The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-1139 FX ~.- ,~ , , 1:_1 """,~' . ~ , w .-'.';. ~_ ~" - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff -VS- No. 01-1139 MARTIN HORN, et a1. Defendants ORDER , AND NOW, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is g, ran t sd . BY THE COURT: J. Dated: _,='0_ ~ , I -. .......""';", ~- ~,~,- ... .. ~ MAR 2 72002) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, ORDER AND NOW, this day of ,2001, upon consideration of defendants' preliminary objections to the amended complaint, said preliminary objections are hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed. J. ..l.. "" ~ ~~= " "~.~ - , " ,~' " -I. ; 1 ".." ~'" > MAR 2 7 2002 \) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2001, upon consideration of defendants' preliminary objections to the amended complaint, said preliminary objections are hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed. 1. ~ .~ , I__~ ~_o.~ .. '" ~""--, , MAR 2 7 200ZY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2001, upon consideration of defendants' preliminary objections to the amended complaint, said preliminary objections are hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed. 1. ,~ --, . "",. " i '" ,..1 " ~i~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 200 I, upon consideration of defendants' preliminary objections to the complaint, said preliminary objections are hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed. J. ., ~ I I '~a~li.'1.rA__-' .. MAR 2 7 200~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2001, upon consideration of defendants' preliminary objections to the amended complaint, said preliminary objections are hereby sustained and the complaint is dismissed. J, " ~ J ,~ ,I " , ><: !{ 'I I en () O~ :i )> --l 0 TfJQ :'~ JJ~S::1J~ I" ~:Z:S:() IB en[)JOm " [)JmZO I.' Ii CJJ:z:" I" JJJJm)> J.;, Gl-<)>'-i i"t I' )genCi(j II 1 OIJJ 1: ~coz j:j ~)>T1m I' "'fll-o-< 'I: I' o mGl l' zm zz t enm -<JJ [2)> )>r j: Z , 5> , I' Ii I; * i I \ I , I .~ ';\ :1 il ~ II: -O{J) 1 s'1>S5 00' ~ g ~ , iroo("J o ....,' Qt> .'"' :> ><: "t:I{J);:l:~ :>l'toOQ "" a '" _ ~ (l) ,,'"1 --l cr" '< tj -'" N..:j 0:> o "'0 {J)i:l '" i! Pl "" - '"' '" IMi m Vl, " i' -', - ~ ~*~';Ki:.~~-0.f;1?"M_~"t;E';Vs~1'GfO:,,'0'6{~Bi,r;-l2-'mn~':':t:.1ifJf\Ir h..W&~~~I'TI:1&fJlJt&BiKj1Hr~m;;:r't4~_~,;;;1fr;~~;;~~~Ttt~';'I:i~~ .b.'#.....""'."'~ hl '.'- ~~ ~~ ~. "'"' -~ iJ:M "'~....._.~ .......... ., = w:_~~_: j:::k DI THE COURT OF COMMON I'!..EAS OF CUMBERT.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANJ;A CIVIL ACTION - LAII FRANKLIN SUTTON Flah.tiff ; -vs- No. 1}C.-ll39 MARTIN HORN, IT AI,. Defendants ; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Il.ereby certifJ that r aa t.lilh <ia;- servin! tbe fore,&oin, :PLAINTIFF'S 1\ESl'OtlSE TO D1U'ElfDAN'rS' rRELH!IllARY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED COM:l.'LAINT upon tbe persOD.(s) and in the Rlaaner indicated beloil ; !ERV!CE !!_!1!!!_Q~!!!-~~_l!I~_ADD1!!!!!_!!_!R~!!1 Sarah C. Yerllllu' Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry S<1uare l1arr1tlbu1:&, PA 17120 ~!~A-'~~~rc No. llV-9496 !leI Mahanoy 301 110rea Road Frackv ille, ., A 17932 5e l'tatnt iff De.Ud' /JI'L<.J 1~, .,)c)t>.2.. .J~ '" ..,....''';OJ ~1:li' ~ ~,~ j ._1 r ~ -~1tollill;;a::;ku' ~ III 'fBE COllllt OF COMMON PLlAS OF CUHBElLAND COUNTY, PIUfllsYLVALUA CIVIL ACTION - LAW FllAIILIN SUTTOll Plal u iff -VS- , No. 01-1139 I HAllTIN HORN, It At. , Defeaoats I PLAINTIFF'S BESlOlltlJE TO DlUNDANTS' PlllLIiUNAIlY OBJECTIONS TO TIU AllENDED COMPLAIlfT Plaiatiff, F~aJ1klia Suttoa, on hls ova behalf, make. thia his ~e,ly to tbe nefeadaats' P~e1imlau'T ObJectloas to the a.eaded oomplalat. I. !I!!!!D 1. AclaiUed 2. Admitted 3. Deaied as stated. Plaintlff alleges In his cOll.,lalat 2 a a. aad seeks damases fO~ Defendants a_1heat failure t!!:: m~ntl...,a "1:11;0- ~--{ '.- n'1re-, -u 'o,~ handicap shover therebT fall1n~ to juroteot hia 'froj~~a ~ae:.~~ enviro.ment resdthe ln Plaintiff aUppins ia ~.~ ...,ea<<t1 zR ,3.': >~:2:! ,0pubUn ellowew iaJutiaa his back and has b.es?'-"bl~e4iiS~ . Z .... ~ ;:;;j ;,..) .-'> tecetve iaade".ate medlcal atteatlon and cate Dadet t..'coRroti! of the defeaclaDt.. 4. After teaa.able byestll1atioa, P1aiatlff is wttllOllt kaowledae or lnforaatloa 8uff10ieat to f011. a belief as to the trlltb or falaity of the avu"meat oontaiaed 1D Paraall.'aph 4 of tbe Prelimlnary Objections of Defendants sad tberefore deny the allegations tbereof. 5. Aftar reasOIlable iJlvestlgation, Plaint1 ff i8 wUll_t ltaow1edse 011 lafor.atloa suffiolent to fora a beUef as to the ~""~~"~""..u. ~,~"'''"''-'''~ ~ I I ~~ "L '^ ~"~ ~~ . truth or falsity of the aVel'18eat coataiaed in Paraaraph 4 of the PrelimiBary Objeotio.. of Defendants and therefore deny the anegations thereof. G. Tbe al1ecatioas of Paraaraph 6 ~f the Preliminary Objections of Defendants are denled sinoe they are coaolu.icm3 of lall to wbich no responsive pleadlnil is re'1uir84. 7. 'fhe alleilatiol18 of Parabraph 1 of the Preliminary Objeotions 0 f Defendallte are denied II ince they are C onol u.ions 0 f law to wblob no re.poll.lve pleading i. required. 8. 'the allei?ations of l'arailraph 8 of the l'1:o1illinary Obj eotlons of Defendants are denied sin!::e t11 4111' are oone lusicns of law to which Il.Q 1:esPol:lslve pleadins is required. 9. The al1eaations of Par<1>graph 9 of ObjeotiQD8 of Defen4allte are denied .s ince they are law to which no re.pon81ve pleadin3 i8 require4. 10. the allegatlon of Paragllaph 10 of tbe Prel1l1inarl Objections of the Defendants are denied .ince they are oonclu810ns of law to which no lIellponllive pleadiag i. required. WHEREfORE, Plaintiff rellpectfully requ.et the Court to overrule the Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the nature of' a D(illllurrer and enter jud,sement for: Plaintiff and a,a1n8t the Defendants. u. ....aua n. The averllleat ia the 1're111111na1:1 oOllolusion8 of thts peragraph inoorporate. parail'aph I-HI, and, a. suoh require no response. 12. Adaiued. 13. The allegations of Paraarapb 13 of the Prell.lllinary Objections of Defendants are denied. .ince tbey 81:e 00llclu810n8 of -2- ~~~__ ~ rl~. __ ~~~ -. , ~=. " ~ < J' ~-~"'~. ~.lM.t;iO. - ~". law to which ao responsive IIleedil1& is req", ired. 'Co the exteat that a rElspOI1S i ve plead lng is requi red. it 1s denied th at as Commonwealth employees actin& witbin. tbe scope of tbeir d.uti.es. they are entitled to aovereiln illlllu:Ility 9'lilrsuant to 42 1'a.e.8. S 8502, !!.!.-.!.!..9.' It 18 denied tbat any claim ba.ed 011 1'e1lna,ylYeaie law is bared by sovereign iuunity. To the oontrary, whell pettie. versiona of the underlyit'1l1 facts ue in direot contre4iction. resolution of the qualified iIluBunit.y issue ia inapl'ropriate at tl1i. etage of the proceedinsa. u. !l!U_OI'_..JVR!I!HIU!Lmm!.p_UUW_U_4_!qIlft.Al@ 14. The allltaationa of Paragraph 14 of the Pr.11mln. tt:y Objections of' Defendents are denied slace t.he,. are cOBelus:\.ons of law to whiob no reapeDsiva Pleading is requlred. 1S. Tbe aUesat:\.ona of Paraaraph 1$ of the Preliminary Objections of Defendaat.. Ill:. denied 81nce tbey are ooa01u8ion8 of law to Which no reagOBsive pleading is requited. To tbe extent tbat a t:eSI'ODa1ve plaadinil is t:equired it. :\.a denied that tbe original complaint aad the alllen<ied complaint in thls lIIatter were aot serve4 oa tbe defendaats as prescribed by the rule but wae sent via first c1as. mail. To the oOBtrary, the ailpropriate 1:ell8dl when the oout fiach the service to be defeotive 18 to set asi4e tbe servioe. rather tbaa 4isml88 the 00llij>1aint. FiU! !!tl!!.!!.!l-!!!!L.!u-1U!!.-!f.~_'!..!.._!nder!.!!.!!.. 7 1'a.J). & C.3d 627 (1977) The !'laintiff can then attempt proper servioe. 4dditiltaall.r..s sa at ternative to .erv ioe by the Sberif f. a par t7 01: hill attoraey may accept service. 16. The al1esation of Objeotioa. of DefenlSants ue Pat861'aph 16 of the PreU.lllinllt:y denied sinoe t.hey ue couluslons of -3- <- ""'~,,~ ~ -" ,. ~" I j I ~. _ __L-'..~ ~. -~"" law to. whLoh 110. responsive i'leadini?, is req,uir.ed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court overrule Preliminary Objeotioa the aad eater judjOelBent for Plaintiff and a~ainst the Defendants. Vi lU FICA no N !, Franklin Sutto.n, vllrify tbat I am the Plaintiff in tills action and that the f<:lrel!;oillS Response to. l'relilllinary Objeatioll.s (If Illifeadatlt. 1.5 true and correat to the best of laY i,l;nolllediEl, in forlllati.o.n and be 1 La f. I understand that falSe at ate lBUt:. here ill are III a de subject to the penalties of 18 f'a.C.S.A. i 4904 relating to UIlS worn f a 1.8 1flcation t a au tl1or1't lee. Rea~eotfully eub~itted, , ~/J~ vf~ Fran Itl ill. Sui: tOll., Pro Se P laiat iff No. llV-9496 SeI Maballoy 301 More u I.oad Frackvl11e, 1A 11932 Dated I I1t""}) 1-1; )0,p,;)-.. .4- !Ill'~"" ! ~jbc-iMW.!J!1hk!i1ii;.ii~;;;';i.~~i,.&,i,,;rdM'!1J>ji!€,i'i;1~'<iifill;"'''','li,~\l'"j"J""~ "~t;,,..,.,"',;~,f>-"";- _,',' '" -"_.;,Sl;~:';"',L~~_"'i&.~_~~i'IIi*l!'~~"'t., ',rdlY!W.l-ilili~~~~jj.il:ll't(U H_'~'" ,,,~.,,,,,..,,,.,, ~,~ "",t. _ ~_ '0 "," " ,-~, ~-~ . " - " r;.9 t.}., ",", ,,<::,"'~.:/f'i:;- ">- ,~J', c~0~>'- ,"~~:;:." "~\: (,. ~-::'r\ .."'" (,-; ~., ,~ \.:r I~ :I::,. .:,.0 ,() v '> ............,:>::, " .':,~:0 .~u ,\J(Q)' r -:;-;..(./ .~) ,~~ '-.v .- ---:~ y~ r::<' ('" ,'j' v .jj/ 'I-; \- fJ'j j' -" , '-,- - ~.- i ,j _,__1_ "_ _ "_" ,+",__" , ^_, -,"" FEB 2 8 zoo,b!) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW FRANKLIN SUTTON PLAINTIFF SUMMONS -VS- CIVIL ACTION NO. () 1- / L3 9 MARTIN F. HORN, individually and in his official capacity ROBERT SHANNON, individually and in his official capacity MARTIN DRAGOVICH, individually and in~his~official capacity RAYMOND J. COLLERAN, individually and in his official capacity DONALD FISKE, individually and in his official capacity MARVA CERULLO, individually and in' her official capacity MILTON FRIEDMAN, individually and in his official capacity JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity DEFENDANTS (CIVIL RIGHTS) TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiff, whose address is SCI Mahanoy, 301 Morea Road, Frackville, PA 17932 an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgement by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. CLERK OF THE COURT: -,~ ~ .~ . - - "~ ~ . 1 j d '<, "' ~~_ 'IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA' CIVIL ACTION - LAW 'FRANKLIN SUTTON PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT -VS- , CIVIL ACTION NO. ()\ -I \ 3q 'MARTIN F. HORN, individually and in his official capacity ROBERT SHANNON, individually and in his official capacity MARTIN DRAGOVICH, individually and in his official capacity RAYMOND J. COLLERAN, individually and in his official capacity DONALD FISKE, individually and in his official capacity MARVA CERULLO, individually and in her official capacity MILTON FRIEDMAN, individually and in his official capacity JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity 'DEFENDANTS (CIVIL RIGHTS) JURISDICTION 1. As a general rule, the Courts of Common Pleas 'have unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings pursuant ot Pa. Const. Art. V Section 5(b); 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 931(a) (Purdon 1981). PLAINTIFF 2. Plaintiff, FRANKLIN SUTTON, is and were at all times mentioned herein, a prisoner of the State of Pennsylvania, in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. He is currently confined at the State Correctional Institution Mahanoy, 301 Morea Road, Frackville, PA 17932. ..~ .".......1 " L. ..i=H.. '~- " .- ~~ " 3. DEFENDANTS Defendant, MARTIN F. HORN, is Secretary of Pennsylvania's' Department of Corrections. He is legally responsible for the overall operation of the Department and each institution under its jurisdiction, including SCI Waymart and SCI Mahanoy. 4. Defendant, ROBERT SHANNON, is Superintendant at SCI' Mahanoy. He is legally responsible for the operation of SCI Mahanoy and for the welfare of all the inmates of that prison. 5. Defendant, MARTIN DRAGOVICH, was at the time of Plaintiff's responsible injury for the the Superintendant at SCI Mahanoy. He was legally operation of SCI Mahanoy and for the welfare of all the inmates of that prison. 6. Defendant, SCI Waymart. He is RAYMOND J. COLLERAN, is the Superintendant at legally responsible for the operation of SCI Waymart of all the inmates of the prison. and for the welfare 7. Defendant, DONALD FISKE, is the Health Care Administrator at SCI Waymart. He is legally responsible for the health care needs of all the inmates at that prison. 8. Defendant, MARVA CERULLO, is the Health Care Administrator at SCI Mahanoy. She is legally responsible for the health care needs of all the inmates at that prison. 9. Defendant, MILTON FRIEDMAN, is Waymart's (L-l,L-2fM-l,M-2) housing units. the welfare of all the inmates housed the Unit Manager at SCI He is legally responsible these'Units. for on -2- r ", ......,,; , J - -"- , 10. Defendant, John Doe, is a Correctional Officer of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections who at all times mentioned in this complaint was assigned to SCl Waymart on L-l "unit. .He is legally responsible for the care custody and control of all inmates assigned to his unit. FACTS 11. On Wednesday, February 9, 2000~ Plaintiff was transferred from Sel Hahanoy to SCI Waymart to participate in a S.O.P. Program. 12. On February 16, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to staff to Defendant Donald Fiske expressing his concerns about the accommodations for inmates with disabilities. Plaintiff's left leg is amputated above the knee and his balance is very poor and is considered handicapped. Plaintiff's inmate request to staff to Defendant Donald Fiske went unanswered. 