Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-0900 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Vo ROBERTHANKINS, Plaintiff, Defendant : No. : Civil Action Equity NOTICE TO DEFEND You have had a complaint filed against you 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 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 judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Compla'mt or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Mid-Penn Legal Services 8 Irving Row Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 232-0581 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff, ROBERT HANKINS, AND NOW, this Defendant : No. Civil Action Equity COMPLAINT day of March, 2004, comes the Plaimiff, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, and avers the following in support of this Complaint: 1. This action is brought in the Court's original jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiff is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill")· 3. Plaintiffis an executive agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania responsible for administrating the state correctional system including SCI-Camp Hill. 4. Defendant, Robert Hankins ("Hankins") is an inmate presently incarcerated at SCI-Camp Hill· 5. As of February 16, 2004, Hankins has refused and continues to refuse meals and all forms of liquids. 6. Since February 16, 2004, Hankins has missed forty-four (44) meals. 7. As of February 23, 2004, Hankins weighed approximately 138 pounds, since then Hankins has not allowed any type of physical examinations including weight, or diagnostic testing by medical staff. 8. Hankins has been evaluated by psychiatrists within the Department of Corrections, and it has been determined that he is totally competent. He is hunger striking voluntarily. 9. Hankins has been on one previous hunger strike on approximately June 5 2003, his reason for the prior hunger strike was that staff unjustly put him on a nutraloaf diet. 10. Hankins engages in hunger strikes as a means of manipulation. 11. While on the present hunger strike, Hankins has taken water and prescribed medications. 12. Hankins has had no nutrition since February 16, 2004, placing his medical health at great risk. 13. It is the opinion of Dr. William Young that Hankins is in imminent danger of loss of life or other irreparable harm unless medical treatment, including 2 involuntary nutrition and invasive testing, is administered on a routine basis. (See Affidavit of Dr. Young attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof). 14. Hankins may die or suffer other immediate and severe irreparable harm if medical treatment, including nutrition and diagnostic testing, is not administered to him as soon as possible. 15. It is impossible to predict the exact point that Hankins's condition may result in immediate, severe, and irreparable harm; therefore, immediate medical intervention is necessary. 16. Permitting Hankins to engage in a suicidal act by refusing nutrition will cause a significant disruption to the orderly administration of the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, requests that this Court to enter an Order: (a) Authorizing the Plaintiff, through medical staff, to perform such medical treatment, including invasive diagnostic tests, and to involuntarily administer medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration, as may be necessary to preserve the safety, health and life of Hankins. (b) Providing such other relief as this Court deems proper. Dated: March ~, 2004 Respectfully submitted, M/~aris~ M~~~ Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Attorney I.D. No. 92019 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff, ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant : No. : : : : : : : Civil Action Equity VERIFICATION I, Teresa M. Law, am the duly appointed Administrator for Health Care at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill and am authorized to make this verification. I have reviewed the attached Complaint with respect to the involuntary treatment of Robert Hankins. I hereby verify that the allegations contained in the attached Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I make this verification subject to the penalties under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: March ~, 2004 Ter4sa M. Law.j~ / Corrections Health/Care Administrator SCI Camp Hill IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff, Vo ROBERTHANK1NS, Defendant Civil Action Equity PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: Personal service by hand-delivery Dated: Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-88371 Health Care Administrator Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Attorney I.D. No. 92019 March ?~, 2004 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Vo ROBERT HANKINS, Plaintiff, Defendant : No. . : . Civil Action Equity UNSWORN AFFIDAVIT l, Doctor William Yotmg, state the following: I am a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am a staff physician at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. I am familiar with Robert Hankins ("Hankins"), who is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. o Since February 16, 2004, Hankins has refused meals. As a result, his weight has declined substantially. Hankins is refusing to have his vital statistics or his weight taken by the SCI-Camp Hill staff. On February 23, 2004, an approximate weight of 138 lbs had been obtained, since then Hankins has resisted being weighed. Hankins has been evaluated by psychiatrists within the Department of Corrections, and it has been determined that he is totally competent. He is hunger striking voluntarily. 6. Hankins has been on one hunger strike previously in June of 2003. It is my professional opinion that inmate Hankins will be in imminent danger of the loss of life or other irreparable medical harm unless involuntary medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration, is ordered immediately. Hankins may die or suffer other immediate and severe irreparable harm if involuntary medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration, is not administered to him as soon as possible. I understand that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff, ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant No. Civil Action Equity PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Unswom Affidavit of Dr. William Young was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: Dated: March~-~ 2004 Personal service by hand-delivery Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 .. Tere/sa Law c/ Health Care Administrator Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Attorney I.D. No. 92019 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff, ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant : No. Civil Action Equity MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff's Complaint in this matter is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein· 2. Defendant will suffer immediate, severe and irreparable medical harm, possibly resulting in death if ongoing, involuntary medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration, is not permitted. 3. Based upon the facts set forth in the Complaint and in Plaintiff's concurrently filed Application for exparte preliminary injunction, Plaintiff has a clear right to administer ongoing involuntary medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Farview State Hospital v. Joseph Kallinger, 134 Pa. Cmwlth. 415, 580 A.2d 887 (1990). (Copy Attached). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to enter a preliminary injunction permitting Plaintiff to examine Defendant, to test Defendant, and to administer ongoing involuntary medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration, as necessary to preserve the health, safety and life of Defendant. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March ~ , 2004 Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Attorney I.D. No. 92019 2 Page 1 134 Pa. Commw. 415, *; 580 A.2d 887, **' 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 501, *** LEXSEE 580 a.2d 887 COMMON'vVEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, FARVIEW STATE HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. Joseph KALLINGER, Respondent No. 239 Misc. Dkt. 1990 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 134 Pa. Commw. 415; 580 A.2d 887; 1990Pa. Commw. LEXI$ $OI July 18, 1990, Iteard August 14, 1990, Decided SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***Il Publication Ordered September 10, 1990. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner commonwealth tiled a request seeking a declaratory judgment authorizing the involuntary administration of necessary nutrition and medical ~'eatment to preserve the health and safety of respondent prisoner, who sought to starve himself to death. OVERVIEW: Petitioner commonwealth, through its department of public welfare, filed a request seeking a declaratory judgment to force respondent prisoner to involuntarily receive food through a nasogastric tube and other medical treatment. The trial court determined that the prisoner was competent and could reject nutrition and hydration. Petitioner appealed, offering evidence that if respondent was allowed to starve to death, major negative repercussions on the prison and mental health systems would result. Recognizing that prisoners' rights were extremely limited because of the unique nature of prison custody, the court granted petitioners' request, and authorized involuntary administration of necessary medical treatment. The court concluded that petitioner had an overwhelming interest in maintaining prison security, order, and discipline, as well as preserving life and preventing suicide. OUTCOME: The court granted petitioner commonwealth's request for declaratory relief, and authorized the involuntary administration of nutrition and medical treatment to preserve the health of respondent prisoner; petitioner had an overwhelming interest in the orderly administration of its prison system. CORE TERMS: prisoner, nutrition, medical treatment, prison, suicide, patient, starve, staff, nasogastric tube, right to privacy, die, prison system, human life, preserving, inmate, medical care, psychiatric, discipline, hydration, sentence, custody, right of privacy, preservation, prison security, involuntary, feeding, suffering, convict, orderly, duty CORE CONCEPTS Criminal Law & Procedure : Postconviction Proceedings: Imprisonment & Prisoner Rights Maintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the detained constitutional rights of convicted prisoners. Criminal Law & Procedure : Postconviction Proceedings: Imprisonment & Prisoner Rights Prison officials are given a wide range of discretion in the promulgation and enforcement of roles to govern the prison community in order to maintain security, order and discipline. Individual freedoms may be curtailed whenever prison officials, in exercise of their informed discretion, reasonably conclude that their exercise possesses the likelihood of disrupting prison order or stability or otherwise interfering with the legitimate penological objectives of the prison environment. Criminal Law & Procedure : Postconviction Proceedings: Imprisonment & Prisoner Rights 134 Pa. Commw. 