Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-2470IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER 0? - )qqv CIVIL ACTION V PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et, al LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT ISSUER COMP L11 I-MT WRIT OF MANDAMUS PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF MISCONDUCT CHARGES I, FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION HEREBY PETITION THIS HONORABLE COURT TO EXPUNGE AN ERRONEOUS MISCONDUCT FROM HIS RECORD ISSUED BY DEFENDANTS. AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE ERRONEOUS MISCONDUCT PETITIONER WAS MADE TO SPEND OVER A YEAR IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ALSO KNOWN AS ®THE HOLE". PETITIONER DEMANDS THAT THE D.O.C. PAYS HIM: ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) FOR EACH DAY THAT HE SPENT IN THE HOLE. AS A RESULT OF THE BOGUS CHARGES ISSUED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, PETITIONER WAS SUBJECTED TO FALSE CHARGES AND FALSE ARREST WHEN THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT ANOTHER INMATE WHOM WAS THE ACTUAL PERPERTRATOR OF THE ALLEGED CRIME. PETITIONER DEMANDS $50.000 FOR HIS PAIN AND SUFFERING FROM THE PA. STATE POLICE AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN TOTAL OF $50.000. PETITIONER SUFFERED PSYCHOLOGICAL AND MENTAL ANGUISH AND PAIN FROM THE HARSH TREATMENT AND CONDITIONS OF THE HOLE. AS A RESULT OF THE FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGES AND FALSE MISCONDUCT PETITIONER WAS DENIED COMMUTATION BY THE D.O.C. AND THE BOURD OF PARDONS. DEFENDANT(S) INVESTIGATING OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OR KNEW THAT ANOTHER INMATE, WHOM THEY HAD ALREADY ISSUED THE SAME MISCONDUCT TO WAS THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR. PETITIONER ASKS THIS COURT TO ISSUE A DECLATORY JUDGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS THAT THEY DELIBERATELY AND MALICIOUSLY ISSUED MISCONDUCT CHARGES AGAINST PLAINTIFF WHEN THEY KNEW PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMMITT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT. PLAINTIFF ASKS FO A TRIAL BY JURY. 1-DEFENDANTS KNOWINGLY ISSUED CRIMINAL AND MISCONDUCT CHARGES AND KNEW THEY WERE FALSE. 2- DEFENDANTS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED; 3. DEFENDANTS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THEY HAD ALREADY CHARGED ANOTHER INMAT ` WITH IDENTICAL CHARGES. ANCIS BOYD 4. DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFF PRO-SE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT WHEN THEY SENT HIM TO THE HOLE UNDER FABRICATED CHARGES. 5. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND ISSUED MISCONDUCT WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT THE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST WARRANT HAD ON IT. 6. ALL DEFENDANTS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE. ALL DEFENDANTS ALL DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT RIGHTS. DEFENDANTS D.O.C., LAMAR LIBHART AND JOHN DOE INVESTIGATING(S) VIOLATED #2, 3, 41 5, 6,1. DEFENDANTS STATE POLICE VIOLATED #1, 2, 3, 4, 6. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA V. FRANCIS JOSEPH BOYD 07-aY70 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 90-1589R CRIMINAL CHARGES: A) AGGRAVATED ASSAULT B) ASSAULT BY LIFE PRISONER C) RIOT AFFIANT: TPR. L.F. POWELL TPR. K. GROSSMAN AGENCY: PSP-HARRISBURG k IN RE: ORDER OF EXPUNGEMENT AND NOW, this day of #' r - , 200 , it appearing that the defendant is entitled to relief, is hereby Ordered and Directed that the record of defendant's charges are expunged, subject to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9122(a)(1). By the Court P. J. Jaime M. Keating, Chief Deputy District Attorney Arresting Officer District Justice Central Repository Attorney for Defendant t?Francis Boyd - AF-6974 SCI-Chester 500 East 4th Street Chester, PA 19013 A TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand and the seal o id Court at Carlisle, PAS` This C2Z&iy of , 20.67 Clerk of the Court Cumberland County EXPUNGEMENT DATA DOB: 1/13/58 SS#: 170-46-4831 OTN#: C422733-3 D.J. DOCKET #:C-340-90 D.J. DISTRICT #: 09-1-01 DATE OF OFFENSE: 10/25/89 c7 c. 0 ^.,, t?o C CZ) 91 -r / _ N lJ X41 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA 2 ? FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et, al LAMAR LIPHART, HEARING EXAMINER JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTION ACTION HEREBY REQUEST THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. PETITIONER WAS CHARGED IN THE 1989 CAMP HILL DISTURBANCE WITH RIOT AND ASSAULT. AFTER A PRELIMINARY HEARING PETITIONER WAS HELD OVER FOR TRIAL. AFTER DISCOVERY, PETITIONER WAS INFORMED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THAT THE CHARGES WOULD BE DROPPED. IN MAY OF 2004, AFTER PETITIONER FILED FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL CHARGES, JUDGE GEORGE E. HOFFER AFTER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, EXPUNGED THE CRIMINAL CHARGES. PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A MISCONDUCT BY PRISON OFFICIALS OF THE SAME CHARGES THAT WAS EXPUNGED. PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SERVED OVER A YEAR IN DISCIPLINARY CUSTODY. PETITIONER NOW HAVE INFORMATION THAT THE D.O.C. HAD CHARGED ANOTHER INMATE WITH THE SAME CASE APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS BEFORE CHARGING PETITIONER. THIS INMATE PLEADED GUILTY TO THE CHARGES. THE D.O.,C. KNOWINGLY CHARGED PETITIONER WITH A FALSE MISCONDUCT WHEN THEY KNEW WHO THE REAL PERPETRATOR WAS. THERE ARE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS THAT PETITIONER NEED THAT ONLY A LAWYER CAN GET. PETITIONER IS NOT VERSED IN CIVIL LAW AS AN ATTORNEY IS. PETITIONER.IS UNABLE TO ARGUE, AND PRESENT HIS CASE IN A PROFESSIONAL-LEGAL MANNER. WHEREFORE, PETITIONER FOREVER PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANTS HIS REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OD COUNSEL. DATED: 4/4/07 f r- /'7 ?y A I BO D, P TI iEl Cb t? V? r,DAA vl v( c7 +v r-} - m N rn w -c M o W tQ n z i C(D a CL ao;w V) z 0 v 0. 0 o a u 00 C, 0 N Z L Qr C Q W J 0 > W W CO O Y ? U Z Z ccr) u. W 00 dQ Z O D W •-t ra 6Q=? PG 0 ? Z +-' H?WV? a ? ? Q c?av ? N '.i v .,.., i FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER V. PA. DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT: ISSUER, RESPONDENTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-2470 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this OF day of May, 2007, the request for the appointment of counsel, IS DENIED. rancis Boyd, AF-6974, F 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 :sal J Byte Court, Edgar B. Bay y, J. l ? ?? ?s_! ????; :?? . ,?_ : ]?'? t . t t? ??-;.. ? .:; ? C:.? , ? FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER V. PA. DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT: ISSUER, RESPONDENTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-2470 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this tA- day of May, 2007, the request for the appointment of counsel, IS DENIED. rancis Boyd, AF-6974, F 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 :sal 1 Byte Court, Edgar B. Bay y, J. I . C-j t t 5 .T i:L- S ? y 1 +u IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et, al LAMAR LIPHART, HEARING EXAMINER JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTION ACTION HEREBY REQUEST THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. PETITIONER WAS CHARGED IN THE 1989 CAMP HILL DISTURBANCE WITH RIOT AND ASSAULT. AFTER A PRELIMINARY HEARING PETITIONER WAS HELD OVER FOR TRIAL. AFTER DISCOVERY, PETITIONER WAS INFORMED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THAT THE CHARGES WOULD BE DROPPED. IN MAY OF 2004, AFTER PETITIONER FILED FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL CHARGES, JUDGE GEORGE E. HOFFER AFTER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, EXPUNGED THE CRIMINAL CHARGES. PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A MISCONDUCT BY PRISON OFFICIALS OF THE SAME CHARGES THAT WAS EXPUNGED. PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SERVED OVER A YEAR IN DISCIPLINARY CUSTODY. PETITIONER NOW HAVE INFORMATION THAT THE D.O.C. HAD CHARGED ANOTHER INMATE WITH THE SAME CASE APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS BEFORE CHARGING PETITIONER. THIS INMATE PLEADED GUILTY TO THE CHARGES. THE D.O.,C. KNOWINGLY CHARGED PETITIONER WITH A FALSE MISCONDUCT WHEN THEY KNEW WHO THE REAL PERPETRATOR WAS. THERE ARE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS THAT PETITIONER NEED THAT ONLY A LAWYER CAN GET. PETITIONER IS NOT VERSED IN CIVIL LAW AS AN ATTORNEY IS. PETITIONER IS UNABLE TO ARGUE, AND PRESENT HIS CASE IN A PROFESSIONAL LEGAL MANNER. WHEREFORE, PETITIONER FOREVER PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANTS HIS REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OD COUNSEL. DATED: 4/4/07 I BO 2 P TI NER C O V? 1 7-1 ?f l T V +f c E.4d "`? ?y :1 I V RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT ------------------- ------------------- Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Receipt Date Carlisle, Pa 17013 Receipt Time Receipt No. BOYD FRANCIS (VS) PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL Case Number 2007-02470 Received of RKS PD BY PLFF STATE CORRECT. INSTITUTION MAHANOY Total Non-Cash.. Total Cash...... Change.......... Receipt total... + 78.50 Check# 85957 + 00 - .00 = 78.50 4/27/2007 14:57:47 192165 ------------------------ Distribution Of Payment ---------------------------- Transaction Description Payment Amount COMPLAINT 55.00 TAX ON CMPLT .50 SETTLEMENT 8.00 AUTOMATION 5.00 JCP FEE 10.00 78.50 !CURTIS R. LONG Prothonotary Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RETURN TO SENDER k' ws> ; ? Inmate Unknown - ? No Innate by this spelling ? Inmate released Francis Boyd { yy Y N(Enckm= unav0arhmd AF-6974 ? rlzed301 Moria Road unavdw Frackville, PA CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND BUREAU OF RECEIPTS AND CONTROL CUMBERLAND CO GENERAL FUND CUMBERLAND CO AUTOMATION FUND BUREAU OF RECEIPTS AND CONTROL d 7- .?ty 7 0 e?P? PON l?