14. On February 28, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to staff to Defendant Donald Fiske expressing his concerns about the accommodations for inmates with disabilities. 15. On March 2, 2000, Defendant Fiske responded to Plaintiff's February 28, 2000, request to staff member s~ating the following: "SCI-Waymart is not a handicapped assessable facility. If you feel your needs cannot be met here, please sign-up for sick call and request a transfer to a more appropriate facility. inform me on what you would like to do." 16. On March 6, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to Defendant Friedman conveying the problem with the plumbing in the Please handicap shower. The water was scolding hot and Petitioner was forced to use the adjacent shower. Plaintiff requested that a work order be submitted to have the handicapped shower repaired. -3- -'"..].," " r.-+ - f._ 'f I.. ~' , " o-".".-.J.~i '17. On March 21, 2000, Plaintiff submitted a second request to staff ,to Defendant Friedman complaining about the handicapped' shower and 'again requested that it be repaired. 18. On March 27, 2000, the tradesmen at SCI Waymart shut off the water to the handicapped shower because of plumbing problems. 19. On March 28, 2000, at approximately 8:35 p.m., Plaintiff fell in the General Population shower that did not have a hand rail and injured him- self and was treated by the medical staff at SCI Waymart after Officer McGrath called over to medical and had inmate Griffin, CF-7176 push Plaintiff over to medical in a wheelchair. The nurse wrote-up an incident report and asked Plaintiff if I felt the need to stay overnight, gave him three (3) Advil 200 mg tablets and told him to sign-up for Sick Call for the next day. 20. On March 29, 2000, Plaintiff reported to Sick Call at SCI Waymart and X-Rays were taken of his back and a three (3) days supply of Advil was given to Plaintiff along with a three (3) days medical lay-in. 21. On April 1, 2000, Officer Panna had inmate Griffin push me' over to medical in a wheelchair where I was seen by Ms. Sally who told me that my X-Ray showed that Plaintiff had a muscle spasm in his back that was . causing the pain. Plaintiff was given a seven (7) day supply of Motrin 600 mg tablets and told to sign-up for sick call if I had any further complications. 22. On April 3, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to staff' to Defendant Fiske informing him about the injury resulting from his fall in the shower. 23. On April 5, 2000, Defendant Fiske offered the following reply to Plaintiff's April 3, 2000, request: "I have spoken with Mr. Friedman concerning a'second mattress. I have also spoken with our Central Office. You will be transferred soon." -1- ~" . < ~ .'-,J-, - "<,j ._-.~<, ,', ,j' '- -,,,,,-_-, ',,,.c 24. On April 5, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and was seen "by Mr:Heffernan; Pk'who also told Plaintiff that his X-Rays showed that he was suffering from muscle spasm. He also explained the effects of muscle spasm and how the muscle will tighten up on the back. Plaintiff was given a seven (7) day supply of Robaxin 500 mg tablets. 25. On April 10, 2000, Plaintiff again informed the Unit Manager and Unit Counselor by way of inmate's request to "staff member "that 'the shower wlhththe rail' is 'sttll'"out'"of 'order. 26. On April 10, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call because his ',back pain '''''as'' imbea'rable ,'andp'havingc;',trouble,"!lleepitig.He was seen by" Mr. Heffernan, PA and requested an additional mattress to help minimize the pain. Plaintiff also informed Mr. Heffernan that' he':'wolilli be. tninsferred back to SCI Mahanoy soon. He said that.he')wotild :nbt 'authorize an extra mattress because Plaintiff may be transferred any day. 27. On April 13, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and requested.,to see his X-Ray, ,was ,reftised.and"again-requested:a second,'mattress,., Mr. Hughs said that "under the guidelines ,that" he'''nbr. Mr,,:'Fiske,cannot, authorize a second mattress. In order for him to obtain a second mattress, Platntiff would have to have had surgery 'or a "Bertolis" injury, something 'of' .that. nature;": Plaintiff was given a seven day supply of Robaxin 500 mg tablets. 28. On April 14, 2000, Plaintiff was given an 'additional, .mattress until transfer. 29. On April 21,',2,000, PlahitifLsubm'htted a memorandum, to Defendant,' Colleran informing him of the injurtes he sustained on 'March'28, 2000, due to negligence and requested the status of his transfer. 30. On A!'>pi1:Z6 ,;, ,2000'" PlaintHLwasc'transferred back"to," BCFMahatioy .' . -5- ~<~ .,; . ,~~~ j~ . " '. ~;i' 31. Plaintiff received Robert S. Bitner, Chief Hearing Examiner's April 25, 2000, memorandum informing that he " have nothing to do with inmate transfers. And further informed Plaintiff "you need to work with the staff at Waymart to pursue a transfer. 32. On April 27, 2000, Plaintiff was told that he had to report to Chronic Clinic, at which time he requested a wheelchair. His need fora wheelchair was documented in his medical'records. Plaintiff was prescribed a twenty-eight (28) day supply of Naproxen,375 mg tablets, his blood pressure was 134/96 and he weighed 254 lbs. 33. On April 28, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call seeking medical attention for his pain. He was seen by Mr. Ignatius Hall (PA) who told him that muscle spasm could last for up to two (2) years or more. A request was made for a wheelchair and Plaintiff was told "it is written' down in your medical records and it will be taken care of." Plaintiff was given a seven (7) day supply of Motrin 400 mg tablets because he could not pick up the Naproxen 375 mg tablets previously order until April 29, 2000. 34. On May 3, 2000, during my visit to sick call, PlaintifT was seen by Mr. Joseph Rush (PA). I requested to be seen by a Doctor and was denied stating there was no need. He prescribed a ten (10) day supply of Methocarbamol (Robaxin) 750 mg tablets for my back pain. 35. On May 8, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to staff member Marva Cerullo, Facility ADA Coordinator informing of his accident at SCI Waymart and the' treatment, he has beenteceiving. Plaintiff also requested the use of a wheelchair and an.explanation of the treatment being administered. 36. On May 8, 2000, Defendant Cerullo conveyed that. she did not know about the danger of muscle spasm or the proper treatment and suggested that I ask at Sick Call. -6- . -" ,".j "..1 , I,,' ~. " .' ." '1< '.,: ,,-- ;,,,., d}:, 37. On May la, 2000, Defendant Cerullo further conveyed that she is not licensed to prescribe,'and " if a ,,'wlie,!1chair is necessary "'it""wil1'be, 'ordered. Ms. Cetilllo further explained that basin's, which was confiscated from Plaintiff upon his return to SCl Mahanoy, are not allowed in the institution and that she did not see why that should be changed. 38. On May 22, 2000, . Plaintiff submitted 'an "inmate request to staff member ML ,Anthony' r.. Petrucci6and 'Mr. Edgar' 'M; KneIss,'DeptitySuperintendent IS' for Facility Management and Centralized Services 'respectfully-'concerning the basin confiscated from Plaintiff which he used to soak his foot. 39. On May 22, 2000, attention for his back pain. Plaintiff went to sick call again seeking medical He was seen by Ms. Hoch (PA), who examined him by having him raise his arms, leg, and neck rotations. Plaintiff was given a three (3) day supply of Acetaminophen (Tylenol) 325 mg tablets. Start 5/22/00 End 5/26/00. 40. On May 23, 2000, Deputy Kneiss responded by stating that" the tub is not allowed here unless medical determines you need it." 41. On May 24, 2000, Deputy'PetrucCioC' respondel:l' by' stating:'!'lleputy Kneiss will arrange the return of your basin." 42. On May 24, 2000, Plaintiff again"dlUDmitted', an 'inmate"request' to" staff Defendant Marva Cerullo informing that the proper, medil.cal attention is' being denied. 43. On May 25, 2000, Defendant Cerullo offered her medical opinion as to the seriousness of my injuries and concluded that I did not need to be seen by a doctor. 44. On May 30, 2000,"Plaintiff went to sick call because his pain "lirid spread to his right arm, shoulder, and neck. Plaintiff was also experiencing a tingling feeling in his right thumb. He was also seen by Mr. Rush {PAl who gave him a", reflex'''examination'' ,md'prescribed';,'teri . (10)' supply-,M' Batlofen (Lioresal) 10 mg tablets, one (1) by mouth three (3) times daily. -7- , ~ . '"'I ',-';" "i.,,', 0' -" ",' ;-~, 45. On May 31, 2000, . Plaintiff, unsatisfied with. the last response from Defendant Cerullo regarding being seen by a Doctor submitted another inmate's request to staff member and received Defendant Marva Cerullo's June 2, 2000, response stating that his "Neurological evaluations are within normal limits". 46. On June 6, 2000, Plaintiff was given an annual physical. He was seen by Mr. Hall (PA), who he had informed about his back pain and how the pain had spread to his right arm, shoulder, and neck and about the tingling feeling in his thumb.. He was told that if I continued to have these pains to sign-up for sick call. He was given a reflex examination arid a work restriction of no work requiring standing or bending. Blood pressure which was 134/84, pulse 76, and Plaintiff weighed 260 lbs. 47. June 12, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and was seen by Mr. Hall, (PA) requesting test to find the source of the pain in his right arm, shoulder, and neck. He said that X-Rays will be taken on Friday, June 16, 2000. He also told Plaintiff that he has a degenerate bone disease which was determined when Plaintiff was seen by Mr. Rush. Mr. Hall gave Plaintiff a three (3) day supply of Ibuprofen (Motrin) 400 mg tablets to be taken three (3) times daily. He also ordered a ten (10) day supply of Motrin 600 mg tablets to be taken by mouth three (3) times daily for ten (10) days until completed. 48. On June 16, 2000, Plaintiff went to medical where two (2) X-Rays were taken, by a Mr. Guy, of Plaintiff's shoulder. He reviewed the X-Rays and determined that none of Plaintiff's joints were dislocated. He also said that the radiologist would examine the X-Rays and make a report of the results. Plaintiff's pain at this time is continuing. 49. On June 19, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to staff member Marva Cerullo informing her of the preliminary X-Ray findings and informing her of chronic pain. -8- L" , ,-I ',',r,.--,_ . ~-"'''I~, 50. On June 20, 2000, Defendant Cerullo responded informing Plaini~f that "you need to follow-up with sick call please". 51. On June 23, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and was seen by Mr. Ignatius Hall (PA). The report from the (2) X-Rays taken 6f'''Plitiniff's shoulder on 6/16/00 were not available in Plaintiff's medical file. Mr. Hall prescribed a ten (10) day supply of Robaxin350mg,tablets and a tim (10) day supply':bf'oMott:l.n:600'mg"tabletsto' be taken' orlce,by :'mouth 'three' (3!times daily., He also referred Plaintiff to be seen by the Doctor. 52. On June 29, 2000, during Plaintiff's visit ,to tluL'M;D. line Plaintiff was seen by Dr, Markosi. Plaintiff explained his symptoms and the pain that he was experiencing in his right arm, shoulder, and neck. Plaintiff also told the Doctor about the tingling in his thumb that has been travelling through his right arm. The Doctor proceeded to massage Plaintiff's shoulder and neck. He also examined Plaintiff's npPI'Er, back" and both,wrists. Dr. Markosi said that the problem is not in Plaintiff's shoulder, but in his spinal cord which is causing the pain in the neck. When Plaintiff asked the Doctor how he was making this determination, he informed "by the symptoms and the examination that Plaintiff was just given. He said that he was scheduling Plaintiff for X-Rays of his neck. Plaintiff was told to sign-up for sick call and the previous medication was continued. 53. On June 30, 2000, Plaintiff went to medical to have the X~Rays taken of his neck. A Mr.,Joe took the X-Rays and informed Plaintiff that the radiologist will examine the X-Rays and make a report of the results. 54. On July 3, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and' was seen, by Mr. Rush, (PA) and was informed that the results from the X-Rays of his neck' have not been returned, Plaintiff was also told that he is ,suffering from arthritis. Mr. Rush also asked Plaintiff if he ever had an injury to his arm in the past. He then prescribed a ten (10). day' supply of Robaxin 750 mg tablets and a ten (10) day supply of Motrin 600 mg tablets.. He also added -9- I ;,_.J """ '~ 'u Petitioner's name to the M.D. line to be seen by the Doctor. 55. On July 13, 2000, Plaintiff went to, 'M.D. line and 'was seen by Dr. Markosi and was informed that his spine was not straight and will therefore, have these complications. 56,. On July 21, 2000. Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to staff member Defendant Cerullo informing her of his continued injury from the SCI Waymart fall and informed her that administered was not working. suffering due'to his the medication being 57. On July 24, 2000, Defendant Cerullo informed Plaintiff in her response that she is not a doctor, therefore she 'will, have to reily upon the judgement of those who are and suggested that Plaintiff go on a, diet to lose weight. 