Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-5279
TP 7-11 F- C 0 C- kin 0 " Pic -.41 If C .j1-.13c_a-A No CC)Ju y, /qk NS yt ?,? ?, v. Jr/L A- 13cA?, zr c . C2x Pot,: P-0._ n8' - 5?7.q xlJ ?• /ale T/!Z- P1?,Nr,?lN t-!/? /aQOy? ?.??trcz;- ?aNYo c?^-J S c o r i o N A A 6 Ic; Z"o Fat --j /'a N o ?n S Ts o ?/ 1',c o s c: c, -?1 ? N ? T ? <; /a c, t ? o N 2 . ? /? ?. v N ?? b l c:, T o e? 6 t`? , ? 1 Jti ? J ?o ?-- /s Ny. o N L t lU c /,iAi ,ti ?o ?Y / /? ?-- f y A No A S'.s o c I`t_J 2ro >Ry T-faL C o= r- o ! ?,1 i fo 1 i ru 3 . x-c, AA- Q s c: N r ri4 c= / ti / o,-A T., M j, 13 I o ci 2c; /^ ^ b, 11'ry T o r y rid ` c s N o C, os is !r c: APO Go/L2cc r I 1 9 /% 1^ A-,/ d tL w <+ ca J Nom, A? /.- ?a !,r 7-14 O u L C o ?, T,?, fJ.rTi O F+J 1 L a w ?• M t! Q ??. u= N a l? is ?- O N r? I v Tt o j / A. o r-. ?i'? 2L /? J %+4 N t: Ce) PtoA.Zry ,owN?j-o CNLc-/LiN<, c.o,tJn.. r; iNoN% CC A. Ti l / c rq rt.-:- .r O / 1? c:l,-Io s f r : N o NC: /Zc^ l (- S rA r:.: A-i erox V,.:/-ItclL STn c-ki ; 0 o?.o.t ti a ac. 0rNCA. ti oNc ?r? ?c:;hrr /auo obLc?yc"to?J OrlTCp/aCO( I?4W RC_ tiT,. /? oN c L43A I-?.S - /G o N t: fN ?:. Ate` O N t; c(o) / t: ?r a,c,,.r 17?:,r?L ua? ?, T v ? ?+ y? .r ?,o.c s •, i?!'?ti T : N ° u `: pe3lici N /" ?- L : N d Rr Cr A D/?R`S,r : S't'y! c_ COI=-tiG Gfr o N? t- /,c,dTs?lvfi ter., n?T ?,,t?Tc_,c ?o?q 01c 2 ?,l ?,(? VJJ? /a T< .Il./ Ll 2 <a ,..ell0Y>,.:NT . ? Q??-?r.r rt ?vl?? ?AJ -/ O j- WA Co 4 IaC4- I.- JlJT 14 Plia Ty?f` e /- : ti tFY? AXI 446(,.: SQ-"rly VNc 0Y?-0, S'TF? A, o?tr??? ?N?LT METAL of-lick J?+Gvrc: t??rM?N Tilt: ?Jr Tc,,?lv?: ?--al?TffJ osujlkt: J 1 b.4.. J''<o/??J's?oa NaNI: Qt s ?+hr l ? ty ? yh ?? r,r - ti a N? f?tJfcrJ4: rt?car-? fix ti?rvN? N©N rA., 1JV Ti.o?J T? /-laas'?:.1/oc..?? 4Tl4 IL?- CoJ.r Cw? 6 ) /,i : Aj '0 N <0 .21 d b? t? A? o u ? o / /.? ?o,c.?.,• ?r ? L c o w ,? r o? ? f. ?? ??, ? ?: ti r C l k c..-oJ'j-- ,C rA P c Q'--.J W li r c H Lj O v LO S. -E-- V C_ A r? 1-i 1 A t T lj c. S i rc. N+ rc, rc c: r N j t•1 [ S /%. r I /-?A t T A X t-- I-il v L--' /A Il, 4 e, a A-A-(, : e ? Z u k q kL " rA ma rilAr r-oq sT14rc=P-?,,: j-.rj /-/c_tiL-? iN AA-.A., ,gmac; s.itJ?,cF TO TOc uA(rr(--Li o r ! /?n• x. 4/9oLi ALv= /,q Ft k,,4 1-0 V l r Jw O/LN K;,?j I s ir c..? rr o u T"o /a v 7 i4 v A. r? r LJ'. 12A7-6 0; A,.jcojs r- 26, ZOa?e) e s "C? ?y rn -7? N 1-14r c o,,j2 i o j' ?? (?? 4 f- G vR7?t s v. JF (,??