® ti0 g y ar S ? _"°y PITNEY BOWC:! E 02 1A $ 00.3 E 0004631598 APR27 2 E MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 1 7 ? Tib NIXIE 171 CE 1 28 03!0210' Address" Absent RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC : 17019 *2422-01439-27-41 jtty :4 Iiil?Piliit1333llilifiii?if?liliFlil IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD CIVIL ACTION PETITIONER 07-2470 V PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et.al I, FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION FILED THE ABOVE COMPLAINT/ PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF MISCONDUCT CHARGES ON MAY 7, 2007. PETITIONER SINCE THEN HAS FOUND OUT THE NAME(S) OF INMATES THAT WERE CHARGED WITH THE SAME CHARGES. PETITIONER HAS NOT YET AS OF THIS DATE SERVED THE DEFENDANTS AND ASKS THIS COURT IF THEY WOULD DISREGARD THE INITIAL COMPLAINT SO HE COULD FILE A NEW PETITION WITH THE COURT WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY THE FILING FEE AGAIN. DEF?3NDANTS WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVE SERVED WITH THE ORIGINAL ONE. WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THTS HONORABLE COURT AT,LOWS NTNM TO RE-FILE A NFW COMPLAINT. PETITIONER WISHES TO CHANGE THE WHOLE COMPLAINT. Francis Boyd PETITIONER PRO-SE r..7 ? ?,-r "TltY% j'l ( { M.,'.'e j w ?? ?:?= ('- ~? ?? _?y JJ ?? fl -? ?? ?j -? ^w IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD CIVIL ACTION PETITIONER 07-2470 V PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et.al I, FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION FILED THE ABOVE COMPLAINT/ PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF MISCONDUCT CHARGES ON MAY 7, 2007. PETITIONER SINCE THEN HAS FOUND OUT THE NAME(S) OF INMATES THAT WERE CHARGED WITH THE SAME CHARGES. PETITIONER HAS NOT YET AS OF THIS DATE SERVED THE DEFENDANTS AND ASKS THIS COURT IF THEY WOULD DISREGARD 2E INITIAL COMPLAINT SO HE COULD FILE A NEW PETITION WITH THE COURT WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY THE FILING FEE AGAIN. DEFENDANTS WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVE SERVED WITH ';'HE ORIGINAL ONE. WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THTS HONORABLE COURT AT,LOWS HTM TO RE-FILE A NFW COMPLAINT. PETITIONER WISHES TO CHANGE THE WHOLE COMPLAINT. Francis Boyd PETITIONER PRO-SE mo C 4 C3 '-.r tz -, ti r 43L - ryi 'Z t l l I NO .y f . 4L IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION. V 07-2470 PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et,al VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST PA. STATE POLICE _ PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION HEREBY PETITIONS THIS COURT THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DROPr THE CIVIL ACTION PERTAINING TO THE STATE POLICE, TROOPER KENNETH GROSSMAN, AND TROPPER LAMAR POWELL. PETITIONER WILL PERSUE THE LITIGATION AGAINST PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT ISSUER, AND THE MISCONDUCT WRITER. c FRANCIS BOYW AF- 6974 PETITIONER DATED: JUNE 7, 2007 PETITIONER NEVER SERVED THE STATE POLICE WITH THE CIVIL ACTION. Cam-2%? FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER V PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER 4A C'Tmr+ n4L4!rT , mn r+E Pr..n _ VL'wwT t,mrr ?nn[•C'?ATT .? L1 R U tV vurrrrc- INVESTIGATING OFFICERS,JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT ISSUER, MISCONDUCT WRITER RESPONDENTS CIVIL ACTION 07-2470 NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGEMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OF FOR ANY OTHER RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD WITH AN ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT ONE THE COURT WILL PROVIDE YOU NUMBER TO ASSIST YOU. F ANCIS B(0 TITIONER PRO-SE DATED: MAY 7, 2007 -1 - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERIA COUNTY OF PENNSYLVANIA 1 FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER CIVIL ACTION V PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et, al LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER TRUE COPY FRSk4 RECtORDand PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE In Testimony " ' Da and a SERI c JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT ISSUER C-OMPLAXMT rot WRIT OF MANDAMUS PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF MISCONDUCT CHARGES Is FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION HEREBY PETITION THIS HONORABLE COURT TO EXPUNGE AN ERRONEOUS MISCONDUCT FROM HIS RECORD ISSUED BY DEFENDANTS. AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE ERRONEOUS MISCONDUCT PETITIONER WAS MADE TO SPEND OVER A YEAR IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ALSO KNOWN AS ®THE HOLE". PETITIONER DEMANDS THAT THE D.O.C. PAYS HIM: ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) FOR EACH DAY THAT HE SPENT IN THE HOLE. AS A RESULT OF THE BOGUS CHARGES ISSUED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, PETITIONER WAS SUBJECTED TO FALSE CHARGES AND FALSE ARREST WHEN THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT ANOTHER INMATE WHOM WAS THE ACTUAL PERPERTRATOR OF THE ALLEGED CRIME. PETITIONER DEMANDS $50.000 FOR HIS PAIN AND SUFFERING FROM THE PA. STATE POLICE AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN TOTAL OF $50.000. PETITIONER SUFFERED PSYCHOLOGICAL AND MENTAL ANGUISH AND PAIN FROM THE HARSH TREATMENT AND CONDITIONS OF THE HOLE. AS A RESULT OF THE FALSE CRIMINAL CHARGES AND FALSE MISCONDUCT PETITIONER WAS DENIED COMMUTATION BY THE D.O.C. AND THE BOURD OF PARDONS. 2• 3 DEFENDANT(S) INVESTIGATING OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OR KNEW THAT ANOTHER INMATE, WHOM THEY HAD ALREADY ISSUED THE SAME MISCONDUCT TO WAS THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR. PETITIONER ASKS THIS COURT TO ISSUE A DECLATORY JUDGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS THAT THEY DELIBERATELY AND MALICIOUSLY ISSUED MISCONDUCT CHARGES AGAINST PLAINTIFF WHEN THEY KNEW PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMMITT THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT. PLAINTIFF ASKS FO A TRIAL BY JURY. 1-DEFENDANTS KNOWINGLY ISSUED CRIMINAL AND MISCONDUCT CHARGES AND KNEW THEY WERE FALSE. 2. DEFENDANTS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED; 3. DEFENDANTS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THEY HAD ALREADY CHARGED ANOTHER INMAT ` WITH IDENTICAL CHARGES. ANCIS BOYD 4. DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFF PRO-SE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT WHEN THEY SENT HIM TO THE HOLE UNDER FABRICATED CHARGES. S• DEFENDANTS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND ISSUED MISCONDUCT WITH THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT THE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST WARRANT HAD ON IT. 6. ALL DEFENDANTS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE. ALL DEFENDANTS ALL DEFENDANTS VIOLATED PLAINTIFFS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT RIGHTS. DEFENDANTS D.O.C., LAMAR LIBHART AND JOHN DOE INVESTIGATING(S) VIOLATED #2, 31 41 S, 611. DEFENDANTS STATE POLICE VIOLATED #1, 25 3, 49 6. 3. FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER PA. STATE POLICE TROOPER KENNETH L. GROSSMAN TROOPER LAMAR POWELL INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, MISCONDUCT ISSUER MISCONDUCT WRITER JOHN DOE (S) 07-2470 ADDENDUM OR AMENDED COMPLAINT PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION ADDS THIS ADDENDUM TO THE ENCLOSED COMPLAINT AND STATES THAT THE DEFENDANTS WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS NEVER SERVED. CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. DEFENDANT(S) GROSSMAN AND POWELL MALICIOUSLY, WITH INTENT TO INJURE AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, INSTITUTED JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PLAINTIFF. ON JULY 5, 1990. 2. DEFENDANT(S) GROSSMAN AND POWELL INSTITUTED MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST PETITIONER WHEN THEY KNEW THAT ANOTHER INMATE WAS CHARGED WITH THE SAME CHARGES, (ASSAULTING CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EUGENE MARSH, BY EITHER THEM OR SOMEONE ELSE IN THE STATE POLICE. 3. DEFENDANT(S) GROSSMAN AND POWELL'S ACTIONS WERE WILLFUL AND WANTON WHEN THEY WENT TO DISTRICT JUSTICE CHARLES A. CLEMENT WITH TAINTED AND FALSE EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A PROBABLE CAUSE WARRANT OF ARREST. ON JULY 5, 1990. 4. DEFENDANT(S) JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, MALICIOUSLY INTENT TO INJURE AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, INSTITUTED ERRONEOUS MISCONDUCT CHARGES AGAINST PETITIONER. IN JULY OF 1990. 5. DEFENDANT(S) JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT WRITER MALICIOUSLY INTENDED TO INJURE PETITIONER WHEN HE (THEY) ISSUED ERRONEOUS AND FALSE MISCONDUCT CHARGES AGAINST PETITIONER, WHEN THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HE/ THEY ALREADY ISSUED THE SAME MISCONDUCT CHARGES TO ANOTHER INMATE.(CHESTER BROWN) 6. DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT WRITER KNEW THAT A WITNESS FINGERED ONE BROW AS THE INMATE WHO ASSAULTED '9"'4) A`flc`1f-t41-- CORRECTIONAL OFFICER EUGENE MARSH, BUT STILL WITH MALICIOUS sCQ?-r-R"t- gym INTENT, ISSUE PETITIONER A MISCONDUCT WITH THE SAME CHARGES. 6A. THIS COMPLAINT ARISED FROM THE 1989 CAMP HILL DISTURBANCE. Y J JOHN DOE INVESTIGATING, OFFICERS AND; MISCONDUCT, lv?' ITER''5, DISrTPLMMY ACTIONS ROSE-'TO THE LEVEL-OF ARPITRA$INESS AND CAPRfCIOUS CONDUCT UHEN THEY KNEW OTHER(S) INMATES) WERE ACCUSED AND ISSUED A MISCONDUCT FOR THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH. THEIR CONDUCT ROSE TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT. WHEN THEY STILL ISSUED ME A MISCONDUCT OF THE SAME. 7.DEFENDANT(S) JOHN DOE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PETITIONER AND ISSUED PETITIONER AN INTENTIONALY FALSE MISCONDUCT BASED ON THE PA. STATE POLICE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST WARRANT. 