58. On July 26, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call 'and was' seen by Mr. Joseph Rush, (PA) attempting to address the areas of his pain. He informed Plaintiff that he was aware, of ,his 'ptoblem and that he was notified by Dr. Markosi ' to treat,' the ,pain and reconnnended, physical therapy' ' "Plaintiff informed him that the Motrin tablets was beginning to effect his stomach so he changed the Motrin to Tylenol. He prescribed Robaxin 750 mg,' one (1} tablet three (3) times daily for fourteen (14) days, and Tylenol 325 mg, two (2) tablets, three (3) times daily for fourteen (14) days. He informed Plaintiff that he could pick up the medication at the pill window on July 28, 2000. Plaintiff informed him that he was in pain now and needed medication innnediately and was told that he could not give him medication because it had to be approved by the physician. 59. On August 1, 2000, Plaintiff went to physical therapy and was seen by Mr. Matt Hoppel. I told him the areas that' I was' 'having .pain. 'He informed Plaintiff that the Doctor had reconnnended that he examine Plaintiff's 'prosthesis. No treatment for pain was administered. -10- " ,. , ~ .J - - -, '~'H (:.- ~--,. ,~ ~ 'I I I I I i J I I i I I , I I I 60. On August 3, 2000, Plaintiff again went to Physical Therapy and was again seen by Mr. Matt Hoppel who said that he, spoke with Dr. Markosi who recommended that Plaintiff prosthesis be examined by the' Orthopedic Appliance person. Still no treatment for Plaintiff's spine' or the pain. . He, advised Plaintiff to sign-up for sick call to have the Doctor recommend treatment. 61. On August 7, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call' to seek physical therapy treatment and was seen by Mr. Joseph Rush, (PA) who said taht physical therapy was n6t for persons'withchronfc "care but for serious . injuries. Plaintiff informed him that his injuries sustained at SCI Waymart was 'causing enormous pain. Mr. Rush said the"Doctor would have to make 'treatment determinations. 62. On August 10, 2000, Plaintiff went to M.D. line and was seen by Dr, Markosi and informed him about the physical therapy problem. Dr. Markosi said .he, would not recommend the treatment because I did not have any broken bones. Dr. Markosi said that my spinal cord is not straight and they have. done all that they can and " that ,they did not want to see Plaintiff. anymore. Dr. Markosi prescribed a thirty (30) day supply of Robaxin 750 mg tablets and Tylenol 325 mg tablets twice daily. 63. On August 17, 2000, Plaintiff submitted inmate 'request' to staff member Defendant Cerullo and informed her about my 8/10/00 visit with Dr. Markosi and she stated "the M.D. has the final say". 64. On August 29, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an Official Inmate Grievance concerning the medical treatment that he was receiving at SCI Mahanoy for the injuries received at SCI Waymart. This Grievance was assigned No. MAH-0427-00. 65. On August 31, 2000, Ms. 'Carol 'Dotter , Corrections Superintendent Assistant, responded to Plaintiff's'grievanceinforming'of'grievance procedure. 66. Plaintiff received1( Defendant Cerullo'si' September 8';'2000 Initial Review response to Plaintiff's grievance. -11- -A -",',' ," - 'o.L .Ju,;,;,;,~--,..;.,.--,:; ';"J _ ,- ,~_ ,,___~,", ,;V"i-',.;","'" . ~-~-" -d' , 67. On September 22, 2000, Plaintiff submitted his appeal to Superintendent Shannon a defendant in this matter. 68. On October 2, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate's request to staff member Defendant Shannonc:'"inquirihg. about.. his' appeal" submitted to him on September 22, 2000. 69. Defendant Shannon's "October 2, 2000, responded An appeal to my office was never received". 70. On October 3, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate's request to staff member Defendant Robert Shannon acknowledging his 10/2/00 reply and forwarded a copy of his September 22, 2000, appeal for response in the event his initial appeal had been misplaced or lost. 71. On October 4, 2000, Defendant Shannon responded to Plaintiff's appeal of Grievance Nb;MAH-0427-00 'wherein he advises 'Plaintiff to "follow the ad"cice of the Doctor's prognosis and denied my appeal. Nowhere does any response .to this grievance address the issue of my continued pain and suffering. 72. On October 8, 2000, Plaintiff submitted his final appeal to the Chief Counsel of the Department of Corrections for review and remedial action. 73. On November 9, 2000, Plaintiff received response from Thomas,L. James to his final appeal stating "I concur with the""responses ,already, provided at the institution level. Accordingly, your appeal to final review must be denied." LEGAL CLAIM 74. At all times defendants had under their care, ,supervisioir,.control, maintenance, and/or' was responsible for the',' handioappedshbwer,," located at SCI Waymart which contained the,'missing 'handrail mentioned in the complaint. 75. Defendants had, or should have had knowledge and/or notice of the existence of .the defects, and the defendants was obligated to remedy, ,repair, and/or eliminate them. -12- -, ~ " ,".J > ~'"'pi",.., 76. The injuries that Plaintiff sustained as a result of his fall were caused by the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the defendants, his agents, servants, and/or employees, which included the following: (a) failing to ues due care and to employ reasonable skill in the performance of their duties and in their duty of care toward Plaintiff; (b) failing to exercise the judgement, care, and skill of reasonable persons under similar circumstances; (c) permitting the handicapped shower, mentioned in this complaint, to remain in an unsafe, knowledge of the defect; (d) failing to take reasonable prudence or care in maintaining unusable and dangerous condition, despite the shower, mentioned in this complaint, and failing to maintain the shower in a safe condition; (e) failing to warn Plaintiff Franklin Sutton of the defects; (f) unreasonably exposing Plaintiff Franklin Sutton to a dangerous condition; (g) permitting the shower, mentioned in this complaint, to remain in a dangerous, unsuitable and unsafe condition; (h) failing to 'maintain proper and safety precautions in and around the area where plaintiff fell; (i) failing to correct, remedy, repair, and/or to eliminate the dangerous condition and defects; (j) failing to install handrails in the shower where Plaintiff Franklin Sutton fell for handicapped persons to utilize until proper conditions were available; (k) failing to provide an appropriate shower with reasonably . safe conditions for handicapped persons to use; -13- ". -.'. -" ,. , -. - ,-,= . ;-< v ~~'~'''''-~'~-1 " (1) otherwise conducting themselves in a negligent, careless and reckless manner. 77. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, his agents, servants, and/or employees, Plaintiff Franklin Sutton has suffered certain injuries including: (a) Back spasms, misaligned spine and a severe shock to his nervious system, all of which may be permanent and will continue to cause Plaintiff : great ',pain "and . sgffering. 78. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Franklin Sutton has undergone severe physical pain and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite time in the future and after he is released from his place of confinement, to his great detriment and loss. 79. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, their 'lC-g.ents. servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Franklin Sutton was unable and has been unable to attend to his usual daily duties and affairs, and he will be unable to attend to them for an indefinite time in the future and after he is released from his place of confinement, to his great detriment and loss. 80. The medical care of Plaintiff Franklin Sutton by defendants was in such a negligent and careless manner as to cause and continue the plaintiff serious and severe injuries set forth more fully below. 81. The defendants was negligent in the care and treatment of Plaintiff Franklin Sutton after his fall, inter alia, as follows: (a) Failure to properly advise and inform Plaintiff of all the risk and consequences of, and alternatives to the proposed medical procedures and treatment for his injuries; (b) Failure to take steps necessary .to identify and protect the plaintiff's back during his treatment for the back injure; -14- , (c) Failure to perform medical treatment in such a manner as sto 'avoid firther injury to Plaintiff's back; (d) Failure to conform to the requisite standards of T~aa6naable medical care in treatment of back injuries; (e) Failure to promptly take steps and perform tests necessary tto diagnose and treat the ills caused to Plaintiff Franklin Sutton bycthe injury to his back from the fall; . (f) Failure to conform to the requisite standards medical care; (g) Failure to provide and render reasonable medical care ,cunder of Traasonable the circumstances; (h) Negligence as a matter of ,law. 82. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, his ~gents, servants, and/or employees, Plaintiff Franklin Sutton has suffered back spasms, , spine misalignment, continued pain, physical discomfort, emotional distress, anguish, and apprehension, some or all of which may be continuing or have continuing effects. 83. As a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants herein, as describeed above, the Plaintiff was caused to .undergo tests and various procedures including X-Rays, Massages. 84, As a further result of the aforementioned injuries, the Plaintiff was unable to attend to his usual and daily occupations, duties, labors and avocations, and he will be unable to attend to them for an indefinite time in the future and after he is released from his place of confinement, to his great detriment and loss. ~15- - ~ " , I ~~- " """"" '''''~~';' " CLAIM FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray that this Court enter judgement granting Plaintiff: 1. A declaratory judgement that Defendant's act, omissions, policies and pra~tices described herein violated Plaintiff's rights under the PA and U.S. Constitutions. 2. Conpensatory damages in excess of $10,000.00 to Plaintiff from each Defendant. 3. Punitive Damages in excess of $10,000.00 to Plaintiff from each Defendant. 4. Trial by jury on all issues triable by jury. 5. Plaintiff's cost of this suit. 6. That the Summons and Complaint be served upon the Defendant's by the appropriate means and process of Service be ordered complete. 7. That the Plaintiff be permitted to proceed with this cause of action, In Forma Paup.eris Status for filing of Complaint, and other necessary pleadings. 8. That Plaintiff's Complaint be treated by this Honorable Court according to the legal standards promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Haines v. Kerne., 404 U.S. 519, 92 S Ct. 594 (1972) regarding Pro Se litigants; and Hughes v. Rowe, U.S. 5, 101 A Ct. 173 (1980) regarding ProSe Complaints. And that Plaintiff be granted leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis, forthwith. 9. Such other and further relief deemed necessary, just and equitable by this Honorable Court in instant cases. Plaintiff relief requested herein. prays for the -16- ,. '". ".A, Ie. "'", _ '."l,~'-" ~,:',,;v,_ -, .~, '\,. " VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing Complaint and hereby verify that the matter alleged therein are true, except as to matters alleged on information and belief, and, as to those, I beleive them to be true. I certify under the penalty of prejury that the foregoing is true and correct. Respectfully submitted, ,!JAAh!~iL J;:~ Franklin Sutton, Pro Se Plaintiff No. BV-9496 SCI Mahanoy. 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 Dated: 2-- 2.0- 0 I -17- ~~~""r.if"""*J'fhH!i""I';e<J'W,,,,u.i,,,,*~"~~Ii;lg!.<ii!Iobl."U,il~.~.i;kW':';;''''i..;,~,,jL~",,,,,,,,,,.,',;;,,tl..;filii;\.ill~llliIHllillMiuilli\~~11llllliol- ""'..';.j~IlOl~~~~" .~_......~" NK('~,,-,",A!!!-",.. " _,~ _, JlJ~,,,,~,-,;,=,_",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,~r,!,,y,,"_, ~,-+~ .'. ",', _, ,.,' c ~~>' ,--~~ . . "2 1-\-" ?;.- \_-- -q ., 'J ;"--.1 - ~ " " ,,; '--j " ~-._~~ J',,- -.< - --H (.--) _";;1 , ~ Co) '-- ~ :::J .....! ~:~ -<. ~ ~ , FfB.2 82DD1tfJ I ,~. .. FRANKLIN SUTTON PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA No. 0/ -J/3 g C i vi) lefUYl 'Is. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL~ DEFENDANT ORDER . r . AND NOW, this ~ day of C~ , -U;1Ir it is hereby Ordered that the applicant's Pe~ ~- Lave \0 Proceed In Forma Pauperis is Granted. <.... \ J. , iI: ~ 4;0' V O'd''T~ , f{ ~j' ":':' - ...... ~ -, .-,..... ., r_\., , ." ,j ,-~ , !: '" / .," ,,~ \('i,\\\:~.--t \--iiN'-;'ii\L, ':\'\'\'::';~"1("("\ ';;"';,," "", ..-:\..\..,i--';r'\\ 1'...1 ;r, . , ' , . ';1 ' ::-1. -.,. --."j ;"~ (, '. , ._,.:j,j '. 'c, "n WI( ) ~ jJ .- ";"'ir-~e;'","""y",,.--, -9' ,~,,__ "., ,___'.'_ ",;'i;~tH.~J!i.)r1,,?J},l.J.""'i;('"~,,,A,~,~.,,,,:~'l"i-;-.. ,,",,,,.,, ,- __"_",',-:~,,"r,' ~~;q', ''-'' :"'1 i,l . ~-",," ~~,,"_"J,_.- ,w' .,'L_ ~ .~".<.~.~~.~u'_ ;~.,,""'"" .- , -~~ '" , " . "" '-~' - ~, - , . . . \ " (~ J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON PLAINTIFF No. V5. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. DEFENDANT PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 240 Petitioner. Franklin Sutton . respectfully requests that this Honorable Coon gram him leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuaIIl to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240. Franklin Sutton SWllS UDder tbe penalties provided by 18 Pa.C.S. 14909 (couceming UDSwom falsification (0 awborides) that: '. 