415, *; 580 A.2d 887, **' 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 501, *** Compelled nutrition and medical treatment is proper because of the strong state interest in orderly prison administration outweighs any convict's residual rights. Criminal Law & Procedure : Postconviction Proceedings: Imprisonment & Prisoner Rights The obligation of the commonwealth to provide for the health and safety of the inmates in their custody is derived from two very important interests: the preservation of human life and the prevention of suicide. The preservation of human life is of great interest to the state. Criminal Law & Procedure : Postconviction Proceedings: Imprisonment & Prisoner Rights The commonwealth has a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect the health and welfare of those persons in its custody, and may be cast in civil damages for its failure to observe such duty. Furthermore, the commonwealth has a duty to provide appropriate medical treatment to reduce the danger that an inmate suffering from a serious mental disorder represents to himself or others. Constitutional Law: Substantive Due Process: Privacy American law has always accorded the state the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life. COUNSEL: Thomas Blazusiak, with him, Howard Ulan, Asst. Counsel, and John A. Kane, Chief Counsel, for petitioner. Jeffrey J. Wander, Honesdale, for respondent. David Ferleger, Philadelphia, Guardian Ad Litem, for Joseph Kallinger. JUDGES: Pellegrini, Judge. OPINIONBY: PELLEGRINI OPINION: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ['416] [*'8881 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvahia, Department of Public Welfare, (Department), Farview State Hospital (Farview), files this Request for Special Emergency Relief asking this Court for a Declaratory Judgment authorizing the involuntary adm/nistration of necessary nutrition and Page 2 medical ['417] treatment in order to preserve the safety, health and life of Joseph Kallinger (Kallinger). We are called upon to decide a sensitive matter which is without precedent in this Commonwealth. Joseph Kallinger wants to starve himself to death, nl The Department, who has custody, wants to fome him to involuntarily receive food through a nasogastric tube and other medical treatment. We must decide if the Department has such right. nl Kallinger, a convicted murderer, is currently serving two consecutive life sentences consecutively with a thirty to eighty year sentence in Pennsylvania. He also must serve a life sentence and a forty-two to fifty-two year sentence in New Jersey. He also must serve other sentences w~fich are too numerous to mention. Needless to say, Joseph Kallinger will spend the rest of his natural life belfind bars. [**'21 The current dilemma developed after Kallinger was recently readmitred to Farview on May 17, 1990, from the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon (Huntingdon). n2 On June 22, 1990, he stated, as a result of his vision of Christ in a toilet bowl telling him to join him, that he would refuse to eat or drink, and that he desires to "meet his maker." He has also refused treatment for an abscess on his foot. On June 30, 1990, Kallinger agreed to be transferred to Wayne Memorial Hospital in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, in order to have intravenous fluids, including antibiotics, administered to him. However, he continued in his refusal to accept nutrition and other medical treatment. n2 Kallinger began serving his Pennsylvania sentences at Huntingdon following his convictions in 1976. However, in 1977, he was committed to Farview where he stayed for over ten years, until 1988. Since 1988, he was recomm/tted once for a short period of time and then returned to Huntingdon. This recent recommittment was his second since returning to Huntingdon. His current recommittment is scheduled to expire on August 17, 1990. [**'31 On July 3, 1990, the Department filed an action for Declaratory Relief in the Court [**889] of Common Pleas of Wayne County, seeking authority to provide necessary treatment, nutrition and hydration to Kallinger. 134 Pa. Commw. 415, 1990 Pa. Commw. On that day, the trial court entered a preliminary order permitting the Deparm~ent to do so. However, on July 10, 1990, after holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court dissolved its preliminary order and determined that Kallinger was competent ['418] and could reject nutrition and hydration necessary to preserve his health, safety and life. The Department filed a Petition For Review seeking Special Emergency Relief pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this Court, and seeking review of the trial court's Order pursuant to our appellate jurisdiction. Sections 761 and 762 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. CS. :~ 3~ 761,762. n3 n3 By order dated July 13, 1990, th/s Court directed that the Petition For Review shall be regarded as a Complaint In Equity directed to our original jurisdiction, and that the appeal from the trial court's Order shall be dismissed without prejudice. [**'4} On July 13, 1990, this Court granted the Department% request for a preliminary injunction, ordering that Kallinger may be involuntarily administered medical treatment, nutrition and hydration, pending further adjudication. On July 18, 1990, following a hearing, a second Order was issued continuing the involuntary medication and feeding of KalIinger pending final adjudication of this matter. The Department offered testimony and evidence that if Kallinger is allowed to starve to death, this would have major negative repercussions on the prison and mental health systems; that Kallinger's death would have adverse effects on other patients, their families and the staff of the mental hospital; and other patients may also "copy-cat" Kallinger's actions. KalIinger contends that despite such adverse repercussions to the Commonwealth, he should be allowed to die if he so chooses. He argues that his right to privacy overrides any interests of the Commonwealth because the use of a nasogastric tube to feed him is an overly intrusive procedure which could last a number of years. We note at the outset that Kallh~ger is committed to Farview, a mental hospital for the criminally insane. He suffers 1'*'5] from a serious mental illness, diagnosed by Mokarram Jafri, M.D., as a Borderline Personality Disorder. (Notes of Testimony (N.T.), July 10, 1990, p. 35; July 18, 1990, pp. 2%29). However, he is competent in the sense that he fully understands his decision and Page 3 *; 580 A.2d 887, **; LEXIS 501, *** realizes that ['419] death will result if he continues to refuse nutrition and medical treatment. (N.T. July I0, 1990, pp. 36, 70-71). We also recognize that Kallinger, through this action, may be attempting to manipulate the system in order to stay at Farview rather than return to Huntingdon. His authorization of his attorneys to enter appearances on his behalf -- one to say that he has the right to die, the other to say the state had an obligation to make him stay alive -- is certainly part of that manipulation. Although Kallinger has in the past and is now manipulating the system in which he finds himself, if the Department is not allowed to involuntarily provide him with nutrition and medical care, we assume that Kallinger will indeed starve himself to death. While Kallinger is sufficiently competent to make a decision to starve himself to death, this is not a "right to die" case in the usual sense. There has been [**'61 much public debate and court activity over whether such a right exists and hi what circumstances it exists, and these cases involve decisions made by enfranchised citizens or someone acting on their behalf, that their substantial rights of privacy allows them to make that decision. See e.g., Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, (~S. , 110 S. Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed. 2d 224 (1990). KalIinger is a convict and any rights that he may have are extremely limited and severely restricted because of the unique nature and requirements of prison custody. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 $.Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 U& 119, 97 S. Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed. 2d 629 (1977); Price w ~lohnston, 334 MS. 266, [**890] 68 S. Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). What this case concerns is whether the Commonwealth's interest in an orderly administration of the prison system is paramount over any residual right of privacy that Kallinger has which would make it an invasion of privacy on the part of [**'71 the Commonwealth to force feed him. The narrow issue then presented to us is whether the Commonwealth has a right to force a competent prisoner within the Commonwealth's penal system to receive involuntary [*420] medical treatment and nutrition and hydration through a nasogastric feeding tube. To decide this issue, a balancing test is employed, balancing the Commonwealth's interests against the prisoner's remaining right to privacy. Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed. 2d 18 (1976). Kallinger argues that his right to privacy is superior to the interests of the Commonwealth, no matter what effect it may have on the prison system. He argues that as a prisoner, he did not give up his right to starve himself, citing the Supreme Court of Georgia decision in 134 Pa. Commw. 415, *; 580 A.2d 887, **' 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 501, *** Page 4 Zant v. Prevatte, 248 Ga. 832, 286 S.E. 2d 715 (1982). In that case, the Georgia court held that a competent prisoner had a right to starve himself to death. The court, in ruling that the state does not have the right to force medical treatment and food on a competent prisoner, stated: A prisoner does not relinquish his constitutional [***8] right to privacy because of his status as a prisoner. The state has no power to monitor this man's physical condition against his will; neither does it have the right to feed him to prevent his death from starvation if that is his wish .... The state can incarcerate one who has violated the law and, in certain circumstances, even take his life. But it has no right to destroy a person's will by frustrating his attempt to die if necessary to make a point. Zant, 248 Ga. at 833-834, 286 S.E. 2d at 716-717. Kallinger fixrther argues that the procedure for forcing nutrition and hydration into him is overly intrusive. The procedure which the Department has been and wishes to continue using is a nasogastric tube wtfich is inserted through the nose into the stomach. This tube will remain in his body and will have to be frequently removed and replaced. Kallinger correctly points out that there are several risks involved in this procedure, including internal bleeding and possibly even death. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 42-43, 56-57; July 18, 1990, p. 23). ['421] While admitting that there are risks to Kallinger as a result of his forced feeding, the Commonwealth [***9] argues that its interest in prison security and discipline, the morale of medical and custodial staff, as well as the law of this Commonwealth, far outweigh any right of privacy that Kallinger may have. We agree. The Commonwealth has an overwhelming interest in maintaining prison security, order and discipline. The Supreme Court has stated that "maintaining institutional security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential goals that may require limitation or retraction of the detained constitutional rights of ... convicted prisoners." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 546, 99 S. Ct. at 1878. This lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy deprives the convicts of Fourth Amendment rights in their prison cells. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 &Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed. 2d 393 (1984). Prison officials are given a wide range of discretion in the promulgation and enforcement of rules to govern the prison community in order to maintain security, order and discipline. Bell v. Wolfish; Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union; Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S. Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed. 2d 495 (1974). [***10] US. ex tel. Silverman v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 527 F. Supp. 742 (V~D. Pa.1981), aJf d Appeal of Silverman, 707 F. 2d 1395 (3rd Cir. 1983). Individual freedoms may be curtailed whenever prison officials, in exercise of their informed discretion, reasonably conclude that their exercise possesses the likelihood of disrupting prison order or stability or otherwise interfering ['~'891] with the legitimate penological objectives of the prison environment. St. Clair v. CuyIer, 634 F. 2d 109 (3rd Cir. 1980), rehearing denied 643 F. 2d 103 (3rd Cir. 1980); See also Bell v. Wolfish; Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners Union; Wilson v. Prasse, 325 F. Supp. 90KD.Pa.1971), affd 463 F. 2d 109 (3rd Cir. 1972). Other jurisdictions confronted with the same situation have held that compelled nutrition and medical treatment is proper because of the strong state interest in orderly prison [*422] administration outweighs any convict's residual rights. In Von Holden v. Chapman, 87 A.D. 2d 66, 450 A(Y.S. 2d 623 (1982), Mark David Chapman, serving a twenty year [***11] to life term for the murder of former Beatle John Lennon, attempted to starve h/mself to death while in a mental institution. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, in allowing involuntary feeding through a nasogastric tube, found that the legitimate interest in prison security and administration clearly included the right to prevent a prisoner's suicide. In Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 399 3~E. 2d 452 (1979), the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed forced hemadialysis to a prisoner suffering a kidney condition on the basis of maintaining prison order. The court stated that imprisonment imposed severe limitations on the prisoner's right to privacy and bodily integrity. In the present case, the uncontradicted testimony shows that if Kallinger would be permitted to die, other patients at Farview would almost certainly copy the same tactic, manipulating the system to get a change of conditions, possibly resulting in their death. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 13-14, 25-26, 49; July 18, 1990, pp. 16-17, 31). Allowing a prisoner to die will cause other patients to become angry and lose faith in the system and make treatment [**'12] more difficult; it may even spawn rioting at Farview or fi.om prisoners at Huntingdon or other state institutions. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 13-14, 20, 26; July 18, 1990, pp. 17-20, 36). It is clear that allowing a prisoner to starve to death while in state custody would have an unpredictable negative effect on the security and order within the prison system. Besides preserving order with the prison system, the Commonwealth has a strong interest in maintaining the health of prisoners in its custody. The obligation of the Commonwealth to provide for the health and safety of the inmates in their custody is derived from two very Page 5 134 Pa. Commw. 415, *; 580 A.2d 887, **' 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 501, *** important interests: the preservation of human life and the prevention of suicide. The preservation of human life is of great interest to the state. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital [*423] v. Heston, 58 ~J. 576, 279 A.2d 670 (1971). In Commonwealth v. Root, 191 Pa. Super. 238, 244, 156 A.2d 895, 900 (1959), revd~ on other grds. 403 Pa. 571, 170 ,,L2d 310 (1961), the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that "It]he policy of the law is to protect human life, even I**'13] the life of a person who wishes to destroy his owu." The Commonwealth has a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect the health and welfare of those persons in its custody, Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 (AS. 307, 102 S. Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed. 2d 28 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 [ZS. 97, 103, 97S. Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.£d. 2d 251 (1976), and may be cast in civil damages for its failure to observe such duty, Simmons v. City of Philadelphia, 728 F. Supp. 352 (E.D.Pa.1990); Lee v. Downs, 641 F. 2d 1117 (4th Cir. 1981). Furthermore, the Commonwealth has a duty to "provid[e] appropriate medical treatment to reduce the danger that an inmate suffering fi.om a serious mental disorder represents to himself or others." Washington v. Harper, 494 (AS. , 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1030, 108 L.Ed. 2d 178 (1990). The United States Supreme Court in Washington v. Harper allowed the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to a prisoner on the basis that the state's interest in providing appropriate medical treatment outweighed the inmate's liberty interest. [**'14] The Supreme Court found that the state has not only an interest, but an "obligation to provide prisoners with medical treatment consistent not only with their own medical interests, but also with the [**892] needs of the institution." Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. at , 110 S.Ct. at 1039. Other courts have also considered the state's interest in the preservation of human life. In State ex. tel. White v. Narick, WVa. , 292 S.E. 2d 54 (1982), the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals allowed the force feeding of an inmate who had begun a hunger strike to protest conditions of his prison. The court found that "la] state must preserve human life, a concern at the very core of civilization .... West Virginia's interest in preserving life is superior to [the prisoner's] personal privacy (severely [*424] modified by his incarceration)." Narick, W.Va. at , 292 A.2d at 58. See also Commissioner of Correction v. Myers (forced hemadialysis treatment on prisoner suffering kidney condition based on preservation of life and maintaining prison order); Superintendent of 8elchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 3LE. 2d 417 (1977). [***~51 The Court in Narick criticized the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in Zant by stating: The Georgia court failed to consider compelling reasons for preserving life, not the least being civility. What sense does it make for a state to allow a prisoner to kill himself, urging as its justification his right-of-privacy right to refuse medical treatment for his voluntary debilitation; and yet preserve unto itself the right to kill him, the ultimate violation of his privacy fight. We doubt that Georgia would allow him to raise his right of privacy against being put to death, as a defense against the death penalty! Narick, W.Va. at , 292 S.E.2d at 57. The second related state interest is the' Commonwealth's duty to prevent suicide. "American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life." Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, [~S. at , l l O S. Ct. at2859, 111 L.Ed. 2d 224 (1990). (Scalia, J. concurring). Peunsylvauia public policy sh'ongly opposes the conUmssion of suicide. Commonwealth v. [**'16] Root. Pennsylvania law makes it a crime to aid or solicit another person to comrmt suicide. Crimes Code, 18 Pa. CS. ~ 2505. A police officer also has the right to use force to prevent a suicide from occurring. 18 Pa.~S. 3~ 508(d)(1). By asking the Commonwealth to stand by and watch him die while it has custody and conU'ul over him, Kallinger is asking it to aid and abet his suicide. ['4251 The leading case in support of a state's duty to prevent suicide is Von Holden v. Chapman. The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, in rejecting Chapman's right to privacy claim, held that "it is self-evident that the fight of privacy does not include the right to comfit suicide .... To characterize a person's self-destructive acts as entitled to Constitutional protection would be ludicrous." Von Holden v. Chapman, 87 A.D. 2d at 67, 450 A( KS. 2d at 625. Since Kallinger is a patient at Farview, the Commonwealth's interest in maintaining the integrity of the medical and psychiatric professions is also of great importance. Several courts have held that the integrity of the medical profession is an interest which should be balanced against [**'17] a person's privacy right to refuse medical treatment or nutrition. Cruzan; Narick; Saikewicz. If Kallinger is allowed to starve himself to death, repercussions would be felt throughout the medical and psychiatric professions. (N.T. July 10, 1990, pp. 19-20, 24-25, 40; July 18, 1990, pp. 16-17). Dr. Jarl.i, Chief of 134 Pa. Commw. 