8. ALL DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT WHEN THEY (POWELL AND GROSSMAN) MALICIOUSLY WITH INTENT TO INJURE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, INSTITUTE FALSE AND FABRICATED CRIMINAL CHARGES AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER. AND WHEN THEY (JOHN DOE INVESTIGATING OFFICER(S) AND JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT WRITER MALICIOUSLY WITH INTENT TO INJURE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE I INSTITUTE AND ISSUE FALSE MISCONDUCT CHARGES (OF ASSULTING OFFICER MARSH) WHEN THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THEY HAD ALREADY CHARGED CHESTER BROWN WITH THE SAME IDENTICAL CHARGES 9. DEFENDANT MISCONDUCT WRITER FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST PETITIONER AND ISSUED PETITIONER AN INTENTIONALLY FALSE MISCONDUCT BASED ON THE PA. STATE POLICE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST WARRANT. DAMAGES 1. PETITIONER SUFFERED CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT WHEN HE WAS SANCTIONED TO SPEND A TOTAL OF 180 DAYS IN THE HOLE AS A RESULT OF THE FABRICATED AND BOGUS MISCONDUCT CHARGES 2. PETITIONER SERVED FROM MAY 1, 1990 TO MARCH 1, 1991 IN THE HOLE AS A RESULT OF THE TRUMPED UP CHARGES. PETITIONER WAS LOCKED DOWN 23 HOURS A DAY DURING THE ABOVE PERIOD ON WEEKDAYS AND 24 HOURS A DAY ON THE WEEKENDS. WHILE OTHER INMATES IN GENERAL POPULATION HAD CONTACT VISITS, SHOWERD EVERYDAY, WERE ABLE TO WORK THEIR INSTITUTIONAL JOBS AND BE FREE FROM THE LOUD NOISES. -3. PETITIONER HAD HUMAN FECEES THROWN IN HIS FACE THREE TIMES BE OTHER INMATES WHO WERE DOING DISCIPLINARY TIME IN THE HOLE, BEING EXPOSED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNNISHMENT. AS A RESULT OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY DEFENDANTS POWELL AND GROSSMAN PETITIONER HAD TO PAY $500.00 DOLLARS TO OBTAIN AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HIM AT THE ARRAIGNMENT ON JULY 10, 1990. 4. AS A RESULT OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY DEFENDANTS POWELL AND GROSSMAN PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A MISCONDUCT BY PRISON OFFICIALS ALLEGING THE SAME EXACT FALSE CHARGES. 5? S•AS A RESULT OF THE MISCONDUCT BY TROPPER(S) GROSSMAN AND POWELL, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE AND MISCONDUCT ISSUER JOHN DOE, PETITIONER WAS DENIED COMMUTATION BY THE PA. BOARD OF PARDONS BECAUSE BOTH THE CRIMINAL CHARGES AND THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES WAS USED AGAINST PETITIONER. 6. ALL DEFENDANTS ARE BEING SUED IN THEIR PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY. 7. ALL DEFENDANTS ACTED UNDER THE COLOR OF STATE LAW. 8. AS A RESULT OF PETITIONER FINDING OUT LAST MONTH OFFICIALLY THAT CHESTER BROWN WAS THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR OF THE ASSAULT COMMITTED ON OFFICER MARSH PETITIONER SEEKS THIS COMPLAINT. RELIEF A. PETITIONER ASKS THAT THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES BE EXPUNGED FROM HIS INSTITUTIONAL RECORD. B. THAT PETITIONER BE PAID $2.96 FOR LOST PRISON WAGES FROM HIS INSTITUTIONAL JOB. C. THAT PETITIONER RECEIVE $100.00 A DAY FOR EACH DAY SPENT IN THE HOLE. D. THAT PETITIONER RECEIVE $50.000 PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM EACH DEFENDANT AND $50.000 FOR HIS PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR BEING PLACED IN THE HOLE. E. AND ANY OTHER DAMAGES THAT THE COURT DEEMED APPROPRIATE. ANCIS OYD PETITIONER PRO-SE DATED: MAY 7, 2007 F. RE-PAY PETITIONER THE $356.00 THAT THEY TOOK FOR MEDICAL PAYMENT OF OFFICER MARSH. CAUSE OF ACTION CONTINUED: 10. LIBHART AND/OR HIS AGENTS VIOLATED PETITIONERS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN THEY TOOK $356.00 FROM HIS ACCOUNT FOR MEDICAL CHARGES EIGHT YEARS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THEIR STATUTE P.L. 220,61 P.SS 1011-1017 37 Pa. Code 5 93.12 Sec. 7, P.S. :1017. 11. JOHN DOE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND MISCONDUCT WRITER COMMITTED CIVIL CONSPIRACY WHEN THEY CHARGED PETITIONER WITH THE ASSAULT ON MARSH WHEN THEY KNEW THEY HAD ALREADY CHARGED MICHAEL SCOTT AF-8422, VERNON BROWN AND OTHERS. 1` 3 FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER V . PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et.al RESPONDENTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. 07-2470 CIVIL TERM 1ST PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER PA. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 40099 PETITIONER SEEK THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION. 1. A COPY OF THE MISCONDUCT (DC 141) THAT WAS ISSUED TO PETITIONER PERTAINING TO THE ASSAULT OF OFFICER EUGENE MARSH. 2. A COPY OF THE INMATE VERSION PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE MISCONDUCT REPORT. 3. A COPY OF THE MISCONDUCT THAT WAS ISSUED TO INMATE fit" BROWN PERTAINING TO THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH. .?? A Coo-, 0 E- VU I', ? q .c L s? o f l S? ???. 7M'Sea-i f- l .E a .,L A s5 4 a (-* OF Oar c-e w E k4V -1-e- A0fq n Sk 4. A COPY OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S (LAMAR LIBHART) FINDINGS OF FACT AND SANCTIONS PERTAINING TO OFFICER MARSH'S ASSAULT. PETITIONER REQUEST BOTH HIS AND ROWN' S - -1vr,c`i yt C Sc 1>7 FINDING OF FACT SHEET. u-CnNOiv 3 ANCIS B Y PETITIONER PRO-SE DATED: M,4\( , , d o d $. 3 FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER V PA. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT ISSUER, RESPONDENTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-2470 CIVIL TERM REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES Petitioner in the above captioned action request that you answer the following interrogatories. 1. PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH THE NAMES OF EVERY INMATE THAT WAS CHARGED FOR THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH DURING THE CAMP HILL RIOTS ON OCTOBER 25, 1989. ANSWER: f «a? 5e0 % AF ?+a? UenNO? WAS INMATE __ BROWN CHARGED WITH THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH? - - - - - - - -- ANSWER: ?r rH hA?L Srw`% .4F-114AX u-en,.,Q•J 3. IF INMATE BROWN WAS CHARGED WITH THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH, WHAT DATE WAS HE CHARGED AND ISSUED A MISCONDUCT FOR THOSE CHARGES ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH? ANSWER: 4. WAS THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH INVESTIGATED BY CAMP HILL CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS? IF SO WHO INVESTIGATED THIS ASSAULT? ANSWER: I- 3 5.WHAT WAS THE DISPOSITION OF THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES AGAINST EACH INMATE THAT WAS CHARGED WITH THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH CONCERNING THE CAMP HILL RIOTS ON OCTOBER 25, 1989? ANSWER: 6. WHO WAS THE WRITER OF THE MISCONDUCT THAT WAS ISSUED TO PETITIONER CONCERNING THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH AND WHAT DATE WAS PETITIONER ISSUED THIS MISCONDUCT? ANSWER : 7. WHO WAS THE WRITER OF THE MISCONDUCT ISSUED TO INMATE.ZW? BROWN CONCERNING THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH? ANSWER 8. WAS YOU OR YOUR AGENTS AWARE THAT ANOTHER INMATE(S) WAS CHARGED WITH THE ACTUAL ASSAULT ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH? ANSWER: ',XlMAe L v-QK?t1/`? t S c 07-r 9. WAS YOU OR YOUR AGENTS AWARE THAT--EIffii`'? BROWN AND OTHER INMATES WERE GIVEN DISCIPLINARY CUSTODY TIME FOR THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER EUGENE MARSH? ANSWER : to REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES CONTINUED: 10. WAS INMATE MICHAEL SCOTT AF-8422 ISSUED A MISCONDUCT FOR THE ASSAULT OF EUGENE MARSH? ANSWER 11. WHAT DATE WAS INMATE MICHAEL SCOT ISSUED THE MISCONDUCT FOR THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH? ANSEER 12. WAS INMATE VERNON BROWN ISSUED A MISCONDUCT FOR THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH? ANSWER 13. WHAT DATE WAS INMATE VERNON BROWN ISSUED THE MISCONDUCT FOR THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH? ANSWER 14. WAS LT. SHERACK AND OFFICER SHIPLEY A PART OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED DURING THE CAMP HILL RIOTS? ANSWER Ili FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER i-ilL'' Tn'y ^^ J.3PTKLV TTAD T `j?"P+LL, JOHN DOE INVESTIGATING OFFICER(S) JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT ISSUER JOHN DOE MISCONDUCT WRITER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 07-2470 CIVIL TERM I, FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION HEREBY SWEARS THAT HE SENT A COPY OF THE ENCLOSED COMPLAINT WRIT OF MANDAMUS PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF MISCONDUCT CHARGES, ADDENDUM OR AMENDED COMPLAINT,REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES,IST. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE ADRESSESS LISTED BELOW BY PLACING THE SAME IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL IN FRACKVILLE, PA. ON THE DATE LISTED BELOW. PENNS ANIA S POLICE 1800 EL AVENUE HARRISB , A. 17110 THIS PACKAGE ALSO CONTAINS A NOTICE TO DEFEND TO EACH ADDRESS. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 598 CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA LITIGATION SECTION OF CORRECTIONS 17001-0598 Y&fv '-- DATED: *A4 --4-v 2007 F ANCIS BOYD, PETI ONER PRO-SE 301 MOREA RD. FRACKVILLE, PA. 17932 C= rnr TI rn IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 07-2470 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of the Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Lamar Libhart in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel Dated: June 21, 2007 By: awrd ura J. Veal Assistant Counsel PA 81070 PA Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel: (717) 731-0444 Fax: (717) 975-2217 lneal@state.pa.us Counsel for Defendants Dept. of Corrections and Libhart IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, Plaintiff, V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Civil Action No. 07-2470 Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance in the above- captioned matter upon the person(s) as indicated below. Service by first-class mail Addressed as follows: Francis Boyd, AF-6974 SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville PA 17932 Eva Jo J sen Clerk Typist II Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: June 21, 2007 ?