1. I am tbe PIa in tiff inllle above action aDd because of my fmancial condition am UIIllble to pay fees and com or (0 aM security tberefore. 2. The following declaration relatina to my ability (0 pay fees aud COS1IS is l1'Ue aDd correct. \ (a) (1) I am curremly an in....fII! at: 1M Slat, Con'lrtior.m Inm.-=z at MaJrDnoy 301 Morea Rotul Fradvilll. PA 11932 (2) I am curmuly paid at tbe rare oU . .19~ per hour for 7 hourS. per day. --- ---- - -- -----~- - - -- ---- -- ---------- -<0" '.. -2 (b) Within the past twelve months. I have not received any iDcome from a business. profession or other form. of self-employment. or in the form. of rem payments. interest. dividends. pensions. annuities. social security benefits. support paymems or other sources. f i I, f' !I ! , ! I ! ! r '.i--. I I, I I (c) Apart from S 76. 96 in my inm,,'" account at this institution. I do not own any cash or checking or savings accounts. Other than a savings account with less ~han $160.00. . (d) I do not own any real estate. stocks. bonds. notes. automobiles. or other valuable property (except ordinary household fumi!lh;ngs 11II1 c1othiDg). (e) I have no dependems. (f) I have no debts aDd obligations. 3. I understand that a false S1lI~ or answer to any question in this verifiecl ""tlml~ will subject me to the penalties provided by law (J";r-pnr of rhe secoDd dep). Wherefore. for the foregcing reasoDI. petitioDer nlSpe<lfully requestS that Ibis Honorable Court arant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. . f! ii . ~ i [!: Date: 2-.- 2.1- C I (1-A/JAfJJt. f. /jf~ Sipamre of AppliCallt. .. t ,. f ! ~ ! I ! I I ~ " ~ ! , I . '''' , 1". &. Ii ,r E' ~} M :g '''''~lr ~:.;, f'---' :,.' ,-- \" l:.;.._ ~^ ~ -' ,~.~,,{ -" ,~" " -'~ c.J C~, ~:j~ :._'}~l ".,)-- ':~,- U) -1--;;- ~22: " Il'.1 ':_'')Cl_ --c; ::; U , ~-'-,~~- ~. "' ,..'.,' U- ~::> ,~J.':...,,;:;jC))i)1~:J "",_,_.~",.=JJ1J1S1",,,, .."~<&"",~.;:",,,,"-,)C,.~,{,,,,-, -~","{,,~O;', ,_,s ,..' ~_"_" - ".- .,__ _,~. 'n"'"_"__~ " ,,-, '." .."L""..- l<.~_" ";~ " ,~, ,-~ "" ," - ,,~ "' ~'" ~- ~, ~-"-. -~ U .. . '... ~ ~ ..,- " ^" f -W IN THE COURT OF COMMON P1EAS OF CUMBER1AND COUNTY, PENNSY1VANIA FRANK1IN SUTTON Plai n ti ff -VS- No. 01-1139 MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants MOTION FOR 1EAVE TO AMEND COMP1AINT AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Franklin Sutton, Pro Se, and files this "1otion for 1eave to Amend his Complaint, stating in support thereof as fell ows' 1. Plaintiff Franklin Sutton commenced this a ction against the defendants MARTIN F. HORN, ROBERT SHANNON, MARTIN DRAGOVICH, RAYMO;:ifD.To COl.LERAN, DONALD FISKE, MARVA CERULLO MILTON FREIDl-lAN, , and JOHN DOE, employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections for'Negligence Whereby a handicap shower was not properly maintained and inadequate m ed ical c are after Plai.ntiff suffered. injuries firom a fall in the neglected handicap shower at SCI Waymart. 2. The Defendants complaint was filed on February 27, 2001. 3. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed In forma Pauperis by order of February 28. 2001. 4. On March 22, 2001, an entry of appearance for the Defendants was made by Sarah C. Yerger, ES4uire. 5. On January 7, 2002, Plaintiff by letter to the Clerk of Court re~uested the status of the above captioned Civil action. 5. Plaintiff received a Civil case inquiry relative to the above captioned case dated January 14, 2002, which revealed that Defend.ants Preliminary Objections were filed on March 26, 2001. ';'<1 -~" ., J_ , ,-,' ..A;!;'" 7. On January 17, 2002, Plaintiff informed the Clerk of Court that he was never served Preliminary Objecctions filed on behalf of the Defendants and requested a copy of same. 8. Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to the Institution Mail Supervisior on Jamuary 29, 2002, con,cer ni ng the alleged service of the Preliminary Objections. Plaintiff received a !,rint out of his legal receipts from .January 19, 2001 through and including September 7,2001., which showed one legal receipt by Defendant's counsel which was entry of appearance dated 3/22/01. 9. On February 20,2002, Plaintiff filed Notice of Default, serving Defendants. counsel with a co!'y. 10. Plaintiff received response from the Defendants counsel dated February 22, 2002, with a copy of the Defendants Preliminary Objections attached. 11. By this motion, Plaintiff respectfully request leave of this Honorable Court to file an Amended Complaint. 12. Th!:! filing of an Amended Complaint will not delay the trial of this action or prej ud ice the Defendants because this case has not been placed at issue nor has discovery been ordered. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Franklin Sutton, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant him leave to file an Amended Complaint in the form attached hereto. ~A/YlJL~ vft/~ Franklin Sutt-on, Pro Se Plaintiff No. BV-9496 SCl l'1ahanoy 301 More a Road FracKvllle, PA 17932 D at ed: ;/)/J~rZ-i, ~. ,~v{)2-- ,. -2- - "- ~ ,. ~ lIlil'~~, IN THE COURT 0 F COMMON PLEAS OF CUMB ERl. AND COmiTY, PENNSYl.VANIA CIVIL ACTION - l.AW FRAIHI.IN SUTTON Plaintiff COMPI.AINT -VS- Civil Action No. 01-1139 MARTIN F. HORN, individually and in his official capacity ROBERT SHANNON, individually and in his official ca"acity MARTIN DRAGOVICH, individually 3.n din his 0 ff i c ia 1 c a) a c it y RAYMOND J. COI.I.ERAN, individually and in llis official capacity DONAI.D FISKE, individually and in his official caiJacity MARVA CERUI.I.O, individuallY and in her officia 1 capacity MIl.TON FRIEDMAN, individually and in his official capacity JOHN DOE, individually and in his official capacity Defendants (CIVIl. RIGHTS) r~-E1A1EI1II~~A~~ND]~fQlif1A1EI 1. Plaintiff, Franklin Sutton, pro se for his complaint state as follows: r~_lQ~r~QlfI1QE-AND_Y~Eg~ 2. This action arises under and is brou",ht ;>ursuant to the Courts of Common Pleas unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings under the Pa. Const. Art. V Section 5(b); 42 Pa.C.S .A. Section 931(a) (Purdon 1981). .E!.~ _r.A~!g~ 3. Plaintiff, FRANKl.IN SUTTON, was at a 11 times mentioned herein, a prisoner of the State of Pennsylvania, in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. He is currently confined at the State Correctional Institution at ~1ahanoy, 301 Morea Road, Frackville, PA 17932 at inmate No. BV-9496. " .'~~ , ~L- .., "' . ,~ ""O'!!it'~~i~jj!.. 4 . Defendant, MARTIN F. HORN, was at all times mentioned herein the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. He was legally responsible for the overall operation of the Department and each institution under its jurisdiction and the welfare of all the inmates of Pennsylvania. His office was located at 2520 Lisburn Road, PO Box 598, Cam,:> Hill PA 17001-0598. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. 5 . Defendant, ROBERT SHANNON, wa sat all times mentioned herein an employee of the Pennsylvania Dep artment of Corrections and succeed Martin Dragovich as Superintendent at SCl Mahanoy. He was legally responsible for the o,Jeration of SCI Mahanoy and for the welfare of all the inmates of that prison. His office was located at 301 Morea Road, Frackville PA 17932. both his individual and official capacities. He is sued in 6. Defendant, MARTIN DRAGOVICH, was at all times mentioned herein an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Co=ections and preceeded Robert Shannon as Superintendent at SCI Mahanoy. He was legally responsibl e for the operation of SCI Mahanoy and for the wel fare of all the inmates of that prison. His office was located at 301 Morea Road, Frackville PA 17932. both his individual and official capacities. 7. Defendant, RAYMOND J. COLLERAN, was at all times mentioned He is sued in herein an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as Superintendent at SCI Watmart. He was legally responsible for the operation of SCI Waymart and for the welfare of all the inmates of that prison. His office was located on the com,:>ound at SCI Waymart, P.O. Box 256, Rt. 6 Waymart PA 18472-0256. He is sued in both his individual and official capacities. - 2- .-, ~ . . i ._, .~-~, 8 . Defendant DONALD FISKE, v.la s at all times mentioned herein all employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as Healtll Care Administrator at SCl Wa.fInart. He was legallj responsible for the administration of the health care needs and the medical welfare of all the inmates assigned to SCl Wajmart prison. His office is located at SCI Wa/mart, P.O. Box 256, Rt. 6 Wa.fmart, PA 18472-0256. official capacities. He is sued in both her individual and 9. Defendant, NARVA CERULLO, was at all times mentioned herein an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as Health Care Administrator at SCI Mahanoy. She was le6a11y responsible for the administration of the health care needs and the medical welfare 0 fall the inmates assigned to SC I Mahanoj prison. Her office is located at SCl "Iahano.f, 301 Morea Road, Frackville, PA 17932- official capacities. 10. Defandant, HIT,! 'IN FElEDMAN, wa s at all times men tione d She is sued in both her individual and herein an employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as Unit Manager at SClHatmart. He was legallt responsible for the operation t-1, L-2/M-l, M-2 housing units of SCl Wa/mart and for the welfare of all the inmates of that Housing Unit. His office was located at SCl "aymart, P.O. Box 256, Rt. 6 Ha/mart Pennsylvania 18472-0256. He is sued in ooth his individual and official capacities. 11. DefenClatlt, JOHN DOE, was at all times mentioned herein an employe. of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections assigned to SC I W a/mart. His responsibilities a-re unknown to Plaintiff 0 He is sued in ~oth his individual and official ca~aci~ies~ ~3~ ,~, ~;'~-;":~r IV. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS --- ---------------- 12. Plaintiff has filed no other lawsuits dealing with the same facts involved in this action or otherwise relating to the incident and treatment relating to the injury mentioned in this complaint. y~_E~gAU~!lQB_QI_~~~l~l~!~~!lVE_g~ME~l~~ 13. Plaintiff used the State prisoner grievance procedure to try to resolve hi s probl em. On August 29, 2000, PI ai n tiff presented the facts relating to his complaint in his Official Grievance No. MAH-0427-00 and appealed each decision to exhaustion by Response of Thomas 1" James to final appeal stating "I concur with the responses already provided a t the inst it ution 1 avel. Yl.~_._~!gE~E~!._Q:LI~fn 14. On Wedne sday, February 9, 2000, Plai nt iff wa s transfer:ted from SCI Mahanoy to SCl Waymar'!: to participate in a s.O.P. program. 15. On February 16, 2000. Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to staff to Defendant Fiske expressing his concerns about the accommodations for inmates with disabilit ies. Plai nt iff' s left leg is amputated above the knee and his balance is very poor and is considered han di capp ed. Plain'!: iff' s inmate request to staff to Defendant Fiske went unanswered. 16. On February 28, 2000, Plaintiff again submitted a inmate request to staff to Defendant Fiske expressing concerns about the accommodations for inmates with disabilities. 17. On March 2, 2000, Defendant Fiske responded stating "SCl Waymart is not a handicapped assessable facility. I f you f ee 1 .four needs cannot be met here, please sign~up for sick~call and -4 - ,~".""""".~- - I' __j_J ",>,,"-,- ~ : 1 ill~j<-: request a transfer to a more I . ap?rOpr1ate I ~o ." facility. Plea s e in form me on what YO''! would lille to 18. On March 6, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate reGuest to Defendant Friedman COnVeYi),., the problem with the plumb ing in I the hl1nidcap show,;". The W'!l.ter was scalding hot and Petitioner was forced to use the adjacent shower. Plaintiff requested that a work order be submitted to have the handicapped shower repaired. 19. On March 21, 2000, Plaintiff submitted a second request to staff to Defendant Friedman complainin& about the handicapped shower and again requested that it be repaired. 20. On March 27, 2000, the tradesmen at SCI Waymart shut off the water to the handicapped shower because of plumbing problems. 21. On March 28, 2000, at approximatelY 8:35 p.m. Plaintiff fell in the General POj)ulation shower that did not have a handrail and injured himself and was treated bj" the ~Iedical staff at SCl Waymart after Officer McGrath called over to medical and had inmate Griffin CF-7l76 push Plaint iff over to medical in a wheelChair. The nurlle wrote-up an incident re;>ort and ask ed Plaintiff if he felt the need to stay overnight, gave him three (3) aavil 200 mg tablets and told him to sign-up for Sick Call for the next day. 22. On Hareh 29,2000, Plaintiff rejlort<id to Sick Call at sel Waymart where X-Rays were taken of his back and a three day supply of advil was i;iven to him along 'with three (3) days medical lay-in. ?3. On ~pd.l l, 2000, Officer Panna had inmate Griffin jlush Plaintiff over to medical in a wheelchair .rhere he was seen by Ms. Sally ",ho t~,ld him that his X-Ray showed that Plaintiff had a -5- k. -, ~--- o. I" -J_>., _'~~ muscle spasm in his back that,was causing the pain. Plaintiff was given a seven (7) day supply 'of motrin 600 mg tablets and told to 24. On April 3, 2000, ! had any further complications. ! Plaintiff submitted an inmate request sign-up for Sick Call if he to staff to Defendant Fiske informing him abou t the inj ury resulting from his fall in the shower. 