`? A- (fir-Af-LO, P'o. Okra oo<?L a r-s fro. a 8 -.5a7 y Mori ou A c P S,ER, y I c- L O 1 o tr? e?,,A I" T A002CSS Fat 514rR..ilrr-ro scxvc: 19c l',2crf4 w r- d I ©R RL C- 1-4,0 v s 55' U Tl &y OK-t vc c/3k ?- rJ !-??1( t?Z. JCrvz(4 N mss,. ?m r '= > < ` ,mss _ ??. JL ? its-4 Q -r P 7-11 F- C qo J &7- O r c o Mj? o" ??lc;p ? CvA,1SCti(-Ajjo Co.,pv7-N./, AQ?'-k"SN1jV^ijieA (0141 li r, Po. 07 SV9- v. J j"Tiz c; ?l /a /3 0, PK,p, Xr. At. If OeNL?IJoANrJ .A/o7-/c-F- To yov AX4Z 1361IJC. SuC:4 ll r Go%jA T- I t'Yp,..# Wi-ref ro l0tA; IJO A CoA,Nr/r T?It% GIAir..r Sccf /"o,t r,l /N rM ro/lac,r t, ,v yo v h-•ve r ra Icr, /1 o N e.?, r7?, T w cv ICr n? f zo On?yr P f Tc;?. TI ?? o /tel., u7' A NC, ?t,oT, f L AA-(.:f Sc- Avao. 9-, R=-Anc kiti ? A wiLi rftzN r't/LPo,.iA- )/L Ry Al-roA.N?y AN° !`fiat- /ar t,crriN cw arm TNC" e-,o j& -- Yaati. ?c> ?tsl.?SC J oh o???Zr?ou.? T° Ti??: G/A?M? S'? r r-OLTN A COA/&J X Yo ? /ov Axc: a?''?Nc:7 TNAr IleVO,-. T4o pa 8o THc ¢.A-91 i-?.a?, ?nc??o GitrNo,ir yo., APO A )votoI-,%?:,Ai r N.Ay 1 e;NrtilU.-o At PC ( VO.I fly r r //-•1l C o j l- r w / 'F/4 o-.jr / vA-Tr4?L-J, P O Tr e L ?,c /a ?c?,l ,? o t+ L C' e ?` ° ,HIV T!!tr` C O/--, r:::?/A /N r ©R d G /ZL !i /E ??f'? A IL, I Ai ri yon J-nAy /'o s c: 'A' c::) ArOA- c: Q c; s t= /3y r14 l ? o ??Y f-? NO 01-m N A. R <Co «T,r 1 F-- A7 Ari t, r to \/b Li S1-IavL.Q -rAk -: -/!S ??z A- OJ CAG,y A. A! ONCt-- / \./E7 j 0 o"ar lbra/c A L?wy c.=/L bK. GA1VNor AI-/oA-?o ONc:: T' cower oA, ?VM ?C:RL/?N rO ?OctNly? Pic N is"I nl.?, ra I%1N Fr v. Jx r-r-A,y A- /8 (: ALCJ Col'i-Issi oliU Uw1T j`7 /nI?+ACoc:?? ColzR?.<- i?u?1 OF(tce:ti /I-jA ? DiC ?c:NDP N I s PIA1NTI PIAIIJ T C1v?L C- r/5) Aj i 19F- 14 ! 1 f O /-( F- PA 271 ?-- S f. ?/AfNTr? 1..i?•!1l?1.. Gvit,l/s /s l? `?!i-Iso?.,?/_- ?°??.`r?iN? 1>Zo Sl= F% AI[ Tl1?l.s STArr-<7wl-r 14, ?AP-c- 23, 20(0 I-O 2 G , 2 0 0 4, r, T w s c- N !.? c, rJ 1 1,4 7-1-1 L t c t'Lr? 1?0 s ?ti c? C1N? r S? d - uN, r s nc:?.l? rI,*IJA (3 L/ A I- --r14 r2- rA Z G o a, R. c. c -C <D Aj a l ? ?, s i, T u (`? o l., CA, 14111 po. 13,?x 8s3-7, 23O? (?tsi???a c:t?us? n1-(-9 4 1 (. t 7C)-C)t - $ 4'3 3 "7 A f--/, , /, T-.y OP-?z iz,* i? ? By ni I, r or ? co F-A f S. I z. ?F ! l? ?? o C: N 1 J F- A& o C O hn /? r S f r ?N C_ ti /c -rliF r'c:?,usylr??.,?? 1Jc;??aTl?c Nr or C.n24. C C- ?u.r. 3 O 1= / ?[. N o L N rf 0o iU ^ I o 1G C-1 c. J1 N c.: ou 21 N c, T /L ri, ?-(--;J d Tip C- s L C: v C: 1v T S Cv ^ S S &,L / F., 7-(,-: 1N D A T S G 1- c - r° 141'11- ?