_ t... ?.. ???; _, P „? ? R, ? ?? ?' G ? r '? ..a PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Francis Boyd, VS. (Plaintiff) Pa. Dept. of Corrections, Lamar Libhart, Hearing Examiner, Pa. State Police Trooper Kenneth L. Grossman, Trooper Lamar Powell, Investigating Officers, Misconduct Issuer, Misconduct Writer John Doe(s) (Defendants) No. 2007 Civil 2470 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections. Please note that the Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and, therefore, Defendants request that the matter be considered by the Court on briefs only. 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Francis Boyd, Pro Se Address: SCI-Mahanoy,301 Morea Rd.,Frackville, PA 17932 (b) for defendant: Laura J. Neal, Assistant Counsel Address: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: It is requested that the matter be considered on the briefs. Dated: July 13, 2007-il 1\ Ai?? ttorney for Defen fits ;PA Dept of Corrections and Lamar Libhart C? ? r-? ? a '= i ? :. ? f.. ?:.. c-cz _.- ?:d -. ...? ? ?,? try ; i ?? .l i t..<a' .? , ., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, Plaintiff, V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-2470 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Francis Boyd SCI-Mahanoy 301 Morea Rd. Frackville, PA 17932 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. Office of General Counsel Dated: July 13, 2007 by ,, Laura J. N 1 Assistant ounsel PA 81070 Pa. Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 5 5 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel: (717) 731-0444 Fax: (717) 975-2217 Ineal@state.pa.us Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, Plaintiff, V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. : Civil Action No. 07-2470 DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Lamar Libhart, by and through their counsel, Laura J. Neal, Assistant Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and raise the following preliminary objections, in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a), to the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter: 1. Plaintiff, Francis Boyd, is an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (hereinafter "SCI- Mahanoy") 2. Defendants in this action are the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Department employee Lamar Libhart, a hearing examiner. 1 3. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Department of Corrections and Libhart violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they incarcerated him in the Restricted Housing Unit for 180 days and withdrew $356.00 from his inmate account as a result of a misconduct issued to Plaintiff for assaulting a correctional officer. The fee was assessed to reimburse the Department for medical costs associated with treating the injured correctional officer. 4. Plaintiff alleges that the assault occurred in 1989 and that a misconduct was issued in July, 1990. Plaintiff alleges that he was incarcerated in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU") from May 1, 1990, to March 1, 1991. 5. Plaintiff seeks $18,358.96 and requests that the misconduct be expunged from his institutional record. Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages. 6. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on April 27, 2007, more than two years after he was incarcerated in the Restricted Housing Unit. 7. Plaintiff failed to serve the Complaint on the Defendants. 8. Plaintiff subsequently directed an Amended Complaint, along with a copy of his Complaint, to the Defendants via first-class mail on or about June 12, 2007. 9. Attached to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff affixed a Notice to Defend which did not include the appropriate legal services information. 2 I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUNDS OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Improper Service of Original Process 10. The requirements for service of original process under this Court's jurisdiction are set forth in Pa.R.C.P. No. 400 which provides that "Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) and in Rule 400.1 and 1930.4, original process shall be served within the Commonwealth only by the sheriff." Pa.R.C.P. No. 400(a). 11. Pa.R.CP. No. 422 further provides that "[s]ervice of original process upon the Commonwealth ... shall be made at the office of the defendant and the office of the attorney general by handing a copy to the person in charge thereof." Pa.R.C.P. No. 422(a). 12. Plaintiff failed to serve his Complaint on the Defendants, and directed his Amended Complaint to the Defendants via first class mail only. Plaintiff's failure to properly serve the Defendants operates to deprive this Court of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. 13. Plaintiff's failure to serve the Office of the Attorney General in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. Nos. 400(a) and 422(a) also renders the service defective and deprives this Court of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. 3 Failure to Make Proper Service within Prescribed Time Period 14. The requirements for the time for service of original process under this Court's jurisdiction are set forth in Pa.R.C.P. No. 401, which provides that "Original process shall be served within the Commonwealth within thirty days after the issuance of... the filing of the Complaint." Pa.R.C.P. No 401(a). 15. Plaintiff filed his Complaint with this Court on April 27, 2007. 16. Plaintiff has failed to properly serve his Complaint upon Defendants within the required 30 days. 17. Plaintiff's failure to properly serve the Defendants within thirty days of filing his Complaint operates to deprive this Court of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants make this objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(1) and request that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT RULE Failure to Aix Proper Notice to Defend 18. A Complaint must contain a Notice to Defend. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 1018.1(a). 4 19. The Notice to Defend must contain the name, address, and telephone number of an office designated to provide information about agencies that may offer legal services. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1018.1(b). 20. The name of the designated office is provided in the local rules of each court. Pa. R.C.P. 1018.1(c). This Court has listed the Cumberland County Bar Association as the office to be listed in the Notice to Defend. See C.C.R.P. 1018.1-1. 21. Plaintiff failed to include the name, address, and telephone number of the organization designated by this Court in his Notice to Defend. WHEREFORE, Defendants make this objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2) and request that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to conform to a court rule. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BASED UPON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 22. As stated previously, Plaintiff seeks redress under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 23. The only possible cause of action by a prisoner against prison officials for violations of federal, constitutional rights is one based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thomas v. Shipka, 818 F.2d 496, 500 (6`" Cir. 1987) ("The Supreme Court has never recognized a cause of action arising directly under the 5 Constitution in a case where § 1983 was available as a remedy."); Williams, v. Bennett, et al., 689 F.2d 1370, 1390 (11th Cir. 1982). 24. The appropriate statute of limitations periods in § 1983 actions are determined by the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985). 25. A two-year statute of limitations is applicable to all personal injury actions brought in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524. 26. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the misconduct was issued to him in July, 1990, and alleges that he was confined in the R.H.U. from May 1, 1990, to March 1, 1991. 27. Plaintiff failed to file the instant action until April 27, 2007, approximately 14 years after the statute of limitations had run. WHEREFORE, Defendants make this objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a) and request that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER 28. The Amended Complaint in this matter should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 6 29. When a defendant makes a demurrer, the defendant admits all well-pled allegations of fact and all inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Reardon v. Wilbur, 441 Pa. 551, 272 A.2d 888 (1971). However, the defendant does not admit to conclusions of law or unjustified inferences which may appear in the petition for review. Raynovich v. Romanus, 450 Pa. 391, 299 A.2d 301 (1973). Plaintiff fails to state a Claim under the Eighth Amendment 30. Plaintiff alleges that his incarceration in the Restricted Housing Unit constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because it was based on "fabricated charges." 31. A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when the inmate has been deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 32. The test for deliberate indifference is whether "the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.] [T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 7 33. Plaintiff generally avers that his R.H.U. confinement constituted cruel and unusual confinement, but fails to allege facts sufficient to establish that he was subjected to an objectively, sufficiently serious deprivation, or that the Defendants were aware of any risk to Plaintiff's health or safety as a result of such confinement. Plaintiff fails to state a Claim under the Fourteenth Amendment 34. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Due Process rights when he was removed from general population and confined in the R.H.U. for 180 days. 35. It is well settled that placement within an R.H.U. in a state correctional facility does not impose an atypical and significant hardship on an inmate in relation to ordinary prison life. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484; Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 706 (3d Cir. 1997). 36. Therefore, no Due Process protections are implicated by Plaintiff's confinement in the R.H.U. WHEREFORE, the Defendants make this objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(4) and request that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 8 Plaintif 's claim against the Department for damages is barred because the Department is not subiect to liabili under .? 