25. On April 5, 2000, Defendant Fiske offered the following reply to Plaintiff's April 3, 2000, request: " I have spoken wj.th Mr. Friedman mattress. I have also s'polten with our will be transferred soon~'f concerning a s econ d Central Office. You 26. On AprilS, 2000, IPlaintiff went to sick call and was I seen by Mr. Hefferman, PA who also told Plaintiff that his X-Rays ! showed that he was suffering 4'rom muscle spasm. He also explained -;1 the effects of muscle spasm and ho,. the muscle ,.ill tighten up on the back.. Plaintiff .las given a seven (7) day supply of Robaxin 500 mg tablets. 27. On April 10, 2000, Plaintiff again informed the Unit Manager and Unit Counselor by Hay of inmate request to staff member that the shower with the rail "as still out of order. 28. On April 10, 2000, Plaintiff went to siCk call because his back pain was unbearable a'nd having trouble sleeping. He was seen by Mr~ Heffer.man, PA and, requested an additional mattress to help minimize the pain. Pl!aintiff also informed Mr. Hefferman that he would be transferredl back to SCl Mahanoy soon. He sa id ! that he would not authorize an extra mattress because Plaintiff may be transferred any day. 29. On April 13, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and requested to see his X-Ray" was refused and again requested a -6- ,- ~ - j- " ~1 " 'J d ~ L " ~~-"~, second mattress. Mr. Hughs said that "under guidelines that he nor Mr. Fiske cannot authorize a second mattress. In order for him to obtain a second mattress, Plaintiff would have to have had surgery or a serious injury, sometbing of that mature." Plaintiff was given a seven day supply of Robaxin 500 mg tablets. 30. On April 14, 2000, Plaintiff was given an additional mattress until transfer. 31. On April 21, 2000, Plaintiff submitted a memorandum to Defendant Colleran informing him of the inj uries he sustained on March 28, 2000, due to negligence and requested the status of his transfer. 32. On April 26, 2000, Plaintiff was transferred back to SCI Mahanpy. 33. On April 27, 2000, Plaintiff was told that he had to report ot Chronic Clinic, at which time he requested a wheelchair. His need for a wheelchair was documented in his medical records. Plaint iff was prescribed a twenty-eight (28) day sUPi,ly 134/96 and on Naproxen 375 mg tablets, his blood ;>ressure was "eighed 254 lbs. 34. On April 28, 2000, Plaintiff "ent to sick call medical attention for his back pain. He was seen be ~Ir. he seeking Ignatius Hall (PA) who told him that muscle si>asm could last for ui> to two (2) years or more. A request "as made for a wheelchair and Plaintiff was told "it is written down in your medical records and it will be taken care Of." Plaint iff was given a seven (7) day suppl.! of Motrin 400 mg tablets because he could not pick up the Naproxen 375 mg tablets previously ordered April 29, 2000. 35. May 3, 2000, during his visit to sick call, Plaintiff -7 - , ".~ ._1 " " i.,,,",""=~,,,. "" was seen by Mr. Joseph Ruch (PA). He requested to be seen by a Doctor and was denied stating there was no need. He prescribed a ten (~O) day supply of l1ethocarbil'nol (Robaxin) 750 m€. tablets for his back "ain. 36. On May 8,2000, Plaintiff sUbmitted an inmate request to Defendant Marva Cerullo, Facility ADA Coordinator informin5 of his accident at Sel Waymart and the tr.eatment he has been receivin". Plaintiff also requested the use of a wheelchair and an explanation of the tr.eatment h cing administered. 37. On May 8, 2000, Defendant Cerullo conveyed that she did not know about the danger of muscle spasm or the proper treatment and suggested that I ask at sick call. 38. On May 10, 2000, Defendant Cerullo further conveyed that she is not licensed to jJrescrihe and if a. wheelchair is necessary it will be ordered. Defendant Cerullo further explained th at basin's, which was confiscated from Pla.int iff upon his return to SCl Mahanoy, are not allowed in the institution and that she did not see why that should be changed. 39. On May 22, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to ,taff memher Mr. Anthony TH Patrucci.o a,nd Mr. Edgar M. Kneiss, Deputy Superintendent's for Facilit.y Management and Centrall ized Services respectively concerning the basin confiscated from him which he used to soak his foot. 40. On May 22, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call again seeking medical attention for his back pain. He was seen by Ms. Hoch (PA), who examined him by having him raise his arm, leg, and neck rotations. Plaintiff was "iven a three (3) day supjlly of Acetaminophen (Tylenol) 325 mg tahlets. Start 5/22/00-End 5/26/00. -8- ". '" ..~~,., "lUu." ~;,:j 41. On May 23, 2000, Deputy Kneiss responded by stating that "the tub is not allowed here unless medical determines you ne ed it." 42. On Hal 24, 2000, Deputy Patrucc io responded by st ating "Deputy Kneiss will arrange the return of your basin." 43. 0'1 May 2t., 2000, Plaintiff "gain submitted an inmate request to staff member Defendant Cerullo informing that the proper medical attfolnticn is being denied. 44.. On May 2512000, Defendant Cerullo offered her medical 09inion as to th e seriousness on Plaintiff TS inju.ries and concluded that he did not need to be seen by a Doctor. 45. On May 30, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call because his pain had s,lread to his right arm, shoulder, and neck. Plaintiff 'was also experiencing d tinci1ing feeling i.n his right thumb. He was also seen by Mr. Rush (PA) liho gave him a reflex examination and prescribed a ten (10) day suP,>lf of Baclofen (T_ioresal) 10 mg tablets, ona (1) by mouth three (3) times daily. 46. On May 31,2000, Plaintiff unsatisfied with the last response from Defendant Cerullo regarding bein3 seen by a Dootor submitted another inmate req,uest to staff member anrl received Defendant Cerullo's June 2, 2000, response statin" that his "Neurological evaluation are with;.n normal 1 imits." ~7~ On June 2, 2000, Plaintiff was given an an nu a 1 phfsical. He was seen by Mr. Hall (PA), who he had informed about his b sok "ain and hOI. the pain had spread to his right arm, shoulder, and neck and about the tin;;ling feeling in his thumb. He was told that . " 1. I continue to have these " a in s to sign -u" for sick cs 11. He wa s gi ven a reflex examination and a work -9- ~ , ~ I . . ';" ~. ~ -" - ,~ t.l"'t', rest riction of no work requiring standing or bending. B 1 00 d pressure was 134/84, pulse 76, and weight 260. 48. On June 12, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and was seen by Mr. Hall, (PA) requesting test to find the source of the pain in his right arm, shoulder, and neck. He said that X-Rays will be taken on Friday, June 16, 2000. He also told Plaintiff that he has a degenerate bone disease which was determined when Plaintiff was seen by Mr. Rush. Mr. Hall gave Plaintiff a three (3) day supplY of Ibupropfen (Motrin) 400 mg ablets to be taken three (3) times daily. He also ordered a ten (10) day supply of Motrin 600 mg tablets to be taken by mouth three (3) times daily for ten (10) days until completed. 49. On June 16, 2000, Plaintiffn went to medical where two (2) X-Rays were taken, by a Mr. Guy, of Plaintiff's shoulder. He reviewed the X-Rays and determined that none of Plaintiff's joints were dislocated. He also said that the radiologist would examine the X-Rays and make a report of the results. Plaintiff's pain at this time was continuing. 50. On June 19, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to Defendant Cerullo informing her of the preliminary X-Ray findings and info.rming her of the chronic pain. 51. On June 20, 200Jll, Defendant Ce rullo responded informing Plaintiff that "you need to follow-up with sick call please." 52. On June 23, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call and was seen by Mr. Ignatius Hall (pi\.). The report from the two (2) X-Rays taken of Plaintiff's shoulder on 6/16/00 were not available in Plaintiff's medical file. Mr. Hall prescribed a ten (10) day supply of Robaxin 750 mg tablets and a ten (10) day supply of -10~ -" ~ " J. I-J --l _= -~ 1i.lIl~":i;, Motrin 600 mg tablets to be taken once by mouth three (3) times daily. He also referred Plaintiff to be seen by the Doctor. 53. On June 29, 2000, during Plaintiff's visit to the M. D. I ine he was seen by Dr. Markosi. Plaintiff explained his symptoms and the pain that he was experiencing in his right arm, shoulder, and neck. Plaintiff also told the Doctor about the t in!; ling in h is thumb that arm. The Doctor proceeded has ben t raveling through his right to massage Plaintiff's shoulder and neck. He also examined Plaintiff's u;lper back and both wrists. Dr. Markosi said that the problem is not in Plaintiff's shoulder, but in this spinal cord which is causing the pain in the neck. When Plaintiff asked the Doctor, how he was making this determination? he informed "by the symptoms and the examination that Plaintiff was just given. He said that he was schedul ing Plaintiff for X-Rays of his neck. Plaintiff was told to sign-up for sick call and the previous medication was continued. 54. On June 30, 2000, Plaintiff went to med ical to have the X-Rays taken of his neck. A Mr. Joe took the X-Rays and informed Plaintiff that the radiologist will examine the X-Rays and make a report of the results. 55. On July 3, 2000, Plaintiff lJent to sick call and was seen by Mr. Rush (PA) and was in formed that the re suIts from the X-Rays of his neck have not been returned. Plaintiff was also told that he is suffering from arthritis. Mr. Rush also asked Plaintiff if he ever had an injury to his arm in then prescribed a ten (iO) day supply of Robaxin and a ten (10) day supply of Motrin 600 mg tablets. the past. He 750 mg tab let s He also added Petitioner's name to the M.D. line to be seen by the Doctor. -11- - I I ......""'ju.,'., J&L 56. On July 13, 2000 Plaintiff went to M.D. line and was seen by Dr. Markosi and was informed that his spine was not straiGht and will therefore, have these complications. 57. On July 21, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to Defendant Cerullo informing her of his continued suffering due to his injury from the SCI Waymart fall and informed her that the medication being administered was not working. 58. On July 24, 2000, Defendant Cerullo informed Plaintiff in her response that she is not a Doctor, therefore, she will have to rely upon the judgement of those who are and suggested that Plaintiff go on a diet to lose weight. 59 . 0 n July 2 6 , 20 0 0 , PIa i n t iff wen t t 0 sic k c a 11 an d was seen by Mr. Joseph Rush (PA) attempting to address the areas of his pain. He informed Plaintiff that he was aware of his problem and th.at he was notified by Dr. Markosi to treat the pain and recommended phys ical therapy. Plaintiff informed him that the Motrin tablets was beginning to effect his stomach so he changed the Motrin to Tylenol. He prescribed Robaxin 750 mg one (1) tablet three (3) times daily for fourteen (14) days, and Tylenol 325 mg two (2) tablets three times daily for fourteen (14) days. He in formed PIa int iff t hat he coul d pick up the med icat ion at the pill wind.ow on July 28, 2000. Plaintiff informed him that he was in pain now and needed med ication immediately and .was told that he could not give him medication because it had to be approved by the physiCian. 6 0 . 0 n Au g u s t 1, 2 000 , PIa in tiff wen t top hy sic a 1 th e r apy and was seen by Mr. Matt HoppeL Plaintiff told him the areas that he was having pain. He informed Plaintiff that the Doctor -12- '''~~~. .-' , ~. "t;;' had recommended that he examine Plaintiff's prosthesis. No treatment for pain was administered. 61. On August 3, 2000, Plaintiff again went to Physical th'erapy and was again seen by Mr. Matt Hoppel who said that he spoke with Pro Markosi who recommended that Plaintiff's prosthesis be examined by the Orthopedic Appliance person. Still no treatment for Plaintiff's spine or pain. He advised Plaintiff to sign-up for sick call to have the Doctor recommend treatment. 62. On August 7, 2000, Plaintiff went to sick call to seek physical therapy treatment and who said that physical therapy care but for serious inj uries. was seen by Mr. Joseph Rush (p A) was not for persons with chronic Plaintiff informed him that his injuries sustained at SCI Waymart was causing enormous pain. Mr. Rush sa id the Doctor woul d have to make treatment det ermina ti ons . 63. On August 10, 2000, Plaintiff went to M.D. 1 ine and was seen by Dr. Markosi and informed him about the physical therapy problem. Dr. Markosi said he would not recommend the treatment because I did not have any broken bones. Dr. Markosi said that my spinal cord is not straight and they have done all that they can and that they did not want to see Plaintiff anymore. Dr. Markosi prescribed a thirty (30) day supply of Robaxin 750 mg tablets and Tylenol 325 mg tablets twice a daily. 64. On August 17, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request to Defendant Cerullo and informed her about his 8/10/00 visit with Dr. Markosi and she stated "the M.D. has the final say. fI 65. On August 29, 2000, Plaintiff -l3.- submitted an Official ~"~ ~~~~ ~ J , . L.l!!l~':' Inmate Grievance concerning the medical treatment that he was receiving at SCI Mahanoy for the injuries received at SCI Waymart. This Grievance was assigned No. MAH-0427-00. 66. On August 31, 2000, Ms. Carol Dotter, Corrections Superintendent Assistance responded to Plaintiff's grievance informing of grievance procedure. 67. Plaintiff received Defendant Cerullo's September 8, 2000 Initial Review response to Plaintiff's grievance. 68. On September 22,2000, Plaintiff submitted his appeal to Defendant Shannon, SeI Mahanoy Superintendent. 