~ [] Yes ff YES, enter delivery address below: [] No 3. Service Type ,J~J"Certifled Mail [] Registered [] Insured Mail [] Express Mail [] Return Receipt for Merchandis [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes EXHIBIT, 6:°pyfr°''se~'/ce'abe/) Ps Form 381 1, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-178,( EXHIBIT, PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the for going documents upon the following persons in accordance w~th the Rules of Civil Procedure, by U.S. First Class Mail: Jeffrey A. Beard Cc~missioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 2520 Lisburn Road P.O. []ox 598 Camp Hill, Pa. 17001-0598 William F. Ward, Chairman Pennsylvania Beard of Probation and Parole 1101 S. Front St, Suite 5300 Harrisburg, Pa. 17104-2519 Curt Long, Prothonotery Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Court house square Carlisle, Pa. 17013 ~SSI~ E. WOLFE DB 0954 ~ 244 Graterford, ~. 19426 Dated: // JESSICA E. WOLFE, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo WILLIAM F. WARD AND JEFFREY A. BEARD, DEFENDANTS 02-6058 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT ~ day of Decernber, 2002, the writ of mandamus, IS DISMISSED without a hearing.1 By the C~o~ Edgar B. Bayley, J. v"Jessica E. Wolfe, DB 0954, Pro se Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 William F. Ward, Chairman Pa. Board of Probation and Parole 1101 S. Front St., Suite 5300 Harrisburg, PA 17104-2519 Jeffrey A. Beard Commissioner of the Pa. Dept. of Corrections 2520 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 598 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0598 :sal ~ This action seeks an order in mandamus regarding the conduct of defendants in the processing, application, and refusal of a petition for parole. This court has no subject matter jurisdiction, or is there a claim set forth by which relief could be granted in mandamus.