1983. 37. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 43. A state is not a "person" subject to liability under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). 44. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, as a state agency, is not considered a "person" for purposes of § 1983. See Id. 45. Therefore, the Department is not subject to liability for money damages under § 1983. WHEREFORE, the Defendants make this objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) and request that Plaintiffs claims against the Department of Corrections for money damages be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 9 CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Lamar Libhart, request that the Amended Complaint be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to comply with a court rule, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. Respectfully Submitted, Office of General Counsel Dated: July 13, 2007 by aw, ? - aura J. N 1 Assistant Counsel PA 81070 Pa. Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel: (717) 731-0444 Fax: (717) 975-2217 lneal@state.pa.us Counsel for Defendants 10 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, Petitioner, : V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and LAMAR LIBHART, Respondents. Civil Action No. 07-2470 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter upon the person(s) as indicated below. Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Francis Boyd, AF-6974 SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville PA 17932 Dated: July 13, 2007 Eva Jo J sen Clerk Typist II Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 11 nJ ---,? C ? --( is-..T T7 L:? .. f-? ? ` --?- ?> _ ,. _,tai?9 - L:? :::?? ? ?? C. J -. LZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, r• » ' L A (-+I'd.? PLAINTIFF wo o7-?Y7a V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF TIME I, FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION REQUEST AND EXTENTION OF TIME TO ANSWER DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. PETITIONER RECEIVED THE DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TODAY 7/16 07. PETITIONER IS UNABLE TO GO TO THE INSTITUTION'S LAW LIBRARY AND MARSHAL AND SHEPERDIZE THE CASES WITHIN THE 20 DAYS PROSCRIBED TIME PERIOD. IT TAKES THE INSTITUTION AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO ANSWER A LAW LIBRARY REQUEST AND THEN SOMETIMES YOUR ADDED TO THE LAW LIBRARY LIST THE FOLLOWING WEEK. DEFENDANTS WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE EXTENTION OF TIME. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANT HIWS MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO ANSWER DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. ?LY SU T T E D ; FRANCIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF DATED: JULY 16, 2007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, V. PETITIONER, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., - a? ,-J. ,u:L 00. oj--;L`i-)d CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THIS DAY DEPOSITING IN THE U.S. MAIL A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE FOREGOING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST OR EXTENTION OF TIME UPON THE PERSON(S) AS INDICATED BELOW. SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: LAURA J. NEAL ASSISTANT COUNSEL PA 81070 OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA. 17011 !x-00 c? ?.> ti .. -, \-'; U..?.? ; `?,,. i? l' ? 4Ll _ ? ?_? FRANCIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF V. PA. DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT: ISSUER, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-2470 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of July, 2007, the preliminary objections filed by defendants to plaintiff's amended complaint shall be considered on briefs only. The defendants shall file a brief in the chambers of this judge, and serve plaintiff with a copy, not later than thirty (30) days after this date. Plaintiff shall file a response brief in the same manner not later than seventy-five (75) days from this date. rancis Boyd, AF-6974, Pro se 301 Morea Road Fr ac lle, PA 17932 aura J. Neal, Esquire Assistant Counsel Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Court Administrator ?? .t ?.. <?_ ?? r,?? ?? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF V DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS et al., MOTION FOR LEAVE CV# 07-2470 R-EQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PATMERTS I AM THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE MATTER AND BECAUSE OF MY FINANCIAL CONDITION AND SCHOOL TUITION I AM UNABLE TO PAY THE FEES AND COST OF PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING THE ACTION THE REST OF THE WAY. I AM UNABLE TO OBTAIN FUNDS TO PAY THE COST OF THE LITIGATION AND MY INSTITUTIONAL ONLY ALLOWS ME TO PAY FOR LIFES BASIC NECESSITIES. I REPRESENT THAT THE INFORMATION IN MY ACCOUNT IS TRUE AND THE ONLY MONEY THAT I POSSESS. I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. 18 PA C.S. 4904 IS UNDERSTOOD 4 A CIS BOYD PETITIONER PRO-FE 7/23/07 PAGE 1 INMATE ACCOUNTS SYSTEM 07-12-2007 I-B-10 18 MONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENT 2062 MAH INMATE NAME NUMBER LAST FIRST MI OLD BALANCE AF 6974 BOYD FRANCIS 213.07 BATCH DATE # MO DY YEAR TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TRANSACTION BALANCE AFTER AMOUNT TRANSACTION 6406 06-21-2007 37 POSTAGE 6/20/07 -1.31 211.76 6396 06-25-2007 38 INSIDE PURCHASES VENDACARDS 6/18-6/23 -10.00 201.76 6414 06-25-2007 37 POSTAGE 6/25/07 -1.14 200.62 6414 06-25-2007 37 POSTAGE 6/25/07 -1.14 199.48 6414 06-25-2007 37 POSTAGE 6/25/07 -1.14 198.34 6414 06-25-2007 37 POSTAGE 6/25/07 -1.14 197.20 8177 06-26-2007 34 MAH CABLE TV FOR 6/26/2007 -14.75 182.45 6426 06-27-2007 31 OUTSIDE PURCHASES ASHWORTH COLLEGE/TUITION 6/27 -35.00 147.45 8178 06-27-2007 32 MAH COMMISSARY FOR 6/27/2007 -13.62 133.83 6423 06-28-2007 37 POSTAGE 6/28/07 -.41 133.42 8184 07-03-2007 32 MAH COMMISSARY FOR 7/03/2007 -7.24 126.18 9190 07-09-2007 10 INMATE EMPLOYMENT MAH PAYROLL 2007 - 06 GRP 2 50.82 177.00 8191 07-10-2007 32 MAH COMMISSARY FOR 7/10/2007 -5.94 171.06 NEW BALANCE AS OF THIS STATEMENT -------------------> 171.06 42 ° i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF V PA. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., SECRETARY OF DEFENDANTS CORRECTIONS CV: NO. 07-2470 ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS T PETITIONERS AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES PLAINTIFF FRANCIS BOYD PRO SE TO ANSWER DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS. PETITIONER RECEIVED A LETTER DIRECTING HIM TO SERVE THE COMPLAINT ON THE DEFENDANTS FROM THE PROTHONOTARY ON MAY 3, 2007. (SEE LETTER ATTACHED). SO PLAINTIFF WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HE COULD SERVE THE DEFENDANTS HIMSELF. PLAINTIFF THEN AMENDED HIS COMPLAINT AND SERVED THE DEFENDANTS AND SENT A COPY TO THE PROTHONOTARY ALONG WITH REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER INADVERTANTLY SERVED DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE SHERIFF AS PETITIONER WENT SOLY ON THE LETTER OF THE PROTHONOTARY. MOREOVER, PLAINTIFF HAS A RIGHT TO REINSTATE HIS COMPLAINT. CANNON V. AVCO CORP., 323 A2d 290, 227 PA. SUPER. 419, SUPER 1974.) PLAINTIFF HAS ALREADY APPLIED FOR REINSTATEMENT /REISSUANCEOF HIS PETITION. (FAILURE TO SECURE SERVICE BY SHERIFF DID NOT EFFECT PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT THUS THIS COURT DOES NOT LOOSE JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS. CANNON SUPRA (1) PLAINTIFF FILED A "NOTICE TO DEFEND" AND FAILED TO LIST THE NAME ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AN OFFICE THAT CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT OFFER LEGAL SERVICES FOR A REDUCED FEE. PLAINTIFF ASSERTS THAT THIS OMMISSION IN NO WAY HAMPERS THE DEFENDANTS IN DEFENDING THE COMPLAINT AS THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LAWYERS/LEGALCOUNSEL AS STATED ON PG#15 OF THEIR BRIEF IN SUPPORT AND THEY ADMIT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND HEARING EXAMINERLAMAR LIBHART ARE A COMMONWEALTH AGENCY AND COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEE. (PG.#7 OF "BRIEF IN SUPPORT). IF THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT POSSESS THEIR OWN LAWYERSITHE OMMITION OF THE NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AN OFFICE THAT COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT OFFER LEGAL SERVICS WOULD THEN BE A PROBLEM. MOREOVER, IN PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT/REISSUENCE IS A CORRECTED COPY OF A "NOTICE TO DEFEND. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY IS TWO YEARS AS DEFENDANTS STATED. THE ASSAULT OF OFFICER MARSH TOOK PLACE IN 1989 AND PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF THIS ASSAULT IN 1990 AND SERVED DISCIPLINARY TIME FOR THESE CHARGES IN 1990 AND $365.00 WAS TAKEN FROM PLAINTIFF FOR MEDICAL CHARGES STEMMING FROM THE ASSAULT ON OFFICER MARSH. HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF IS JUST FINDING OUT THAT HE WAS INJURED. AS PLAINTIFF STATES IN HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT ON THE LAST PAGE AT #8. THE EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF HAVE NOW WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. (2) "KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED OF PLAINTIFF IN ORDER TO COMMENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS KNOWLEDGE OF INJURY, THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY AND THE CAUSATIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INJURY AND THE OPERATIVE CONDUCT. HOLMES V. LADO, 602 A.2d 1389, 412 PA. SUPER. 218, SUPER 1992. APPEAL DENIED 609 A.2d 168, 530 PA. 660. TIME TO SUE IN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL THERE IS EXISTING RIGHT TO SUE FORTHWITH. VAN DYKE V. REICH, 27 F. SUPP. 436, D.C. 1939, AFFIRMED 107 F.2d 682; BOSWORTH V PLUMMER, W.D. PA. 1981, 510 F. SUPP. 1027; GRABOWSKI V. TURNER & NEWALL, E.D. PA. 19802 516 F. SUPP. 114, AFFIRMED 651 F. 2d 908; ANTHONY V. KOPPERS CO., INC., 425 A.2d 428, 284 PA. SUPER. 