69. On October 2, 2000, Plaintiff s ubm it te d an inma te request to Defendant Shannon inquiring about his appeal submitted to him on September 22, 2000. 70. Defendant Shannon's October 2, 2000, response informed that "an appeal to my office was never received." 71. On October 3, 2000, Plaintiff submitted an in ma te request to Defendant Shannon acknowledging his 10/2/00 replY and forwarded a copy of his September 22, 2000, appeal for response in the event his initial appeal had been misplaced or lost. 72. On October 4,2000, Defendant Shannon responded to Plaintiff's appeal of Grievance No. MAH-0427-00 wherein he advises Plaintiff to follow the advice of the Doctor's prognosis and denied his appeal. Nowhere does any response to this grievance address the issues of Plaintiff's continued pain and suffering. 73. On October 8, 2000, Plaintiff submitted his final appeal to the Chief Counsel of the Department of Corrections for review and remedial action. 74. On November 9, 2000, Plaintiff received response from - 14- ",.> -._.~ l_,~ J J ~ ~ 'U' Yo Thomas L. James to his final appeal stating "I concur with the responses already provided at the insti tutional leveL Accordingly, your appeal to final review must be denied." YI~_~I!I!~!!I_QI-f1!lMS QOUliI-Qli~__[EG1IGENI-IAILU!I-I2-~!I~I!I!-ll!~~IC!I-~llQ~!! 75. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 74, inclusive, as though set forth at length. 76. At all mater ial time s, the defendants acted by and through its duly authorized agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, act in g within the scope of their authority and employment. At all material times, the defendants had under its care, supervision, control and maintenance the defective handicap shower located on the block at SCI Waymart where Plaint iff wa s housed. On March 28, 2000, PlaintIff slipped and felL 77. As as result of sl ipp ing in the general po,)ulation shower which did not have a handrail, plaintiff fell to the floor and suffered back injuries. 78. SOlely as a result 0 f the ne gligence and carelessness 0 f the defendants, Plaintiff has been obliged to receive medical attention and care for the injuries he suffered also under the controll of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement in his favor and against the defendants in an amount in excess .'If $20,000.00 plus interest and cost. COUNT TWO: BREACH OF DUTY TO PROTECT ------------------------------ 79. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 78, inclusive, as though set forth at 1 ength. 80. The Defendants exercised deliberate indifference to -15- -""'" ~ I ""'..... .. '~ . m~;' Plaintiff's health and safety by failing t<l> protect him from an unsafe environment even though they had been informed of the unsafe environment and threat to Plaintiff's health and safety. The Defendants received several requests from Plaintiff informing them of the damaged handicap shower which Plaintiff needed to use. 81. As a result of the deliberate indifference exercised by the aforementioned Defendants, Plaintiff suffered serious harm and injuries and extreme emotional distress from the incident. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement in his favor and against the defendants in an amount in excess of $20,000.00 plus interest and cost. ~QgNI-Ig~ggl-_IN!~gg]!!!-!~!EG11~g!I-~gQI~1-CA~! 82. Plaint iff incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs I through 81, inclusive, as though set forth at length. 83. The Defendants exercised deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's health by failing to provide adequate medical care to him following his fall in the shower. Petitioner was denied a back to SC I double matresses until he was within days of transfer Mahanoy. Once at SCl t1ahanoy Plaint iff was denied a wheelchair, and adequate medical attention to the pain he was suffering from the fall at SCl Waymart. 84. The negligence and/or recklessness of the Defendants acting as aforesaid, consisted, inter alia, of the following: (a) Negligence and/or recklessness at I aw; and (b) Otherwise failing to use due care under the circumstances. 85. As a result of the deliberate indifference to Plaintiff condition, Plaintiff suffered further llain and mental anguish. lie -16- C."_.1,.,,1;. '.l'~ - -- -. ' ,^ I . ~r ,.>," , ~ ~lll~w.j;i\' continue to suffer back pain and general pain throughout his body, and the Defendants refused to provide adequate pain medication. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands jUdgement in his favor and against the defendants in an amount in excess of $20,000.00 plus interest and cost. VIII. PRAYER FOR OTHER RELIEF -------------------------- WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully pray that this Honorable Court enter further judgement granting Plaint iff: 86. A declaratory judgement that the Defendant's acts, amiss ions I >,01 icie s and practices described herein v io 1 ate d Plaintiff's rights under the PA and US Constitutions; 87. A trial by jury on a 11 issues triable by jury, 88. That the Complaint be served upon the Defendant's by the appropriate means and process of Service be ordered complete, 89. That Plaintiff be permitted to proceed with this cause of action, In Forma Pauperis Status for the f i1 in g of th is Complaint and other necessary pleadings; 90. That this Complaint be treated by this Honrorable Court according to the legal standards promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of !!~i!!.~.!L_Y.:._!~~!!.!!!' 92 S. Ct. 594 (1972) regarding Pro Se litigants; and !!.!:!..!l.!!!!!_Y.:._~!!!:!~' 101 S.Ct. 173 (1980) regarding Pro Se litigants. And that Plaintiff be 6ranted leave to ,:>roceed In Forma Pau,:>eris, forthwith. 91. Such other and further relief deemed necessary, just and e'luitable by this Honorable Court in instant cases. Plaintiff prays fo;:: the relief requested herein. YE;~:!.1::II~EQ!!' I have read the foregoing Amended Complaint and hereby verify -17 - - . ~- _L ..o.i" . .~. M-, that the matters alleged therein are true, except as to matters alleged on information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true.. I certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct~ >. :J;Ma/~;j;,. j;7/;;;. Franklin Su~ton, Pro Se Plaintiff No. BV-9495 SCI Hahanoy 301 Mdrea Road F ra ckv ill e, PAl 7932 Dated: 1'1/1.r.,eJ, 'f,. ~vl> pi.. , -18- ~ ~ - . , ,J '~ , ,-, '--l~'- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON PI ai n tiff -VS- No. 01-1139, MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants VERIFICATION I, Franklin Sutton, Plaintiff herein do make verification and state that the averments of fact set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa . C . S. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. h~~11~tt0:~~o No. BV-9496 SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, FA 17932 Se Plaint iff Dated, n""""j, '" -A vi) ~ f - -3- "'~ , , . ~. - , ", .~ ,-~""",-,,,,,~,-" I II THE C OUR T 0 F COMMON PLEAS 0 F CUM BER LAN D COUNTY, PENN S YT.VA III A FRA:'lKLIN SUTT ON Plaintiff -vs - MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendant s No. 01-1139 CERTIFICATE 0 F SERVICE I herebj certifj that I am this day serving the foregoing MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT upon the per sones) a!l1 in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS, ------------------------------------------ Sarah C. Yerger Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburs, PA 17120 Dated: YJaA-il-i. c,(, ,,;to/),,:z , ,,~~Ji~ ,;{./g,~ Franklin Sutt"on, Pro Se Plaintiff No. BV-9496 SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, FA 17932 ~~'1ii:Ii:i.~~ill&Iilll',,,,,,~t;;,H~~",""~"'lig,;i'..iflli~<!ili;;~<A~,,~iEuj,;"'t!Q:'ii.l[C;iiE:;",<;!~~"""""'""t<!I'.,\1tW~- 'iIIIliIiI~' ~},!~.iJl,t {~~,[~DJ'1lt",t(1m!)."" "_~,_k",_~ -,,>"->.- ,t.t."-.,.",..,,,,.. ",_", "'_ '_. ~"'-_.' 'C;- , _"k,,, 'Cl., '" _-~"oc~- .'. "'.' ,1 ~iii~~=.~..a~~~~~'''' - ~ - -, ~ '""-' .~ ~~, "" < -'0 , , 0 ("~-l " C ;' <1 , I ~~ , "':,-, :r1 ;----1 en . c:) -,,-~, ~) ~.t! -~- ~- :.::-):- :~~j ;-1] ,. :"J ~ ..,- ~ ! ,",,";;,,~!. ",","~~ - ! I,j " , , -0_ J J,,"~~(';; - , ~<,"h<I'.,,: . c . , > f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. Defendants, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance in the above-captioned action on behalf of the defendants. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General BY, ~f~ SARAH C. YE E Deputy Attorney eneral SUSAN FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, P A 17120 Direct: (717) 705-2503 Date: March 21, 2001 ~'~ . . . . . I "' >"~"." -~~ "~J~~ . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. PENNSYL VANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et aI. Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SARAH C. YERGER, Deputy Attorney General, hereby certify that on this date I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance by placing it in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, first class, in Harrisburg, P A, addressed to each of the following: Franklin Sutton, BV -9496 SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, P A 17932 SARAH C. YE Deputy Attorne DATE: March 21, 2001 ~~~I!l\i(~.ij!&ki!fd~~,"-Qi>lii!iIfl!~ili"~!;MJ.t&ft-d!~m~~~i!!i:.",!,N,,,<.0f'i'"e,:th;l>o'+:1"";j,.e,~:,;",,!~~,,,,~"~k.h<~~~IilIIili:~" J~ t" ,.~~'"''-'' _, , __ O~.~, I "_~C'.-~,","_ ~"~ ~~ ',""". ,''''''''''''', '_"~" _~ '-', <",,- " ,.,-<c '\~ ,"". ",-." - <llilll'""'~' ^ "Iillr ~,~ CJ <;;; "':- -on"; rnr-r z:x-' ~~~ r.::c~ l.2 :2, ::2 o '" ',' - . , CJ- -1'1 - ...;<'" .-.t ~:~~ (:) ~ rt -n '::,,:~ u .-.\ ~1~.. 5~ -<. :r." "00 ~'" N -0 c.) C'" c:, - ~ 'd_ t!tkl - ill"',- .. -'<~_[i!!ll!:r_Jti:!Ifllijfiit!i" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff -VS- No. 01-1139 MARTIN HORN, et al. Defelldants : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Franklin Sutton, hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing NOTICE upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirement of Pa.R.C.P. SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: -------------------------------.--- Sarah C. Yerg er Dep uty At torne}' Gene ral Off.ice of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, FA 17120 Fri~i~.~4rraiitiff-- No. BV-9496 SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Fraekville, FA 17932 D at ed: 1!.:~!:v A ~,AcJ-t_ti!t2.(}d?:: -ill1''il~,~I'"~;;;;;.-,,;H''"~,,,_"''''',U J,~, . ,_~ ,-.,"",,,, ~li'-'-'iC",;,t'~.i,;~~".,~ _-c_ '_'''' "_'~,i' '>-',~~ ,.."J')' Jt::o ,,,_,,~~~~,~~ _"'oW .., _, '. lc~<_ _<'"~o",P'_~" ',," i''l~'..--'i.l>_j'''''haI!l!\lJlil,WjUI~lgll1l~~.W;tti"':",:.!w",.,''',id;''t,.;"-,,,",:e;J_"liI~~ll#lfu!L_ _'~~ ___ '4_^ ,.J ~- (") c: :c- ''003 mnl ZTI :zc: ~~' r:O ~ J>O zc5: ;t>c Z ~ " . _'___"-""","."'''''''Rr o N :l!: """ :;:0 I ...... I o -'-f": :P>. :J!: cO ," c}.> "-; F1~pg ",-.f'n ~:~ arn _c~ )> 3!! j ~- -1" . ~'''-c--~_Ol!_'f- .. V"W:i~iiiIll~~,L,,,","""'I;"N~'" ' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRA NKLIN SUTTON Plainti ff -VS- No. 01-1139 MARTIN HORN, et al. Dafendant s TO: Sarah C. Ye1;"ger Deputy Atto~ney General Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Date: February 20, 2002 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ACTION REQl1IRED OF YOU IN THIS CASE. YOU HAVE NOT SERVED PLAINTIFF WITH A COPY OF YOUR ANSWER REQUIRED BY Pa.R.C.P. 1026. PLAI NTIFF RECEIVED A COPY OF COUNSEL'S MA.1\CH 21, 2001, ENTERY OF APPEARANCE AND NO OTHER FILING BY THE DEFENDANTS OR C011lNSEL. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAY FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, JUDGEMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITH011lT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. ~4/i1J~~ ___ Franklin Sutton, Pro Se Plaintiff No. BV-9496 SCI Mahanoy 301 More a Road Frackvi1le, PA 17932 d'~~iIJi!f;'!I.~,,:affi:,. ";;-;"i'.,~f;';;:'-(;;Ii,,,;i;!;t~W.','"-:i,,:'~,.,},~," _-,~ ~)U!!::;,,,,,,,,.,,,O',-~, "" ""~,.,._",~_",~_,""""=,,,,,,~", "". '-~'''',',',---, ~ -,...."'''''" - .,-,,- ,"~;;:;.,;,~,;;j1i;,"j~~<lii!~&':lIiIMJ:~(j'#M""'"}';::.{"""*""'"-,,_,,,~,,,-id.<<WI2\Jeim':1=b=~~" ~n_ 0 <:::. C) c l'.) -,'1 s: 3: -om :tlJa mrT: :;;D --n z::c ~ L~ Y ~:":i- "'- r.::C) CJ ~ -'-I ):- ~~j;g ~C' ~1"' Z / -"l. -0 -,;.:p\.. -' )>c If? On: Z j""-.;) ~ ~ :v c..:> -< '9(j( " I .~. ~ " IT ~-~ ~. -,~"~.- - ,~ ,J , " ' . "."'il\<e",il 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. NOTICE TO PLEAD 0 C::') c) ~; i',~l , , u .. . fTi {-,-~ ---, , ~ , , N G~ ') , <..1, -< " C~ " "" ~ .U :~:: ,-' , ',- C:' ('~') '~ ~:,::~ i-n ):-" c:: Z >'-) i> =2 "1] .1'" '< MARTINuBDRN, et aI. Defendants, TO: Franklin Sutton SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, Pennsylvania 17932 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General By: Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 PHONE: (717) 705-2503 FAX: (717) 772-4526 SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section DATE: March 22, 2001 2 i~~". ~,~ .-,,,, _ ! -1.0: ~,~ ___' - -" '~'; 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants, by their attorneys, hereby file the following preliminary objections: I. DEMURRER I. Plaintiff in this case is Franklin Sutton, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy(SCI-Mahanoy) in Frackville, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants are Martin Horn, Robert Shannon, Martin Dragovich, Raymond Colleran, Donald Fiske, Marva Cerullo, Milton Friedman and John Doe, employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. 3. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendants violated his rights, and he seeks damages for allegations of an injury caused by negligence on the part of the institution in which he was incarcerated, and for violations of his constitutional rights for failing to properly treat his injuries. See Complaint ~ 75-78. 4. Plaintiff seeks damages for unspecified violations of law possibly implicating the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, i.e. failure to provide medical treatment and deliberate indifference to health and safety of an inmate under breach of duty of care. 3 ~,...,,-, . I ,. -IioiIiii' 'd ~l s. Although not explicitly stated in the complaint, this appears to be a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 9 1983 and a state law tort claim. 6. In support of a Section 1983 action, plaintiff must allege that (I) defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) defendants' conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 7. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as plaintiff has not stated facts which suggest which constitutional protections have been violated by defendants' conduct. 8. The constitutional allegations in the complaint should be dismissed as plaintiff has failed to aver with particularity the exact and specific actions taken by the defendants which allegedly deprived him of his civil rights, and the exact and specific law which was violated. 9. Additionally, assuming an Eighth Amendment violation is being claimed, no facts are alleged to demonstrate that any of the defendants was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of Sutton. 10. Defendants Horn, Shannon, Dragovich, and Colleran were not providers of medical treatment to Sutton and therefore are being sued under a theory of res,pondeat sllPerior. That theory is not permitted in claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9 1983. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss the federal constitutional claims against them for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. DEMURRRR II. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-10 herein as if set forth in full. 4 liI~_ ~,J.~~~.",."" =~~~ "'~-;1. 12. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his rights and caused him injury through their negligence. 13. As Commonwealth employees acting within the scope of their duties, they are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to 42 Pa C.s. ~ 8502, et seq. Any claim based on Pennsylvania law is barred by sovereign immunity. ll. LACK OF JURTSDICTIONIIMPROPER SERVICE OF A COMPLAINT 14. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 requires that "original process shall be served within the Commonwealth by the sheriff." Pa.R.Civ.P.400(a). 15. The original complaint and the amended complaint in this matter were not served on the defendants as prescribed by the rule but was sent via first class mail. 16. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain the preliminary objection and dismiss the complaint. Respectfully submitted, SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, P A 17120 Direct: (717) 705-2503 Date: March 22, 2001 5 ~=-", "~"'"';--~~ "l I ~. .~"~"- -~. I~},; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SARAH C. YERGER, Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, hereby certify that on March 22, 2002, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled Preliminary Objections of Defendants, by depositing a copy of same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following: Franklin Sutton, BV-9496 SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, P A 17932 Date: March 22, 2002 :~~r "~-"'- ;.-1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTlNIIQRN,et al. Defendants, o C~ ;;:;"- """lJ !_ :~-~ rn ~,-, Z :~~~' ;:.:~: - ~/~:, r- ~.--, ~t~ /' ~l --<. ~T! !'~) (Ji NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Franklin Sutton SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, Pennsylvania 17932 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General By: Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 PHONE: (717) 705-2503 FAX: (717) 772-4526 SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section DATE: March 22, 2001 2 ...,..-....-----~,"" - (.oJ !') .[;"'. Uj~,.,C:', (") ::,::; :::1 .--< ."'''''''''''-- ~-~. _J j I ~ ~ ~ ,- " L' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et aI. Defendants, DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants, by their attorneys, hereby file the following preliminary objections: I. DEMURRER 1. Plaintiff in this case is Franklin Sutton, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (SCI-Mahanoy) in Frackville, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants are Martin Horn, Robert Shannon, Martin Dragovich, Raymond Colleran, Donald Fiske, Marva Cerullo, Milton Friedman and John Doe, employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. 3. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendants violated his rights, and he seeks damages for allegations of an injury caused by negligence on the part of the institution in which he was incarcerated, and for violations of his constitutional rights for failing to properly treat his injuries. See Complaint ~ 75-78. 4. Plaintiff seeks damages for unspecified violations oflaw possibly implicating the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution ofthe United States, i.e. failure to provide medical treatment and deliberate indifference to health and safety of an inmate under breach of duty of care. 3 '" 5. Although not explicitly stated in the complaint, this appears to be a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 and a state law tort claim. 6. In support of a Section 1983 action, plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) defendants' conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 7. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as plaintiff has not stated facts which suggest which constitutional protections have been violated by defendants' conduct. 8. The constitutional allegations in the complaint should be dismissed as plaintiff has failed to aver with particularity the exact and specific actions taken by the defendants which allegedly deprived him of his civil rights, and the exact and specific law which was violated. 9. Additionally, assuming an Eighth Amendment violation is being claimed, no facts are alleged to demonstrate that any ofthe defendants was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of Sutton. 10. Defendants Horn, Shannon, Dragovich, and Colleran were not providers of medical treatment to Sutton and therefore are being sued under a theory of res,pondeat superior. That theory is not permitted in claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss the federal constitutional claims against them for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. n. DEMURRER 11. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-10 herein as if set forth in full. 4 J 'il~- ~ ~ " . J .'_ "-'_.. "~"',;. ~ '"'~".\ll:h'" 12. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his rights and caused him injury through their negligence. 13. As Commonwealth employees acting within the scope of their duties, they are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to 42 Pa C.S. ~ 8502, et seq. Any claim based on Pennsylvania law is barred by sovereign immunity. II. LACK OF JURISDICTIONITMPROPER SERVICE OF A COMPLAINT 14. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 requires that "original process shall be served within the Commonwealth by the sheriff." Pa.R.Civ.P.400(a). 15. The original complaint and the amended complaint in this matter were not served on the defendants as prescribed by the rule but was sent via first class mail. 16. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain the preliminary objection and dismiss the complaint. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Atto ey Ge.neral L. \. t~"IJ. 'v'll BY:' ,. , '.\ C. YERGE Deputy Attorney Gen~r 1 Attorney LD. # 70357 SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct: (717) 705-2503 Date: March 22, 2001 5 "~_. " L I - - -. -" - "~,""- -~-,,'- -- ~--,_. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SARAH C. YERGER, Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, hereby certify that on March 22, 2002, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled Preliminary Objections of Defendants, by depositing a copy of same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following: Franklin Sutton, BV -9496 SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, P A 17932 S C. YERG Deputy Attomey G Attorney ill #70357 Date: March 22, 2002 ..,,", ~ J --~- ~'mi'-' . , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Franklin Sutton SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, Pennsylvania 17932 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attomey General By: 1 Office of Attomey General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 PHONE: (717) 705-2503 FAX: (717) 772-4526 SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section DATE: March 22, 2001 2 -~~....."""""~.~ ~. ~ . ia'fi' ~\IIil--''''' ~~-.~~_ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED COMPLAmT Defendants, by their attorneys, hereby file the following preliminary objections: I. DEMURRER 1. Plaintiff in this case is Franklin Sutton, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (SCI-Mahanoy) in Frackville, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants are Martin Horn, Robert Shannon, Martin Dragovich, Raymond Colleran, Donald Fiske, Marva Cerullo, Milton Friedman and John Doe, employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. 3. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendants violated his rights, and he seeks damages for allegations of an injury caused by negligence on the part of the institution in which he was incarcerated, and for violations of his constitutional rights for failing to properly treat his injuries. See Complaint ~ 75-78. 4. Plaintiff seeks damages for unspecified violations of law possibly implicating the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, i.e. failure to provide medical treatment and deliberate indifference to health and safety of an inmate under breach of duty of care. 3 ,'lI~' I , I , d _":oii~~' 5. Although not explicitly stated in the complaint, this appears to be a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 and a state law tort claim. 6. In support ofa Section 1983 action, plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) defendants' conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws ofthe United States. 7. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as plaintiff has not stated facts which suggest which constitutional protections have been violated by defendants' conduct. 8. The constitutional allegations in the complaint should be dismissed as plaintiff has failed to aver with particularity the exact and specific actions taken by the defendants which allegedly deprived him of his civil rights, and the exact and specific law which was violated. 9. Additionally, assuming an Eighth Amendment violation is being claimed, no facts are alleged to demonstrate that any of the defendants was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of Sutton, 10, Defendants Horn, Shannon, Dragovich, and Colleran were not providers of medical treatment to Sutton and therefore are being sued under a theory of respondeat s11Perior. That theory is not permitted in claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983, WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss the federal constitutional claims against them for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. DEMURRER II, Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-10 herein as if set forth in full. 4 =>_. -~. , ~ , L, --"',," 12. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his rights and caused him injury through their negligence. 13. As Commonwealth employees acting within the scope oftheir duties, they are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to 42 Pa C.S. S 8502, et seq. Any claim based on Pennsylvania law is barred by sovereign immunity. II. LACK OF JURISDICTIONIIMPROPER SERVICE OF A COMPLAINT 14. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 requires that "original process shall be served within the Commonwealth by the sheriff." Pa.R.Civ.P.400(a). 15. The original complaint and the amended complaint in this matter were not served on the defendants as prescribed by the rule but was sent via fIrst class mail. 16. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain the preliminary objection and dismiss the complaint. Respectfully submitted, SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Litigation Section OffIce of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct: (717) 705-2503 Date: March 22, 2001 5 j.~~-n-'~""~':- I '-.~, I I I_I " '1 -' ~".~ < ~{"' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SARAH C. YERGER, Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, OffIce of Attorney General, hereby certifY that on March 22, 2002, I caused to be served a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document entitled Preliminary Objections of Defendants, by depositing a copy of same in the u.s. Mail, postage prepaid to the following: Franklin Sutton, BV-9496 SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 SARAH C. YERG Deputy Attorney G Attorney ill #70357 Date: March 22, 2002 ~~l!'