415, *; 580 A.2d 887, **' 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 501, *** Page 6 Psychiatric Services at Farview, stated that Kallinger's death would "have a negative impact upon the staff [in] that we could not carry out a moral and ethical obligation of keeping a patient alive." (N.T. July 10, 1990, p. 41). Jack Wolfurd, M.D., Psychiatric Director for the Department, testified that "it would be devastating to the staff and the staff murale if they had to allow someone to cease living, virtually by their own hand, while under our care." (N.T. July I8, 1990, p. 10). [**893] Furthermore, if he is allowed to die, other patients and their families would have serious doubts about whether the psychiatric staff is providing their patients with proper psychiatric treatment and medical care. (N.T. July 18, 1990, pp. 26-27, 40; July 18, 1990, pp. 19, 36). Dr. Jafri testified that his death "will not encourage the confidence of their patients in our ability to [**'181 manage and take care their needs, as [well as] the moral confidence of the public." (N.T. July 10, 1990, p. 41). Dr. Wolfurd stated that the patients [*426] "would lose trust in the system of care." (N.T. July 18, 1990, p. 17). The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has an overwhelming interest in the orderly administration of its prison system. The Commonwealth must maintain prison security, order and discipline. It must also fulfill its duty to provide proper medical care to the inmates, thus preserving life and preventing suicide. These vital interests, along with the need to preserve the integrity of the physicians and psychiatrists working within the penal system, clearly outweigh any diminished right to privacy held by Kallinger. Accordingly, we order that Farview can and must continue to provide appropriate nutrition through a nasogastfic tube and appropriate medical care to Joseph Kallinger so long as he continues to refuse nutrition and medical treatment. Kallinger shall remain committed to Farview until such time as the medical and psychiatric staff feel it's appropriate for lfim to remm to a State Correctional Institution. ORDER No. 239 Misc~ Dkt. 1990 AND NOW, this [**'19] 14th day of August, 1990, it is ordered that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Farview State Hospital, must provide appropriate nutrition through a nasogastric tube and appropriate medical care to Joseph Kallinger as long as he continues to refuse either. Joseph Kallinger's commitment to Farview State Hospital is extended indefinitely until such time that the medical and psychiatric staff determines that such feeding can be carried out at an appropriate State Correctional Institution. ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 1990, it is ordered that the opinion filed August 14, 1990 shall be 1'4271 designated OPINION rather than MEMORANDUM OPINION and that it shall be reported. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, ROBERT HANKINS, Plaintiff, Defendant No. Civil Action Equity PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Preliminary Injunction was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: Personal service by hand-delivery Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisbum Road, P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 Teresa Law ,/~/ Health Care Administrator Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Attorney I.D. No. 92019 Dated: March ~ , 2004 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff, ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant : No. . : Civil Action Equity APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE PRELllVHNARY INJUNCTION Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1531, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, petitions this Honorable Court of Cumberland County to issue an order exparte granting the concurrently filed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction pending a hearing because of the following: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in this matter are incorporated by references as if fully set forth herein· 2. Defendant will suffer irreparable harm, possibly resulting in death, if the relief sought is not immediately granted. 3. Immediate relief, as requested, is necessary to sustain the life and health of the Defendant pending the adjudication of this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffrequests this Court to exparte order a preliminary injunction permitting Plaintiffor Plaintiff's designee to involuntary examine Defendant, to perform invasive testing on Defendant as needed, and to involuntarily administer to Defendant such medical treatment as, in Plaintiff's opinion, are necessary to sustain Defendant's life pending the adjudication of this matter. Dated: March ,2004 Respectfully submitted, Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Attorney I.D. No. 92019 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Vo ROBERT HANKINS, Plaintiff, Defendant No. Civil Action Equity PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Application for Ex Parte Preliminary Injunction was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: Personal service by hand-delivery Dated: March ~ , 2004 Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisbum Road, P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 Health Care Administrator Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Attorney I.D. No. 92019 COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, : DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, STATE : CORRECTIONAL : INSTITUTION AT CAMP: HILL, Plaintiff ROBERT HANK1NS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NO. 04-0900 EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2na day of March, 2004, a hearing is scheduled for Thursday, March 4, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531 (d) on the issue of whether the ex parte injunction issued in this matter should continue. Marisa McClellan, Esq. Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, 1.// Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-88371 Defendant, Pro Se irc COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, : DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, STATE : CORRECTIONAL : INSTITUTION AT CAMP: HILL, Plaintiff ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NO. 04-0900 EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2004, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is hereby authorized to transport Robert Hankins to Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, for a hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 4, 2004, and return him forthwith to the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. Marisa McClellan, Esq. Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, J,)esley Oler,'~~·' Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-88371 Defendant, Pro Se IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, ROBERT HANK INS, Plaintiff, Defendant NOW, this : No.0C/-q00 Civil Action Equity ORDER day of March, 2004, upon Plaintiff's Application for Ex Parte Preliminary Injunction and based upon the Affidavit of the treating physician, it appears that immediate relief is necessary to preserve the life of the Defendant pending the adjudication of this matter. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that: 1. Pending the adjudication of this matter, Plaintiff or Plaintiff's designee, may involuntarily examine and perform invasive diagnostic tests on Robert Hankins and may administer medical treatment, including nutrition and hydration, to Robert Hankins, as may, in the opinion of medical staff, be necessary to preserve Robert Hankins's health and life. 2. A hearing before this Court on this matter shall be scheduled in accordance with Pa.R~C.P. 1531 as will be specified by further order of the Court. BY THE COURT: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CA~MP HILL, Plaintiff ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 04-900 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff,s application for a preliminary injunction, and following a hearing on the issue of whether the ex parte preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, in the above-captioned matter should be continued, modified or terminated, and the Court finding that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be dealt with by way of another remedy, that the injunction will have the effect of restoring the parties to the status quo as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct, that the requested injunction is reasonably suited to the abatement of the objectionable activity, that the moving party's right to relief is clear, and the wrong is manifest, and that the injunction is required to avoid a comparably greater injury than that which would result by its refusal -- specifically, immediate and irreparable harm to the health of the Defendant --, the preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, is continued in full force and effect pending further order of Court. The parties are notified of their right to a full trial on the issues presented in this case. By the Court, Assistant Counsel Governor's Office of General Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 For the Plaintiff Robert Hankins, DT-3209, Defendant Pro Se SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-88371 pcb COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, : DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, STATE : CORRECTIONAL : INSTITUTION AT CAMP: HILL, Plaintiff V. ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NO. 04-0900 EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Notice of Appeal filed in the above matter, the stenographer is requested to transcribe and lodge the notes of testimony of the of the hearing held on March 4, 2004. BY THE COURT, Marisa McClellan, Esq. Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-88371 Defendant, Pro Se J/t/q'~sley Oler~, r., J. ' . Wendy C. Yinger /(~t.~ yt,,,/z.O~-~- . Court Stenograph~' q'h/t9 c/ COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA, : DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, STATE : CORRECTIONAL : INSTITUTION AT CAMP: HILL, : Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NO. 04-0900 EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30~ day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Notice of Appeal filed in the above-captioned matter, Appellant is DIRECTED, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), to file of record in this Court and to serve upon the undersigned judge a concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal no later than 14 days after entry of this Order. BY THE COURT, ¢~esley Ol~Jr., ' . Marisa McClellan, Esq. Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisbum Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-88371 Defendant, Pro Se COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : 04-900 CIVIL TERM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, On March 4, 2004, in Courtroom Number 1. JR., J., APPEARANCES: Timothy A. Holmes, Esquire Assistant Counsel Governor's Office of General Counsel For the Plaintiff Robert Hankins, DT-3209, Defendant Pro Se 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FOR PLAINTIFF Dr. Martin L. Lasky Michael J. Kazor FOR THE DEFENDANT Robert Hankins INDEX TO WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 15 19 23 25 29 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: This is the time and place for a hearing on the issue of whether an ex parte injunction should be continued in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Camp Hill versus Robert Hankins. indicate that the Defendant is present Commonwealth is represented by whom? Correctional Institution at We will let the record in court and the MR. HOLMES: My name is Tim Holmes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Ail right, 5re you prepared to proceed? MR. HOLMES: Yes, sir, I am. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. HOLMES: If I may, may I please call Dr. Laskins as my first witness. THE COURT: All right. MR. HOLMES: Your Honor, THE COURT: do you prefer if I sit or You are welcome to sit. stand. BY MR. Q A Q DR. MARTIN L. LASKY, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION HOLMES: Doctor, would you please state your full Martin L. Lasky, L-A-S-K-Y. What is your occupation? I am an osteopathic physician working at the State 1 A 2 Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. 3 Q Would you briefly describe your duties in that 4 occupation? 5 A I am medical director of the institution, 6 therefore, I oversee all the other iohysicians working there. I 7 work with the administration of the prison overseeing nursing, 8 radiology, lab, etcetera, in terms of proper medical care being 9 dispensed to the residents at Camp Hill. 10 Q How long have you been providing medical services 11 to the Department of Corrections? 12 A I started September 1992, and I have been medical 13 director since May of '95. 14 Q Would you please provide a brief history of your 15 employment before providing services to the Department? 16 A I was vice president of medical affairs in Memorial 17 Hospital, York, Pennsylvania from 1980 to 1990. From 1977 18 through 1979 I was associate professor of general practice at 19 the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, and before 20 that I was in private practice from 1966 until '77. 21 Q What is your educational background? 22 A I attended Albright College in Reading, 23 Pennsylvania; then attended the Philadelphia College of 24 Osteopathic Medicine receiving my Doctor of Osteopathy degree 25 in June of 1965; and then I took a one-year rotating internship 4 1 at Tricounty Hospital in Springfield, Delaware County, from 2 July 1, 1965, until June 30, 1966; Lhen I was board certified 3 in general practice by examination in 1977. 4 Q What specific training, if any, have you received? 5 A I am required by the State of Pennsylvania, as well 6 as my specialty board, to take a minimum of 100 hours of 7 continuing medical education every two years, and have far 8 exceeded that number, but I have done that since 1966. 9 Q Are you licensed to practice in Pennsylvania? 10 A Yes, I am. 11 Q When did you receive your license to practice in 12 Pennsylvania? 13 A August of 1966. 14 Q Do you see inmates daily? 15 A Yes, I do. 16 Q Do you attend to their medical needs daily? 17 A Yes, I do. 18 Q Do you have any previous experience with hunger 19 strikers? 20 A Yes, I do. 21 Q Could you briefly describe that? 22 A Well, we have had other hunger strikers over the 23 past 12, 13 years of my employment at Camp Hill, I at times 24 have been their primary doctor, other times in my capacity as 25 medical director. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A who could not be here handling Mr. Hankins' but he has reported to me per institutional policy. Q Does Inmate Hankins' was examined? A The last time Mr. believe on February 23rd, because examination by Dr. Young. Q examination? A Are you at all familiar with Inmate Hankins? I am familiar with him by name only. Dr. Young, today, has been the primary doctor care since he started his hunger strike; every day as to how he is doing as medical chart indicate when he Hankins was examined was I after that he refused Do you have any knowledge of the results of that If I can use a chart, Your Honor. THE COURT: Certainly. A At that time Dr. Young noted that he was having some chest pain, body aches, sore teeth. He also said at that time he wouldn't permit any future exams, nor would he drink any more water. His examination revealed the blood pressure of 116 over 70. His weight was either 135 or 138. The reason I mention that discrepancy is because he, Mr. Hankins, got on the scale before they could balance it and there was a few pounds a question as to the accuracy of the scale because of His ear, nose and throat and eye movements were as to that. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 normal; his lungs were clear; his heart was regular; his abdomen was soft with normal bowel sounds; neurologically he was found to be fine, and that was the result of the exam. BY MR. HOLMES: Q him? Have you been able to perform any blood tests on A until yesterday, any blood results recently. Q Would you please tests? and that was the first time that We have not been able to perform any blood tests we have had tell us A The blood tests are at really, we have received, abnormal. Q Has starvation? A Yes, the results of those blood this time incomplete. Those do not show anything remarkably Inmate Hankins shown any visible signs of he has, based upon my review of the chart. Q What are the visible signs? A At times he has had thickening of his speech from not drinking enough fluids; he has walked with an unsteady gait, meaning he has not walked a straight line shall we say; and generalized weakness. Q Are you aware of any medications that Inmate Hankins is currently taking? A The only medication he is taking is a drug called 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sudafed, Q A Q A S-U-D-A-F-E-D, which is a decongestant. Would that affect his competency? No. Would that in anyway affect his hunger strike? No. Would you please describe how not eating or drinking affects a person? A Not drinking is more severe than not eating, in that a patient or a person rather cannot go more than 10 days to 14 days without drinking without eminent danger of death. In terms of not eating, the body starts breaking down its fatty tissue, protein. It causes an increase in his heart rate, could cause an increase or decrease in his blood pressure, and put a severe strain in general on most of the organ systems. Q If a person doesn't eat or drink, would that affect their ability to think clearly? motioning asking, mask on. A Absolutely, THE COURT: for something. MR. HANKINS: it could. Mr. Hankins, I notice you were Did you want something? No disrespect to the Court, I was can I have something to drink, that is all. THE COURT: All right. I notice you have a spit Is he able to drink through the spit mask? THE GUARD: We could remove it if you want. 8 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: THE GUARD: THE COURT: the spit mask? MR. HOLMES: THE COURT: water. BY MR. water, How do you feel about that? He caused us no problems coming in. Mr. Holmes, any objection to removing No. Do that, and we can take him a glass of HOLMES: Q Doctor, do you? A No, THE you don't have a problem with him drinking as a matter of fact, I am happy to see it. COURT: Mr. Hankins, if you are willing to drink water, are you agreeable also to eat? MR. HANKINS: I never once refused to drink any fluids. I don't know where this gentleman got that from. I never refused to drink. I have been drinking since I stopped eating. THE COURT: Would you have any objection to my entering an order as requested by tlhe Commonwealth, and then I don't think you would be force fed or forced to drink if you did eat on your own? MR. HANKINS: No disrespect to the Court, but tried to -- I received -- on the 2nd I was served, on the evening of the 2nd, I tried to tell administration that I to contact an attorney because need the paper said that I had 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 days from that date to contact Mid Penn to contact counsel to have them present. before any Court I am allowed counsel. Legal Services in order I knew before I came Commonwealth is represented by counsel. familiar with any of the with this Court. I know I am going have to appeal it, is why I am not eating because of p_oble s with the administration. If I get the chance, I will explain I know I need counsel. I am not rules, procedures or anything dealing and this it. This man says I was staggering, my speech. I don't know where he got this information, but he never examined me nor did the doctor see any ef the symptoms that this man just mentioned. the story. THE COURT: You will be But you are not willing able to tell your side of to just leave the order in the place and try to deal with your problems with administration some other way? MR. HANKINS: I tried, I tried. If Your Honor would give me a continuance, I can show him physical evidence how the administration has attacked me physically as well as mentally. THE COURT: Ail I am asking is whether you are willing to resume eating and leave the order in place for the time being. MR. HANKINS: did this without wasting taxpayers' Sir, this gentleman here could have money. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I don't care whether it could have been done in some other way. Are you willing to do it now? MR. HANKINS: Depending, yes. THE COURT: Ail right, you may step down. We will enter this order, AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Petition for a Preliminary Injunction, and following a hearing held on this date on the issue of the continuance of the ex parte injunction previously entered, and pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the Order of Court dated March 2, 2004, shall continue in full force and effect, and the Defendant requested to contact the Court for purposes necessary full-scale trial on the and Plaintiff are of scheduling any issues raised in this case. So basically, Mr. Hankins, if you do want a full trial on the equity case here, we will certainly schedule one for you. If in the meantime you can work out something with the administration, that is fine; and the injunction in place will remain in place and, of course, you are certainly welcome to contact Mid Penn for further advisement -- MR. HANKINS: So I am not allowed counsel at this hearing? THE COURT: Not at this hearing. MR. HANKINS: Why did the paper I received say I was allowed counsel? THE COURT: I think that notice said that 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 organization was MR. HANKINS: hearing? to do that. full trial. one you could contact to obtain counsel. Aren't I allowed counsel for this THE COURT: MR. HANKINS: THE COURT: If you are The time for the hearing was too short I could have hired counsel. You are moze than welcome to for the saying you are not willing for me to continue continue the injunction as it is pending that trial, I will on with this hearing. MR. HANKINS: I would like to continue with the hearing. THE COURT: entered in this matter Mr. Holmes, MR. HOLMES: stand. Ail right. The order previously is vacated. do you want to call the doctor again. Doctor, would you please resume the MR. HANKINS: If we have a full trial, be a continuance for a full trial? THE COURT: It is not a continuance, it is full trial. We are going to go on with the hearing at point. Mr. Holmes. MR. HOLMES: Thank you., Your Honor. DR. MARTIN LASKY resumes the witness stand. BY MR. HOLMES: there will just a this 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 many meals 3 A 4 is 5 Doctor, are you familiar with approximately how Inmate Hankins has refused? He had refused ten meals by February 15/16, which the starting point of the Department of Corrections hunger strike policy monitoring, and has not eaten since then until he was brought up to the infirmary, I believe it was on Tuesday evening after this Court issued the temporary injunction I guess is the term, and had a nasal gastric tube put in and has been fed by that tube three times a day since. Q Are there physiological stages of starvation? A Well, it is a progressive problem in that, as I said previously, the body starts breaking down tissue and using up its ready reserves first, and then its deep reserves, until there is nothing left but irreparable harm. Q What will be the effects on Inmate Hankins if he does not eat soon? A If he does not eat? If he does not eat, he will go through the process I just described, which could ultimately end in his death. Q Are you able to determine when his life would be in critical danger? A We could have a fairly good idea, but not a definitive one, an absolutely definitive I should say. Q Do you have an opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty of whether Inmate Hankins is in immediate 13 danger? A Since he has been fed for the last five or six meals, I can't say he is in immediate danger at this point; but if he goes back to the pattern he was, reach that stage. Q Do you have an opinion based on he could very readily a reasonable degree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 of medical certainty of whether Inmate Hankins will suffer 8 irreparable harm if he continues to not eat? 9 A He will suffer harm, yes. 10 Q If the Court would grant the injunction, what would 11 be your intended treatment of Inmate Hankins? 12 A We would place a nasal gastric tube in him, which 13 is a tube put in through the nose, down into the stomach and 14 feed him via that tube a minimum of three times a day, as well 15 as fluids if he did not wish to take them by mouth. If he were 16 willing to eat by mouth, he could eat even with the tube in 17 place. 18 Q If Inmate Hankins were to die because of this 19 hunger strike, would you be able to discuss the effect that 20 might have on your medical staff? 21 A It would have a significant 22 our job is to save lives, not lose them, 23 that can be saved and should be saved, yes. 24 Q If he were to die, would that make your job more 25 difficult? emotional effect, since and this is a life 14 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Absolutely. Q In what way? A Well, it may promote other inmates at the institution to, shall we say, tempt fate, as Mr. Hankins has done; as well as the inmates feeling that the medical department didn't do what they should have done to save Mr. Hankins' life. MR. HOLMES: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Hankins, this is your opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Lasky. MR. HANKINS: I will do my best. Like I said, I am not an attorney, Your Honor, and I would like representation, I would like to state that for the record. THE COURT: Ail right. Go ahead. MR. HANKINS: They denied me access to the courts by denying me access to the telephone to contact counsel, I wanted to make that clear. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HANKINS: Q Excuse me, before I went on a hunger strike? A 135 or 138, as best as Q doctor, could you tell me my weight we could determine. That is before the hunger strike? 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 A One moment, please. Q Yes, sir. A As noted previously, on February 19, when you were approximately three, four days into the hunger strike, your weight was 136 pounds. Q Could you tell me the last weight that you received after -- A We have no weight for the past two weeks because of your refusal to be weighed. Q Do you mind me asking where you got the information that I was staggering and my speech was -- A Yes, by progress notes written by Dr. Young, who was the physician who saw you on a daily basis. You take his word wholeheartedly? Yes, I do. I have worked with him for 10 years, he caring physician. HANKINS: No questions at this time, Your Q A is a competent, MR. Honor. BY THE THE COURT: Ail right. Mr. Holmes. MR. HOLMES: I have no redirect, Your Honor. COURT: Q Have all of the opinions that you expressed been expressed to a reasonable degree of osteopathic certainty? A Yes, Your Honor. Q In the normal course of your profession, do you 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rely upon the opinions of other physicians such as the treating physician in this case? A Yes, I have. Q Is it your opinion to a reasonable degree of osteopathic certainty that if this injunction is not continued, the Defendant will suffer immediate and irreparable harm? A Yes, he could. Q He could or he would? A That is a question I think only God can answer; but extended over a long period of time there is no question, can't say what. THE COURT: MR. Thank you, you may step down. HANKINS: Can I ask a question? BY MR. THE COURT: Yes, you may. HANKINS: Q Do you happen to know why I am not eating? A I do not know for a fact the reason you have decided not to eat. Q I thought you said that your duty was to save lives. You mean to tell me you wouldn't even inquire or try to find out why I am not eating? A The reason why you are MR. HOLMES: Excuse me, not eating is -- if I may object, Your Honor. In part, it is not relevant why he is not eating, the doctor is here to testify as to the effects of his not eating. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Why he THE COURT: that objection? MR. HANKINS: is not eating is not germane to the doctor's testimony. Mr. Hankins,. do you have a response %o Yes, I do,, that has all the bearing on this hearing today. If it wasn't for the reasons I am not eating, I would be eating and we would not be here, so it has all the bearings, Your Honor. THE COURT: Doctor, do you know why he is not eating? A I do not know for an absolute fact, no. BY MR. HANKINS: Q You don't know why I am not eating, but you have an extensive report on my medical history, and the doctor informed you every day of everything that was going on. Ail right. You stated that the doctor informed you that my teeth were killing me. Do you know the reason why my teeth were killing me? A progress Q hurting, is -- testify, What I read was what Dr. Young had written in his note for that day's visit in your medical record. Well, it was several days that my teeth were and my teeth are killing me now. The reason for this THE COURT: You may ask questions, and when you you can make your own statements. MR. HANKINS: Okay. 18 1 BY MR. 2 Q 3 himself? 4 A 5 Q 6 A 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q 13 hearing? 14 MR. 15 16 17 18 19 Honor. 20 Your Honor. 21 22 23 24 25 HANKINS: Is there any reason the doctor couldn't be here Yes, Do you know the reason? He had a prior commitment to go medical education conference on HIV disease, there was a reason, that is why I am here. to a continuing and Dr. Young happens to be our HIV specialist at the prison in terms of treating patients who suffer from that disease. This meeting, or this conference rather, has been set up for months and I have known about it for months. That was more important than appearing at a court HOLMES: THE COURT: MR. HANKINS: THE COURT: MR. HOLMES: Excuse me, Your Honor. The objection is sustained. No further questions, Your Honor. Mr. Holmes. I have no questions of Dr. Lasky, Your I would like to have one additional witness testify, THE COURT: Ail right. MICHAEL J. KAZOR, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. HOLMES: Q Would you please state your name? A Michael J. Kazor, K-A-Z-O-R. Q Would you please tell us what your title is? A The Corrections Classification program manager at the State Correctional Institution in Camp Hill. Q What are your duties as that? A I am in charge of the development, implementation, evaluation of treatment programs for all of the inmates at Camp Hill. I have responsibility to supervise the employment office, records office, the employment office and the activities department in the absence of the deputy superintendent for centralized services. I oversee his areas in centralized services, which includes the medical department, the food service area, any area concerned with the care and treatment of inmates. Q How long have you been performing that function? A I have been in this position since -- off and on since 1988 I have been a treatment manager. I have been a program manager in my current position since 1993. I have been at the State Correctional Institution since June of 1978. Q A I University of Temple University. Would you briefly describe your education? have a bachelor's degree in psychology from the Pennsylvania, a master degree in social work from I am a licensed social worker, I am a 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers, I am a certified addictions counselor, and an oral board examiner for PCB, the Pennsylvania Certification Board. Q Would you please describe what interaction you have had with inmates? A I make routine rounds throughout the institution and come in contact with inmates on a regular basis. I am a member of the Program Review Committee and personally interview with the team inmates in the Restrictive Housing Unit once a week. I chair parole staff meetings, I chair pre-relief staff meetings for inmates. I sign release forms for inmates making rounds on a daily basis. So I would say I come in contact with inmates every day, and I don't carry a case load, but I supervise those who do come in direot contact with inmates as well. Q A Q Are you familiar with Inmate Hankins? I only know Mr. Hankins by name. Would you please tell us the effects of a hunger strike on the institution as a whole? A Well, as a whole, the effect of a hunger strike creates more staff interaction, more staff need with the individual. We have, as the hunger striker progresses and they move into the infirmary they -- if we have one-on-one contact with them, we have constant watch by officers, there is an increased need for security. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 It affects the Psychology Department, they have to spend more time watching the individual, talking to him, psychiatrists, medical doctors. It pulls them away from their routine tasks in the care and the custody that they have to provide for others in the rest of the institution. On top of that, there are reports that have to be done on a regular basis, these are reviewed and scrutinized by all of the administrative staff. It does create a burden for everyone. Q Would you please discuss the effect of what the death of a hunger striker might hawe on the non-medical staff at your institution? A On the non-medical staff it does -- the medical staff -- create there for the care -- a lot just as with some emotional concern. We are of the treatment staff see themselves as there for the care of inmates, the psychologists, the counselors have a role in that. They are going to become emotionally upset as striker. The administrative the result of the death of a hunger staff is required to carry out clinical reviews. It creates a lot of reporting that goes to the department. It is reviewed by the deputy secretary, the secretary may get involved. man hours involved in that. Then there is follow-up, a lot of So once again, it draws people away from other routine tasks that they need to be involved in for the care, custody and control of inmates whenever someone 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dies. Q Would you please discuss the effect of a death of a hunger striker on the general population? A On the general population of inmates, it could take a couple different paths. With inmates who are already depressed or inclined to use something like a hunger strike or we could have copycat suicide attempts or suicides. suicide, Inmates, on the other hand, may look at the death of a hunger striker as the fault of the institution, that creates unrest among inmates, increases the threat to security and it impacts eventually on the safety of all the inmates at the institution. Q Does the Department of Sorrections ever concede to the wishes of a hunger striker? A No. Q Why not? A For all of the things I just mentioned. We have to maintain an environment that is safe, secure and healthy for everyone. To concede would lead to a dangerous situation at times in my opinion. MR. HOLMES: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Hankins. BY MR. HANKINS: CROSS-EXAMINATION 23 1 Q I heard you and the doctor speak extensively on the 2 effects that a hunger striking indiuidual would have on the 3 administration. I didn't once hear neither of you speak on the 4 cause or the remedy if there were one. So I heard you say you 5 wouldn't adhere to any of the issues that he would want to 6 bring up. But you didn't even ask why he was on a hunger 7 strike or how could you remedy it. How could you really be 8 concerned about the care and custody of individuals at the 9 institution that you work? 10 A How could I be? I do. I -- 11 Q You didn't know -- 12 THE COURT: Let him answer the question. You asked 13 a long question, now he can answer it. 14 A Yes. How can I -- I am concerned. That is the way 15 I am. That is why I am doing what I am doing. 16 BY MR. HANKINS: 17 Q You say you are concerned. My question was, Why 18 aren't you trying to find out or find a remedy to me being on a 19 hunger strike? 20 A I am not sure I can answer that. I am not sure why 21 I am not doing that. We have psychologists and counselors 22 working with you, we have psychiatrists. 23 24 25 Q No one knows why? A I don't know. I mean, I haven't read the file and I don't know you personally. I don't know your case 24 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personally. Q Thank you. I was curious as to why he called you as a star witness and you didn't know anything about the You are speaking as a whole, not about myself. proceedings about me. A Is that a question for me? THE COURT: No, it is not. MR. HANKINS: I didn't understand it -- THE COURT: Do you have any other questions? MR. HANKINS: No, I do not. THE COURT: Mr. Holmes, any other questions for this witness? MR. HOLMES: THE COURT: MR. HOLMES: THE COURT: No, sir, I do not. You may step down, thank you. No further witnesses, Your Honor. Mr. Hankins, this is your opportunity to explain your position in the case and you are welcome testify from where you are. to ROBERT HANKINS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: Q Would you A state your full name? My name is Robert Hankins. 25 1 Q Where are you presently incarcerated? 2 A I am incarcerated at SCI Camp Hill in Camp Hill, 3 Pennsylvania. 4 Q Are you in any special unit? 5 A Yes, I am. 6 Q Which unit? 7 A SMU, Special Management Unit. 8 Q Okay. How long have you been there? 9 A Going on 2 years, Your Honor. 10 Q Okay, go ahead and testify as to what you think 11 should be brought to the Court's attention? 12 A Well, the reason that I am on this hunger strike, 13 Your Honor, I have been retaliated against continuously -- as a 14 matter of fact, let me rephrase that. The prison and SMU 15 retaliated against on a daily basis. We do not have food, we 16 are assaulted. I have had glass in my food. 17 They deliberately deny me access to the courts. 18 That is why I said, Your Honor, if you could let me bring 19 physical evidence. I have letters from my lawyer, he tried to 20 contact the prison by telephone, he wrote the prison. I was in 21 appeal stage, they would not give me an attorney call. They 22 would not let me in the law library. My appeal was dismissed. 23 I had to hire new counsel. I don't have money like that, Your 24 Honor, but I had to hire new counsel because they denied me 25 access to the courts. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Like I said, I sent some food out with glass in it to an attorney. So if God is willing, he should still have that evidence, I have requested continuously me begging staff to access the law library so I could work on my case, they refused to let me get to the law library. Like I said, they deny different people food on a daily basis. This officer right here is one of them. They assault prisoners. They mentally abuse prisoners on a daily basis. They deny us our minimum rights. They deny us toilet paper. I had to wipe myself with my hands, it was humiliating. These last three weeks they took all of my property. They know I am in appeal stage, Your Honor, they took every piece of my personal property. I haven't had it since they have taken it, none of it. They know I am in appeal stage. My attorney called yesterday. I don't know what happened, but they say something was wrong with the phone, so I couldn't get the call. This is going on a daily basis in the SMU. I wrote grievances, the director. I have written OPR. family has written letters, nothing I have written Jeffrey Beard, My family called. My is done, Your Honor. I could show you almost 2 years worth of paperwork that was done for nothing because nothing was done. I had no other choice. They pushed me to this point. I had to get before the Courts. They won't do anything administratively, so I had to come 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 outside the administration. I didn't do anything to hurt myself, for help. said, if physical this was a cry They would not do it in the institution. Like I you give me proof -- give me time, I can show you evidence as to everything I am saying. And there is no way the Commonwealth could dispute what I am telling you. Q Okay, you say you have an attorney, have you filed through the attorney a petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the conditions that you complain of? A No, this attorney is for my criminal case. I was working on my criminal case. I don't have any money for the writ or a civil attorney. If I did, I would hire one. My family has and around, Q A contacted any and all the lawyers in Philadelphia nobody wants to go up against the DOC. You haven't filed a pro-se petition? No, I don't know what I don't give me law library time to show you evidence about this. Q It would seem to me course, rather than trying to is just my thought. am doing, Your Honor. They look in a law book, and I can that would be the more proper starve yourself to death. That A If I file a writ of habeas corpus, I will need time in the law library to go through the proper motions and other things in cases to research. They won't let me in the law library, Your Honor, I can show you evidence to this. 28 1 2 $ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Mr. Holmes, do you have any questions of the Defendant? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HOLMES: Q I believe you testified that you said that you didn't do this to hurt yourself, are you aware that you are hurting yourself? A It is not intentionally., it was to get in front of a judge to cry for help. Q You have heard testimony that the Department of Corrections does not concede to the emotions of a hunger striker, does that change your opinion as to whether you will eat? A Corrections Corrections, Department of internally. Q I could care less what the Department of does. I am not doing this for the Department of I am doing this to get outside help, because the Corrections won't correct the wrongness by Dr. nose to be force fed will have, does that change as to whether you will eat? A No, it doesn't, it is already in my nose. going to eat anyway now that I came to see the judge. You heard testimony regarding the treatment of you Lasky that you have a nasal Lube inserted through your your opinion I am I need 29 1 to get this on court and on the record what they are doing. I 2 know the Court is upholding the law and administers justice. 3 That is true, it is a true violation going on at SCI Camp Hill. 4 No one seems to address the problem., no one. Like I said, I 5 can show you the evidence that you need. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HOLMES: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Ail right. We will take a brief recess and then I will enter an order in this phase of the case. Court is in recess. (Recess.) THE COURT: We will enter this order, AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunotion, and following a hearing on the issue of whether the ex parte preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, in the above-captioned matter should be continued, modified or terminated, and the Court findin9 that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be dealt with by way of another remedy, that the injunction will have the effect of restoring the parties to the sta2us quo as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct, that the requested injunction is reasonably suited to the abatement of the objectionable activity, that the moving party's right to relief is clear, and the wrong is manifest, and the injunction is required to avoid a comparably greater injury than that 30 1 which would result by its refusal -- specifically, immediate 2 and irreparable harm to the health of the Defendant --, the 3 preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, is continued in 4 full force and effect pending further order of Court. The 5 parties are notified of their right to a full trial on the 6 issues presented in this case. 7 Mr. Hankins, I understand your interest in getting 8 on the record some of your allegations, but the problem with 9 doing it in this form, in this sort of a case is that there are 10 so many other issues, including your own personal safety that 11 are infused in the case, that there is simply no way to afford 12 the relief that you want in this context. 13 Although you have gotten on the record these 14 allegations, it can't go any where in terms of relief for you, 15 because the only issue here is whether you will be allowed to 16 starve yourself to death, and the consequences of that are 17 catastrophic not only from your standpoint but from the 18 prison's. 19 We see quite a few habeas corpus petitions in this 20 Court, and normally Judge Bayley handles them, and many of them 21 come out of the SMU unit. That, in my opinion, is the proper 22 vehicle to raise the issues that you are trying to raise, and I 23 don't think you need the law library to do that. It doesn't 24 take any particular skill and you, obviously, have some 25 intelligence and ability to articulate your position. So it 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 would be petition to proceed in filing fee and so on. vehicle to raise the filed in this Court and it would be done with a forma pauperis if you can't afford the But that in my opinion is the proper issue rather than in a medical context. MR. HANKINS: Can I ask Your Honor a question? THE COURT: Sure. MR. HANKINS: Is there any way Your Honor could force Commonwealth to give me my personal property. There is no danger involved in me having my property. I have not had -- the reason my teeth are hurting, I have sensitive teeth. Medical is aware of this. I have sensitive tooth paste that I was able to buy only because I have sensitive teeth. I brushed my teeth one time, the day before yesterday, they refused to give me my property, refused to giw~ me toilet paper. So I am I can't get my legal work so I could write my lawyer stuck. back. can't do that in it in this case. imagine the THE COURT: Ail right. Again, I this form. I don't have the authority to do I can ask Mr. Holmes to look into it. I can prison's response would be that they can't yield to this kind of tactic, because if they do, then everybody will use it. They have their problems too and they have their responsibilities. Anyway, you placed on the record your position and you do have the right to a full trial eventually. Court is 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adjourned. Thank you. (Court adjourned at 10:23 a.m.) 33 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of same. Patricia C. Bar~ett Official Stenographer The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. 34 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff V. ROBERT HANKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COLrNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY Defendant 04-0900 EQUITY TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., June 4, 2004. In this equity case, an inmate at a state correctional institution has appealed from a March 2, 2004, ex parte preliminary injunction permitting the institution to deal with his hunger strike by medical forced feeding if necessary. Following a hearing within five days, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531, on the issue of whether the preliminary injunction should be continued, modified or dissolved, it was continued in effect, on March 4, 2004. Appellant failed to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal in response to an order of the court. However, his Notice of Appeal from the March 2, 2004, order seems to complain about the court's refusal in the course of the time-mandated hearing on March 4, 2004, to accede to his request that the matter be postponed until he obtained counsel. This opinion in support of the court's order of March 2, 2004, is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS On March 2, 2004, Plaintiff, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, filed, inter alia, an Application for Ex Parte Preliminary Injunction, incorporating by reference a complaint against Defendant. The complaint, supported by a physician's signed statement, alleged that Defendant was an inmate at the institution engaged in a life-threatening hunger strike. The application requested an immediate injunction permitting his medical treatment, including the involuntary administration of nutrition and hydration. The immediate ex parte injunction requested was granted on March 2, 2004, and a hearing within five days as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531 was scheduled for March 4, 2004. The hearing proceeded as scheduled and at one point it seemed that Defendant would agree to an order continuing the preliminary injunction; however, an order entered to this effect had to be vacated when Defendant began to equivocate as to his intentions. During the course of the hearing, Plaintiff supported its position that a preliminary injunction was appropriate, through medical and other testimony. It was also clear from the evidence that Defendant's hunger strike was intended to secure court intervention in various issues with the prison which would not be properly addressed in the present context. The court's suggestion as to a more proper procedure than self-starvation for securing judicial review of his grievances does not seem to have been well-received. In the course of the hearing, Defendant decided that he wanted to postpone the matter to secure counsel. The court declined at that point to accede to a delay in what purported to be, and in the court's view was, an emergency medical situation in which Defendant was manipulating both the institution and the court for his own purposes. At the conclusion of the hearing, at which Defendant testified, the court entered the following order: AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's application /hr a preliminary injunction, and following a hearing on the issue of whether the ex parte preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, in the above-captioned matter should be continued, modified or 2 terminated, and the Court finding that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be dealt with by way of another remedy, that the injunction will have the effect of restoring the parties to the status quo as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct, that the requested injunction is reasonably suited to the abatement of the objectionable activity, that the moving party's right to relief is clear, ~md the wrong is manifest, and that the injunction is required to avoid a comparably greater injury than that which would result by its refusal -- specifically, immediate and irrep~wable harm to the health of the Defendant --, the preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, is continued in full force and effect pending further order of Court. The parties are notified of their right to a full trial on the issues presented in this case. BY THE COURT, s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. DISCUSSION Plaintiff's right to injunctive relief in cases of the present type is well established. See, e.g., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, Farview State Hospital v. Kallinger, 134 Pa. Commw. 415, 580 A.2d 887 (1990). The right to counsel, including court-appointed counsel in situations involving the deprivation of a protected liberty interest, is of course fundamental. See, e.g., Banks v. Ryan, 124 Pa. Commw. 603, 610, 556 A.2d 950, 954 (1989). On the other hand, as a general rule courts do not assi~,m counsel to expedite civil cases,~ nor do prisoners have the same degree of liberty interests as other persons have. Kallinger, 134 Pa. Commw. at 419, 580 A.2d at 889 (1990). Under the unique circumstances of this case, involving a time-mandated hearing, an emergency medical situation, obvious manipulation of the prison and judicial systems by Defendant, the timing of Defendant's request during the course of a hearing, and the preliminary nature of the proceeding involved and See, e.g., Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 25, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 2158, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981). availability of a subsequent trial on the merits, the court is of the view that it acted properly in denying Defendant's request for a delay based on the absence of counsel. Timothy A. Holmes, Esq. Assistant Counsel Governor's Office of General Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisbum Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 Defendant, pro se BY THE COURT, .~ y~sley Oler, Jr., J. 4 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution Camp Hill go Mr. Robert Hankins, Appellant No. 658 C.D. 2004 ORDER Now, December 2, 2004, appellant having failed to comply with the Order of the Court dated November 4, 2004, the above action is dismissed as of COllrse. C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk Lower Court No: 04-0900 O~llffed from the Reom'd DEC - 2 2004 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution Camp Hill ~ 04- 1 en) ~uA/ v. Mr. Robert Hankins, Appellant No. 658 C.D. 2004 ORDER Now, December 2, 2004, appellant having failed to comply with the Order of the Court dated November 4, 2004, the above action is dismissed as of course. elf ~~~- C.R. Hostutler, Deputy Prothonotary/Chief Clerk Lower Court No: 04-0900 CertIlIed from the Rtoold DEe - 2 2004 and 0rdII' ExIt ,. :"',) c...)