81, SUPER 1980. GORDON V. LOWELL, E.D. PA. 2000, 95 F. SUPP. 2d 264. ACCORDING TO THE ABOVE PA. LAWS, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS AT THE TIME THAT PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE OF THE INJURY. (SEE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COMPLAINT). EMM AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS PETITIONER HAD A LIBERTY INTEREST NOT TO BE HOUSE IN THE "HOLE". THE DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION AT ISSUE "IMPOSED ATYPICAL AND SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP ON PLAINTIFF IN RELATION TO THE ORDINARY INCIDENTS OF PRISON LIFE. SEE SANDINE U.S. AT 115 S. CT. AT 2300. WHICH IS SANDINS STANDARD FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A LIBERTY INTEREST. (f. GOTCHER V. WOOD, 66 F.3d 1097, 1101 (9th CIR. 1995) (REVERSING DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE RECORD DID NOT REVEAL WEATHER THE DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION AT ISSUE CONSTITUTED AN ATYPICAL AND SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP). (3) THIS FALSE MISCONDUCT AND HOLE TIME METTED OUT TO PLAINTIFF HAS NOW CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO BE DENIED COMMUTATION OF HIS SENTENCE FROM THE GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, WHICH IS THE ONLY AVENUE FOR PLAINTIFF EVER TO BE RELEASED FROM PRISON. PETITIONER HAD FECES THROWN IN HIS FACE AND NOW HAS CONTRACTED HEPITITUS C AS A RESULT. THE ABOVE CERTAINTLY PRESENTED A "SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM" TO PLAINTIFF. THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS ALSO DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. PLAINTIFF HAD A PROTECTED INTEREST NOT TO BE CONVICTED OF A MISCONDUCT THAT HE DID NOT DO AND THAT AUTHORITIES KNEW HE (PLAINTIFF) DID NOT COMITT. WHEN PRISON OFFICIALS CONSPIRED TO ISSUE PLAINTIFF A FALSE AND BOGUS MISCONDUCT WHEN THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMMIT SUCH INFRACTION, THEN PLAINTIFF WAS DEPRIVED OF A PROTECTED INTEREST. BECAUSE OF THE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF CAN NOT GO HOME, HIS ACCOUNT WAS WRONGFULLY ASSESSED FOR $365.00 AND FECES WAS THROWN IN HIS FACE CONTRACTING HIM WITH HEPITITUS C THEREBY STATING A CLAIM UNDER THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. IN FAGAN V. CITY OF VINELAND, 22 F.3d 1296 (3RD CIR. 1994 THE COURT OBSERVED THAT; "IT CA FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE IS SHOCKED BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF A PERSON IN CU"STODY," BECAUSE "THE GOVERNMENT HAS RESTRICTED AND INDIVIDUAL'S LIBERTY AND THEREBY INCREASED HIS OR HER VULNERABILITY TO ABUSIVE GOVERNMENTAL ACTION OR TO PRIVATE HARM." FAGAN, 22 F.3d AT 1306. QUOTED FROM CARTER V KANE 938 F. SUPP. 282 (E.D. PA. 1996). LIABILITY LAMAR LIBHART IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS TRAINING. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND THE MISCONDUCT ISSUER(S) ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE D.O.C. AND SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR TRAINING. PETITIONER WILL GET THIS ANSWER FROM PROPOSED INTERROGATORIES AND AMEND TO ADD DEFENDANTS. THE D.O.C. IS STILL ALSO LIABLE FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF FALSE CHARGES THAT PLAINTIFF SEEK TO GET EXPUNGED. BASED ON THE FOREGOING ARGUMENTS, PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS COURT DISMISS DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. DATED L p( 14 RESPECFULLY SUBMITTED; FRANCIS BOYD,PLAINTIFF PRE-SE 301 MOREA ROAD FRACKVILLE, PA 17932 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF V PA. DEPT. OF CORR. et al,. DEFENDANTS CV; NO. 07-2470 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THIS DAY DEPOSITING IN THE US MAIL A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE FOREGOING ANSWER TO DEFENDANT PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER UPON THE PERSON(S) AS INDICATED BELOW BY FIRST CLASS MAIL; LAURA J. NEAL ASSISTANT COUNSEL P.A.D.O.C. OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 BY: FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF PRO-SE DATED: / d. .?,:? C,??--` ? ??G W ? FRANCIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF V, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND JOHN: DOE, MISCONDUCT ISSUER, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-2470 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 2?AL- day of September, 2007, plaintiff's amended complaint, IS DISMISSED. By the PvGrt, Edgar B. Bayley, J. ?f'rancis Boyd, AF-6974, Pro se SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 ;,Zura J. Neal, Esquire Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 :sal C-l LL; C\j u-Uj IL1 LL {.+. C3 r. C) . FRANCIS BOYD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND JOHN: DOE, MISCONDUCT ISSUER, DEFENDANTS 07-2470 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., September 27, 2007:-- On April 27, 2007, plaintiff, Francis Boyd, a state inmate, filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and some other individuals who work for the Department. He filed an amended complaint on June 22, 2007. Although not artfully drawn by plaintiff, the amended complaint seeks relief and damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights which we construe to be under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. All of the allegations of wrongful conduct are alleged to have occurred during a riot at SCI Camp Hill in 1989 and its aftermath extending into 1991.' Defendants filed preliminary objections, one of which seeks a dismissal on the basis of the running of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff and defendants have briefed the issue Plaintiff is now incarcerated at SCI Mahanoy. I I% 07-2470 CIVIL TERM which is ready for decision. The statute of limitations in a 1983 action is the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1988, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for a personal injury action is two years. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524. A statutory limitation is an affirmative defense that is properly raised by new matter in a responsive pleading. Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1030. Bartanus v. Lis, 332 Pa. Super. 48 (1984). Notwithstanding, where the affirmative defense is clear on the face of the challenged pleadings it may be considered on a preliminary objection. Malia v. Monchak, 116 Pa. Commw. 484 (1988); Kelley v. Kelley, 887 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2005). The alleged wrongs committed by defendants occurred over a decade and a half ago. The statute of limitations has long since run. Therefore, the following order is entered.' ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 01 l day of September, 2007, plaintiff's amended complaint, IS DISMISSED. By the Edgar B. BtPyley, J. z This resolution makes it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised in the preliminary objections of defendants. -2- 07-2470 CIVIL TERM Francis Boyd, AF-6974, Pro se SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 Laura J. Neal, Esquire Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 sal -3- IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER CV-07-2470 V DEPARTMENT OF Cg8ff8WIg8SPA6dh- IN FORMA PAUPERIS YLAINIIE'E/APPELLANT IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER REQUEST PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH THIS LITIGATION IN FORMA PAUPERIS. 1 AM UNABLE; TO PAY THE NECESSARY FEES TO PROCEED. MY INSTITUTIONAL PAY ONLY ALLOWS ME TO PAY FOR LIFE'S BASIC NECESSITIES. I HAVE NO OTHER BANK ACCOUNT BESIDES MY INSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNT. I VERIFY THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE; IN THIS AFFIDAVIT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. IS PA C.S.A. 4904 IS UNDERSTOOD. 10/5/07 4ANCISS BOYDD PETITIONER PRO-SE C ? t,,,, t '_' ' _ O .;_ -rT?'' '? ?'?? ? o ~ [ ? T; c 7 •-^i R3 Ct> ,_? ; " N '1-` r =?C3 ?_l ?' i? -: -` r ?,? M: 3 ". ?4 'K R? W ? N "' & IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD CV-NO. 07-2470 APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et a2., NOTICE OF APPEAL NOW COMES PETITIONER, FRANCIS BOYD, WHO PETITIONS THIS HONORABLE COURT FOR AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF JUDGE EDGAR B. BAYLEY OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 DISMISSING PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT. LAURA J. NEAL, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT COUNSEL PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA. 17011 t ANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF-PRO- SE 0 ? e i" Cs 4ti ? y FRANCIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PA. DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT: ISSUER, DEFENDANTS 07-2470 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 210 day of October, 2007, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on an appeal from this court's order of September 27, 2007, denying the motion of plaintiff to amend the complaint, IS DENIED because the appeal is frivolous because the order of September 27, 2007, is interlocutory. By rancis Boyd, AF-6974, Pro se 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 ` V ura J. Neal, Esquire Assistant Counsel Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 sal G Edgar s = c? c ,' r .t FRANCIS BOYD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PA. DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT: ISSUER, DEFENDANTS 07-2470 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of November, 2007, a Rule is entered against defendants to show cause why they should not suffer sanctions for failure to answer interrogatories and produce documents. Rule returnable thirty (30) days from this date. By the Court', I\ 0 (--- Edgar rancis Boyd, AF-6974, Pro se 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 ura J. Neal, Esquire Assistant Counsel Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 :sal -? Bayley, J. i ?. CI i 1 M Lt.? .vim ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY FRANCIS BOYD,PLAINTIFF V DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et,el DEFENDANTS 07-2470 CIVIL TERM NOTION TO COMPELL PETITIONER SENT DEFENDANTS INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NEVER RECEIVED AND ANSWER FROM THEM. PLAINTIFF NOW ASKS THIS COURT TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER. BY PLAINTIFF 01.d r , (7, _ / da *a A BOYD LAINTIFF-PRO-SE DATED: NOVEMBER 3, 2007 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It FRANCIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE ACTION SENT THE DEFENDANTS A NOTICE OF THE ENCLOSED !MOTION TO COWELL OF INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, BY PLACING THE SAME IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL, FIRST CLASS, IN FRACKVILLE, PA. LAURA J. HEAL, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT COUNSEL OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 uao . 