.I~:b'\,clifu.ill~@t""llfu1i,-4t..,iliii\o~!t1\ii'Wli~;>;)M,'A<i.v.ii-,""!:.'i-"""lt' "'~'<d''''~J-'H-,~''-')LL~","T.,.;;~~~~~~tjl8:iI ;,*', ~'.. "UJISlliJlll' c.",'''''''''~'_' '.H"'_.-"._ ~ ..~<." .~. .,~ '"-''''''~'~~ "",~ I, '.~ ~~ . o c ~~ -og~: ~p ~:~~. ,~ C-' ;:-S: :-- -.:,::-;: f~t~ ::) "' ,_. JirilVlRi.ll M'~~ C) f>. ~.~ ~::;: -"'," :'() "" C,:--; -n '-'-' "\.~) .~ '9i -~'-M;i'~""","""",~ -~. - l I ~ . ..... . -~. . ,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTlNHORN, et al. Defendants, NOTICE TO PLEAD 0 ~.::) , C. r~~.' -0 t.> . fTl r~ :_:0 ~ :'"'-.J- . cn t: . -<: r:.: ...." "'" .'~ c) :z Cl s> ~,) l' c ~i~ ~7 ~cJ 7',.) --- J:- ~~ TO: Franklin Sntton SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, Pennsylvania 17932 You are hereby notifIed to me a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, By: I C. YERG Deputy Attorney Geh a Attorney I.D. #7035 . OffIce of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 PHONE: (717) 705-2503 FAX: (717) 772-4526 SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section DATE: March 22, 2001 2 ,,~"'=o" '"~I - - ~- _ , h ~. '; ".~ . ~~I~- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et aI. Defendants, DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants, by their attorneys, hereby me the following preliminary objections: I. DEMURRER 1. Plaintiff in this case is Franklin Sutton, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (SCI-Mahanoy) in Frackville, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants are Martin Horn, Robert Shannon, Martin Dragovich, Raymond Colleran, Donald Fiske, Marva Cerullo, Milton Friedman and John Doe, employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. 3. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendants violated his rights, and he seeks damages for allegations of an injury caused by negligence on the part of the institution in which he was incarcerated, and for violations of his constitutional rights for failing to properly treat his injuries. ~ Complaint ~ 75-78. 4. Plaintiff seeks damages for unspecifIed violations of law possibly implicating the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Le. failure to provide medical treatment and deliberate indifference to health and safety of an inmate under breach of duty of care. 3 K~""'.-.J=,",~i , _J,I - ~.~~ 5. Although not explicitly stated in the complaint, this appears to be a federal civil rights action under 42 tJ.S.c. S 1983 and a state law tort claim. 6. In support of a Section 1983 action, plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) defendants' conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 7. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as plaintiff has not stated facts which suggest which constitutional protections have been violated by defendants' conduct. 8. The constitutional allegations in the complaint should be dismissed as plaintiff has failed to aver with particularity the exact and specifIc actions taken by the defendants which allegedly deprived him of his civil rights, and the exact and specifIc law which was violated. 9. Additionally, assuming an Eighth Amendment violation is being claimed, no facts are alleged to demonstrate that any of the defendants was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of Sutton. 10. Defendants Horn, Shannon, Dragovich, and Colleran were not providers of medical treatment to Sutton and therefore are being sued under a theory of reilPondeat sl\Perior. That theory is not permitted in claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss the federal constitutional claims against them for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. DEMURRER II. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-10 herein as if set forth in full. 4 ---- ~ I ... -.J-. '.~ , ~, " -"J;1- . 12. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his rights and caused him injury through their negligence. 13. As Commonwealth employees acting within the scope of their duties, they are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to 42 Pa C.S. S 8502, et seq. Any claim based on Pennsylvania law is barred by sovereign immunity. II. LACK OF .nmISDICTIONIIMPROPER SERVICE OF A COMPLAINT 14. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 requires that "original process shall be served within the Commonwealth by the sheriff." Pa.R.Civ.P.400(a). 15. The original complaint and the amended complaint in this matter were not served on the defendants as prescribed by the rule but was sent via fIrst class mail. 16. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain the preliminary objection and dismiss the complaint. Respectfully submitted, SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Litigation Section OffIce of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, P A 17120 Direct: (717)705-2503 Date: March 22, 2001 5 ~'k_',". ~ '.- - ............. ~ "~'1~",';",;..,- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFCUMBERLANDCOUNT~PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et al. Defendants, : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SARAH C. YERGER, Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, OffIce of Attorney General, hereby certifY that on March 22, 2002, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled Preliminary Objections of Defendants, by depositing a copy of same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following: Franklin Sutton, BV-9496 SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, P A 17932 S C. YERG Deputy Attorney G Attorney ID #70357 Date: March 22, 2002 ~~,"",' "~ ,~ '"~ '" ~" '1 .~ ,'~ "'''~!,lo_~hi-i ~ , I i ~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et aI. Defendants, NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Franklin Sutton SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, Pennsylvania 17932 You are hereby notifIed to me a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections, within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General SARAH C. Deputy Atto Attorney I.D. By: OffIce of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg,PA 17120 PHONE: (717) 705-2503 FAX: (717) 772-4526 SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section DATE: March 22, 2001 2 ~""""'" ,. . I ,:. '~'- : ' ._-~,,~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et aI. Defendants, PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS Defendants, by their attorneys, hereby me the following preliminary objections: I. DEMURRER I. Plaintiff in this case is Franklin Sutton, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (SCI-Mahanoy) in Frackville, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants are Martin Horn, Robert Shannon, Martin Dragovich, Raymond Colleran, Donald Fiske, Marva Cerullo, Milton Friedman and John Doe, employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections. 3. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendants violated his rights, and he seeks damages for allegations of an injury caused by negligence on the part of the institution in which he was incarcerated, and for violations of his constitutional rights for failing to properly treat his injuries. See Complaint p. 14-16. 4. Plaintiff seeks damages for unspecifIed violations of law possibly implicating the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, i.e. failure to provide medical treatment. 3 ~"...,'" ", ~ o~' '0' \ i-I """"""'-- "j ~. ( '~IIi!""" 5. Although not explicitly stated in the complaint, this appears to be a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 and a state law tort claim. 6. In support ofa Section 1983 action, plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant acted under color of state law, and (2) defendants' conduct deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 7. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as plaintiff has not stated facts which suggest which constitutional protections have been violated by defendants' conduct. 8. The constitutional allegations in the complaint should be dismissed as plaintiff has failed to aver with particularity the exact and specifIc actions taken by the defendants which allegedly deprived him of his civil rights, and the exact and specifIc law which was violated. 9. Additionally, assuming an Eighth Amendment violation is being claimed, no facts are alleged to demonstrate that any of the defendants was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of Sutton. 10. Defendants Horn, Shannon, Dragovich, and Colleran were not providers of medical treatment to Sutton and therefore are being sued under a theory of respondeat superior. That theory is not permitted in claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss the federal constitutional claims against them for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. II. DEMURRER 11. Defendants incorporate paragraphs 1-10 herein as if set forth in full. 4 ~~~ - ~-~ ,t~d 12. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his rights and caused him injury through their negligence. 13. As Commonwealth employees acting within the scope of their duties, they are entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to 42 Pa C.S. S 8502, et seq. Any claim based on Pennsylvania law is barred by sovereign immunity. II. LACK OF JURISDICTIONIIMPROPER SERVICE OF A COMPLAINT 14. pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 400 requires that "original process shall be served within the Commonwealth by the sheriff." Pa.R.Civ.P.400(a). 15. The complaint in this matter was not served on the defendants as prescribed by the rule but was sent via first class mail. 16. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Court sustain the preliminary objection and dismiss the complaint. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General BY: SUSAN J. FORNEY Chief Deputy Attorney General Litigation Section OffIce of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Direct: (717) 705-2503 Date: March 22, 2001 5 ,iW""1 ~~., - - -" ....-- i'1 " 1;- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN SUTTON Plaintiff, No. 01-1139 v. MARTIN HORN, et aI. Defendants, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SARAH C. YERGER, Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, OffIce of Attorney General, hereby certifY that on March 22, 2001, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled Preliminary Objections of Defendants, by depositing a copy of same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following: Franklin Sutton, BV-9496 SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, P A 17932 Date: March 22, 2001 is~~M!illl,~!tii&r,;;;:J!ll.i;",.,:<".",~~~.:<il;_,iil<ilb;";lt~;i!Ml!m;";~,,,.>t"'"'?b-",,",,...ot"dtci1.1'j",j~j;;,,,,I'<f,fu)~_,,.;"',lfffi!t,,",lli!i;,,lh~' " ~~ ~ r~1t\I ~~II'f'1 . ):[~, ""',' ",','''V',''." ~ il _.~.",._~ ,"",-<","""",,,,_~__ ,_.",'~ ."""'~"V"_""" ..,=,c, '" ~ ~ ,'~ ~.~'~~ ~"' - liIi'~"-"""" , o C 5: 31u1 nlj-,. ~~; r;-C) >-0 Zo ~C Z =<' (,? ,~i."""-,,,, o -on :;c ',l~'" ::.:::(1 N 0'" C~' :.,;[~) -',-- -"'1 ~3t,~ +._, ~ ",. ~ p. -:: <P ., b ~ ~ -,,~"""'~""'" , r'~'-'''I ,""""",,"-~y~~. , ,,: . 1 '" ~ - ,'~ "" '...:.~ ii!lllJilitjjdE.lIIII.ni.1ll.ib.r~:iI&l~ '1Iilt-t,f!:,; IN THE COURT OF CONMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ":I' -VS-- M4.RTIN HORN, at al. Defeftdants . . . NQ. 01-1139 CEaTIFICA TE 0 F BEllV ICE I, Franklin SU1:1:on, hereby certify taa1: I am this day serving tile f01:egoing NOTICE upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which' service satisfies the requirement of Pa.R.C.P. !!!!ilL!!_t!!~ULAS~-!!!.h_!,!!!L A.D!!.!lliED..!~_!OLT.:~~: Sarah C. Yerger Dep uty Attorney Gene ral llf,fice of Attorney General 15th Fl.. Strawberry Square Ilarrisbtn..g, PA 17120 Dated: ~!. 2.3, 'zo03 ,'! \:;/)~ Jdk- Franklin Sutton; Pro. Se Plaintiff Luzerne II BTP-COR (13SG) 600 East Luzerne Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 :Hl\m:!1J,j';''B'.NM''-!i.,'HU,~F';{ "j~"~,'k"" h--'>;-~;W~ '''~ .",H:;:.;;:;!'!,' .-",t\f,"'" ."',"" ".' ,-- ':'.' +Nil .,~~, ~,-'"'~ L,~= ,--,,,-,"."-', ~ ";r'J_!c:1.%';";~.~~1IlI!lI;':iMi'"1~i~\l!<olIJ."'~i'illh.~~".",.~a_ N"_' ," .I .. 'jU_'~ ,.., , , , (") C 0 c: w -03':: -" <- :-.::! rn\J:J ""'" ZrD OJ':: ,'i":: _:~ ze I'V ~ -n,'n en ."~ J:- -~~~ tJ ~~ ~6 v ;:~~: ~o ~, ~~;) )>0 W ~ Om .. s;! ~ (J! (J"J :n -< I~ ~ '" ",_,,,-.c..,,,,,,"a,-,""".."'~"-""o"""''''''',,,"",,''''''''''''''''''''''-I _ ~ ~,- ..~..... . ~" -- LUZERNE II HTP-COR (135G) '600 EAST LUZERNE STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19124 (215) 634-8960 January 23, 2003 Sarah C. Yerger Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General 15rh Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 BE: Sutton, Franklin v. Horn, et al. No. 01-1139 Dear Mrs. Yerger: This letter is being forwarded in regards to Notice of Plaintiff's New Mailing Address. Please forward all future documents and information pertaining to the Civil Action Case No. 01-1139 to the new address listed below. Dated: ~lVV1.- 23, Z003 {/ ( , Sincerely, -d~;" j~ Frank1in Sutton, Pro Se Plaintiff Luzerne II HTP-COR (l35G) 600 East Luzerne Street Philadelphia, PA 19124' -.- il!l (j)115:illiillii!i~a\ik , :,,,,;;'''t!~};l"-'''--,,>ili<eh,\Il,!;';;,,,,,,;,,-. :':"0: ~'~".d.'.-.""-";-""'<" ,.,,,;,,,, ;,,'c'^,' ,~, .-,--,; ,',,,,'._",,L_.: ,.ox -"-" ,___:;;""~, ''''';''',:~<F'''';b\'M~"ililil'i''ii~~l$I;'\;bO<r~M..oli~!;;;cl~U~",~\'~'~~1'--. " ""I..- J!ilII.~ i:! . I () 0 0 c: w .. ;;:: L- :=1 ""'Om ;z:. ..J...--...... ~l'T) Z :"(1_:...! :I. -,om ZC N ~z .,,- ~50 .--,-, r:)(.ll ~"--' -v --:-.;J -fi )>C~ :Jg:;: 9~ ~g ':-? onl -. z: .:.n ::J> =< XI (Jl -< ~ .