31 3-001 } cv w «w 1 r? co GJ Gb d Q =.J '-y xt ?a W ? a y i p..i N ch C, Q T O c a Q ui W -? _J (L LLI (n \1 Z Z ° U- v M M C M ?M ?r11? i A ?4R A? p? M V I ^ V S b f _ r'e IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, Plaintiff, V. : Civil Action No. 07-2470 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW come Defendants, by and through their counsel, Laura J. Neal, Assistant Counsel, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and respond to the November 8, 2007 Rule to Show Cause as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Francis Boyd, is an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (hereinafter "SCI- Mahanoy"). 2. Defendants in this action are the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and Department employee Lamar Libhart, a hearing examiner. 3. Defendants filed preliminary objections on July 13, 2007 raising lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the statute of limitations. 1 4. By Order dated September 27, 2007, the preliminary objections were sustained and the Plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. 5. On or about October 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") in his appeal. 6. By Order dated October 30, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff's IFP motion, noting that the appeal was frivolous because "the order of September 27, 2007 is interlocutory." 7. On November 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order to compel the Defendants to respond to discovery requests served on the Defendants prior to dismissal of the amended complaint. 8. The Order sustaining the Defendants' preliminary objections and dismissing the amended complaint as barred by the statute of limitations was a final appealable order. J. A. & W.A. Hess, Inc. v. Hazle Township, 465 Pa. 465, 350 A.2d 858 (1976); Catanese v. Scirica, 437 Pa. 519, 263 A.2d 372 (1970); Sullivan v. Philadelphia, 378 Pa. 648, 107 A.2d 854 (1954). 9. Because the action has been dismissed in its entirety, any discovery in this matter would be pointless since discovery is necessarily designed to aid in 2 the development of facts in support of a claim and no viable claim exists before this Court. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 4001. 10. Furthermore, the dismissal of the action and Plaintiffs subsequent appeal both operated to divest this Court of jurisdiction over this matter, and no order may now be entered directing the production of documents or responses to interrogatories. See Pa. R.A.P. 1701; see also Ingram v. Dovertown Estates, Inc., Pa. Super. LEXIS 5167 (Sept. 3, 1982)(lower court lacked jurisdiction to enter order directing deposition of defendant after filing of appeal). 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery must be denied since the September 27, 2007 Order was a final appealable order dismissing this action and Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction over this matter. Respectfully Submitted, Office of General Counsel Dated: December 5, 2007 b aura J. al Assistant Counsel PA 81070 Pa. Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel: (717) 731-0444 Fax: (717) 975-2217 lneal@state.pa.us Counsel for Defendants 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD, : Petitioner, : V. : PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and LAMAR LIBHART, : Respondents. Civil Action No. 07-2470 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter upon the person(s) as indicated below. Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Francis Boyd, AF-6974 SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Road Frackville PA 17932 Eva Jo ssen Clerk Typist II Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: December 5, 2007 5 Cf ?.. _ 4 ? Crl ..1 FRANCIS BOYD, PLAINTIFF V. PA. DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT: ISSUER, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 07-2470 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this -P day of December, 2007, the Rule entered against defendants to show cause why they should not suffer sanctions for failure to answer interrogatories and produce documents, IS DISMISSED as being improvidently granted.' By the Edgar B. Bayley, J. V, rancis Boyd, AF-6974, Pro se 301 Morea Road Frackville, PA 17932 /aura J. Neal, Esquire J Assistant Counsel Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 sal ' The amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety on September 27, 2007. Q 4 ~f C'.:i f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF CIVIL NO. 07-2470 V PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., MOTION TO COMPELL PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION HEREBY ASKS THIS HONORABLE COURT TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES THAT HE FILED ON DECEMBER 12, 2007. THIS REQUESTED DISCOVERY IS FROM THE PETITION THAT PETITIONER FILED WITH THIS COURT ON APRIL 27, 2007. IN DEFENDANTS NOTICE TO PLEAD WHICH WAS FILED ON JULY 13, 2007 THEY DID NOT OBJECT TO THE APRIL 27, 2007 COMPLAINT AND THEY ARE PROHIBITED TO DO SO NOW BY LAW. IT HAS BEEN OVER THE REQUIRED 30 DAYS AND DEFENDANTS HAS NOT PRODUCED THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY. DATED: JANUARY 21, 2008 IF TIONER 301 MOREA ROAD FRACKVILLE, PA 17932 NCIS BOYD D IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER CIVIL NO. 07-2470 V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al., RESPONDENTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THIS DAY DEPOSITING IN THE U.S. MAIL A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE FOREGOING MOTION TO COMPELL IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER UPON THE PERSON(S) AS INDICATED BELOW. SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: ASSISTANT COUNSEL PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS LAURA J. NEAL 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DATED: JANUARY 21, 2008 LAURA J. NEAL TBY _ / F ANCIS BOYD PETITIONER PRO- SE LLJ iJ 0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER CV-07-2470 V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et,al;. RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW THIS 9th day of february 2008, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING PETITION AND UPON MOTION OF PETITIONER FRANCIS BOYD, PRO-SE RULE UPON THE DEFENDANTS IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY DID NOT ANSWER PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR INTERRAGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. PETITIONER FILED A MOTION TO COMPELL TO THIS COURT AND THE COURT DID NOT ACT ON THAT MOTION. PETITIONER ASKS THIS COURT TO COMPELL THE DEFENDANTS TO PRODUCE THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY. A?-Gtv?.tt?l B FRANCIS BOYD ETITIONE PRO-SE FEBRUARY 9, 2008 ? _ {`?? ??? -"?. t ?3 {? ? {:? i. ? ' ? q` . ^ Y ? ,.- (? ' } IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF CV-No. 07-2470 V PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., RULE 1035.5 PROCEDURE WHEN JUDGMENT IS DENIED OR NOT RENDERED UPON THE WHOLE CASE PETITIONER INSTITUTED THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CIVIL ON APRIL 27, 2007. PETITIONER THEN DIRECTED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANTS THEN FILED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS AMENDED COMPLAINT ON JULY 139 2007. THIS COURT THEN DIRECTED AN ORDER ON JULY 239 2007 STATING THAT THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT SHALL BE CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS ONLY.MEANWHILE PETITIONER FILED WITH THE PROTHONOTARY A MOTION FOR REISSUANCE OR REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION ON JULY 209 2007 AND NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE. PETITIONER THEN, COMPLYING WITH THE COURT'S ORDER OF JULY 231 2007 FILED A RESPONSE BRIEF TO THE DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS. THIS COURT THEN BY ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 279 20071, SUSTAINED PETITIONER'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DISMISSED IT. PETITIONER THEN FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT AND A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRECEED IN-FORMA PAUPERIS ON OCTOBER 109 2007. THE COURT ORDER DATED OCTOBER 30, 20079 DENIED PETITIONER'S IFP MOTION STATING THAT THE APPEAL WAS FRIVOLOUS BECAUSE "THE ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 279 2007 IS INTERLOCUTORY. PETITIONER THEN FILED A MOTION ON NOVEMBER 39 2007 SEEKING AN ORDER TO COMPELL THE DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS. NOTING THAT THE CASE WAS NOT DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS STILL PENDING AND IN THEIR NOTICE TO DEFEND THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. THIS COURT THEN ON NOVEMBER B, 20070 ISSUED A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THE COURT AND ANSWER THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY REQUEST THE DEFENDANTS RESPONDEDON DECEMBER 5, 2007 STATING THAT BECAUSE THE COURT DISMISSED THE AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE TO RESPOND.. DISREGUARDING THE INITIAL COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF. THE COURT BY ORDER OF DECEMBER DISMISSED ITS OWN RULF: ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD SUFFER SANCTIONS AS BEING IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. PETITIONER THEN WROTE TO JUDGE BAYLEY ASKING WHY WAS THE RULE DISMISSED AND AND WHY DIDN'T THE DEFENDANTS HAVE TO SEND THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AS TO THE FIRST COMPLAINT. PETITIONER WAS NOT GIVEN AN ANSWER. PETITIONER THEN SENT A NEW SET OF REQUESTED DOCUMENTS TO THE DEFENDANTS AND IHE COURT. HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT STILL HASN'T RESPONDED TO THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS. PETITIONER THEN FILED ANOTHER MOTION TO COMPELL WITH THIS COURT REQUESTING THAT THE COURT COMPELL THE DEFENDANTES TO ANSWER THE DISCOBVERY MOTION. AND THE COURT NEVER ACTED ON THE MOTION TO COMPEL. THIS LITIGATION IS STILL ACTIVEAND PETITIONER WANTS TO MOVE ON. HOWEVER HE IS BEING STYMIED. PETITIONER IS UNABLE TO PROCEED WITH HIS CASE IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO RECEIVE THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY. THIS COURT HAS NOT ACTED ON PETITIONER'S LATEST MOTION TO COMPEL REQUESTED DISCOVERY. AS A RESULT PETITIONER IS AT A STAND STILL IN RESPECT TO HIS LITIGATION. THIS COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY PERTAINING TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. HOWEVER) THAT BULLING DID NOT PERTAIIN TO THE WHOLE CASE. THE INITIAL COMPLAINT IS STILL DEEMED FILED AND WAS SIGNED BY THE PROTHONOTARY ON MAY 3, 2007. PETITIONER WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED ON IT SINCE THIS COURT DISMISSED HIS APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS AND THE ORDER 0P: 1/9 7107 "%W WAS INTERLOCUTORY. PETITIONER ASKS THIS COURT FOR VERIFICATION ON HIS LITIGATION. PETITIONER RECEIVED NO ORDER THAT HIS INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED. PETITIONER REQUEST THAT THIS COURT COMPELL THE DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY; WHICH IS NEEDED BY PETITIONER IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH HIS LITIGATION. PENNSYLVANIA'S RULES OF THE COURT STIPULATE THAT PETITIONER CAN REQUEST AND RECEIVE DISCOVERY IN A CIVIL ACTION. AND RULE 102.4 INDICATES THAT A SANCTION WILL BE IMPOSED FOR VIOLATION OF A RULE. RULE 1035.5 IS A RULE OF CASE MANAGEMENT. ITS EXPLANATORY COMMENT-1996 READS IN PART: "IF JUDGEMENT IS DENIED OR NOT ENTERED UPON THE WHOLE CASE, THE RULE AUTHORIZES THE COURT TO SIMPLIFY THE FUTURE COURSE OF THE ACTION." PETITIONER TRIED TO APPEAL THE COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 AND WAS TOLD THAT HE COULDN'T. THE DEFENDANTS IN THEIR BRIEF SAID THAT THAT ORDER WAS APPEALABLE. PETITIONER DO NOT IN NC WAY WAVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL THE ORDER OF 9/27/07 AS HE TRIED TO DO SO . FETIT'IONER RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS COURT ACT/RULE ON THE INSTANT MOTION. WHEREFORE., PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT RULE ONN THIS PETITION IN HIS FAVOR. Byi(; PET ON ER DATED: APRIL S , dZO O S? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF CV-07-2470 V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM ON THIS DAY DEPOSITING IN THE U.S. MAIL A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE FOREGOING PROCEDURE WHEN JUDGMENT IS DENIED OR NOT RENDERED UPON THE WHOLE CASE IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER UPON THE PERSON(S) AS INDICATED BELOW. DATED: APRIL , LAURA J. NEAL ASSISTANT COUNSEL PA 81070 PA. DEFT. Of CORRECTIONS 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 BY • ____ l? FHA S BOYD PETITIONER c? C- '`;=? . ?-??, ? {?. w vr? J C7 ?`' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, 7U MISCONDUCT.ISSUER, -RESPONDENTS 07-2 ff7 CIVIL TERM MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE PETITIONER INSTITUTED A CIVIL SUIT IN MAY 2007. SHORTLY THEREAFTER PETITIONER FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALONG WITH REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES. PETITIONER FILED A MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT SEND THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND ANSWER THE INTERROGATORIES. AFTER THEY FILED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, THIS COURT GRANTED THEIR PETITION. PETITIONER APPEALED THE DECISION AND THE COURT SAID THAT L..COULDN'T APPEAL IT BECAUSE THE RULING WAS INTERLOCOTORY. PETITIONER THEN WROTE THE COURT STATING THAT HE HAS NOT WAVED HIS APPEAL RIGHT'S. PETITIONER THEN FILED ANOTHER SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT FOR THE RESPONDANTS TO ANSWER BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS STILL PENDING WITH THE COURT AND RESPONDENTS IN THEIR FILING TO DISMISS DID NOT ASK THE COURT TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. THE COURT NEVER ORDERED THE RESPONDENTS TO SEND THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AS PERTAINING 0 THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER. PETITIONER IS NOW STUCK AT A CROSS ROAD IN THIS LITIGATION. PETITIONER WISHES TO PROCEED WITH THIS MATTER HOWEVER, WITHOUT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES, PETITIONER HAVE NO CASE. PETITIONER BY LAW, IS ALLOWED THE REQUESTED EVIDENCE. PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS COURT COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE REQUESTED INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, OR ALLOW PETITIONER TO APPEAL THE WHOLE CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANTS THE ABOVE REQUEST. DATED: qJIMEMPO Acv /0-7-019 "F?ANCIS Y PETITIONERPRO- SE cc; file 9p IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et,al 07-2407 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION HEREBY CAUSED THE ENCLOSED MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY DIDN'T OR REFUSE TO ANSWER AND SEND REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND INTEROGATORIES. SENT IN THE UNITED STATES MAIL, FIRST CLASS, FRACKVILLE PA TO THE ADDRESS BELOW ON THE DATE BELOW. LAURA J. NEAL OFFICE OF CHEIF COUNSEL 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 BY. FRANCIS BOYD AF- 6974 PETITIONER PRO-SE 10/7/08 ? m m IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PETITIONER V PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LISHART, HEARING EXAMINER INVESTIGATING OFFICERS JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT ISSUER, ;Ig76 RESPONDENTS 07-24ff CIVIL TERM MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE PETITIONER. INSTITUTED A CIVIL SUIT IN MAY 2007. SHORTLY THEREAFTER PETITIONER FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALONG WITH REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES. PETITIONER FILED A MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT SEND THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND ANSWER THE INTERROGATORIES. AFTER THEY FILED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, THIS COURT GRANTED THEIR PETITION. PETITIONER APPEALED I'HE DECISION AND THE COURT SAID THAT I COULDN'T APPEAL IT BECAUSE THE RULING WAS INTERLOCOTORY. PETITIONER THEN WROTE THE COURT STATING THAT HE HAS NOT WAVED HIS APPEAL RIGHTS. PETITIONER THEN FILED ANOTHER SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT FOR THE RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS STILL PENDING WITH THE COURT AND RESPONDENTS IN THEIR FILING TO DISMISS DID NOT' ASK THE COURT TO DISMISS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. THE COURT NEVER ORDERED THE RESPONDENTS TO SEND THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AS PERTAINING 0 THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER. PETITIONER IS NOW STUCK AT A CROSS ROAD IN THIS LITIGATION. PETITIONER WISHES TO PROCEED WITH THIS MATTER HOWEVER, WITHOUT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES, PETITIONER HAVE NO CASE. PETITIONER BY LAW, IS ALLOWED THE REQUESTED EVIDENCE. PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS COURT COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER THE REQUESTED INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, OR ALLOW PETITIONER TO APPEAL THE WHOLE CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANTS THE ABOVE REQUEST. DATED: 9/25/08 3 FRANCIS BOYD, PETITIONER PRO- SE cc; file dp ew ?x ? °? ? y :; ?{ , . , :;? ? ? ?.y` ' ?? ? +.? r". ?? ??? ?? y?M ?1 /. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD PLAINTIFF • 07-2470 CIVIL TERM V DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAMAR LIBHART, HEARING EXAMINER JOHN DOE, INVESTIGATING OFFICERS • AND JOHN DOE, MISCONDUCT ISSUER, r ":, DEFENDANTS RULE 206.6 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE .mac? ya , PETITIONER FILED A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE ABOVE DEFENDANTS ON APRIL 27 , 2007 . PETITIONER SUBMITTED INTEROGATORIES AND REQUESTED THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANTS . PETITIONER THEN SUBMITTED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ON JUNE 22 , 2007 . DEFENDANTS FILED OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER ' S AMENDED COMPLAINT. THIS COURT DISMISSED PETITIONER ' S AMENDED COMPLAINT ON SEPTEMBER 27 , 2007 . PETITIONER APPEALED THE DISMISSAL TO THIS COURT AND WAD DENIED BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS INTERLOCATORY. PETITIONER NOW SUBMIT THIS RULE 206.6 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE TO THIS COURT COMPELLING THE DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER PETITIONER ' S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON APRIL 27, 2007 AND THE INTERAGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS HE REQUESTED PERTAINING TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. F ANCIS BOYD PETITIONER DATED: JULY 27 , 2013 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS BOYD 07-2470 CIVIL ACTION PETITIONER . 7' LAMAR L BHAR I T, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION r et , a l . tv c ` i DEFENDANTS �� mac' >C ORDER AND NOW, THIS z-S�' DAY OF /��^�a,= , Z4 �3 UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING PETITION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Sc -G �. 7J EN 1011) • ondent to show cause why the et e an answeF to he patitio 'n t t MR nf gpyy on the res onde the e ( 1 t in our room e um ounty ouse. (6) notice of 'the entry of this order shall be provided to ALL PARTIES BY THE PETITIONER. n _ �.- ? ( BY T COU : J.