-/ . ?F_ N d N f /*?-1 c /-1 /,/L o S o U T l f cr 2 s ?v tt t tit c? 7' 11 C? h-? cvs o? TiasL rvc;?1urJ was C?kt??N?eo?ti of i,{1E p ??v/3rti ?v?tNcn 1 i4F- TJh?_- d? ?(L s rFN0C F ? V c- ii Ts /A ? P/L ? l ?Cr 2 ? \ f ? l ILA A_ /0 2 71 ? S /"CrG ,AL f-),%p/aC,LM?=NI- vti1f #Lj to t?( OJE jr D c= N T t tV V c: ? A, kL N 7- N o . C Z) 1"1 2 o v 14 N e,, (60 r IC- ?. w, e 1 N 714 1 1/mss /ac.r?.r.? vur?c:z Tian Gal?z o C)Ff--icj/iJ APO D-- JU&IS o1 C- 7-1 tD N 7. 0/R1Co1 N^1 J,j2t s 121 c, f t a" o f TNT t., o (21c- Ca%,j 1Lr /s /3n.sQo c:) xi PA - ?oii ?. Aa7- v, ?f -. I- Tl? i-ze- /Lt L. I"Ac- rs uPoN s r,?1t?c1a rl "61r"A C/n?M IS 1-?ACCrj t-olt /ec: // c: I- s?v Ott T ours ! AV / !? tN % t S' CON / t l,l rr f °+ _ CA, !-11 !! V A R l c ry /? C rl O !? s /,-?1 N Co ! Ir S' Pc: C. r ((C. ?? l y C /C, A A- ?? lr? ! N S???ti.?l coJ2t us io oc:Fc? ti rJo- " Ts aF/aN ANr1L,1P?T`cO ??h!c ? w`T-1t Tier- Lxi w /3oc)k-c A??rJ C- /C Or2CC /Lo/NC., r/?L TI! ?L 0??=A c, 14 /30°!?- /N GAS/E T/IF- LA w /300/Cs w?2? S o l?,v aR. lJ?;?r-otiy c:?. 9'. ?ti M A Y 3, 2 0 ©? P/? ?, ra `? S' C; N o /?? 12c, >?7-r O 1- C<)C:LI / oKj ' ?oti, C - /Ss A T - /ecQvL t r? I-lu6Lti T?L!11N(-a I-11 A- i arz clo) l3oolcs tVr-F-,OcO 7-,0 71['J ,40(-2X/ O T/a L L Qv C. s /3C-: c n .J s c_ J N h-, ?a ?L S T0 A / (-j A./ S LID s Der, YrZO ;? . 14, soMC 7-1 M AR0,J SEArlcz; Ony ,J(:,`rJ/l.- C: Pi A 1 N -r-i j Ft,, A S -1-A q /?j s i4c /Z,k t=- -0 o U r o 1 f-i j'` P !-l l r Owl/ l; T? A,1 Y ,?©?,,? ,?F? N0,v f 1lv12(.2 7-01-0 Ac)cks wc-/ c- C-:si- /.byc-- n. 2 IO/n?+i, j? ?L /rL vas /? N? T-?c:2L ?Q2? !a vc??s !-1.?/3?,cs L No 1 c F o F VJ//A T R<? , o ks //j OILS Y M 1S c eDli OV c.T AGyo14 0 A/0"- ! K.(j!JcN r' ?t` /si o?, Ta Oc:= stkloy )SknNo N c3c., /?No F, X!" ?vS/ v (z LA1", ka //,j pit 1STip C-; Cto N0,-T-t o!j IS A?J /ALT o F \,yANrO,? W///A-7 /r c.o1JbVC- r . SEF_ rTNO. Z. 1 2. PlAdi r 1- r .901c-,V?Zs APO THC:IC ?Z 0A C A V C-A-.r /-?v/.3c=,c s A G TS 0& o H-? r s f, o ?, s A 2 ?; A c-TA / IA Ti o,c,, >3c: c, •? vs L C'd ?T//?? lgi\.I 7-iG C2//-i,"nL CvI.1-e/-1r,v? / r1?o (,,rT1? T/(? CVf-?3 ?.?N?O 0s?tircr Ar7-o/c,vcry 8 Tip T cr s T/-o T HuE c:. ti rin // c o r?o c.j 2 r T c- T/ c Ti r/ C_ S o TNL G? w r/?:s c= ?? i ?f O C, - /S-3 N o. /'? s s Z . S ?E fix!{ 13 T Nom. 3 13. jL,yrat Assrsr-l Jr- ®/sir-rc-r ATF<ba, y 1"IArrMlLc,,r /" S/,rT/I o C vt-?/S?,?C,?N.o Co.?u?y d I' L o I` olrrA. rcr AT To u ?? G r r- cc. 2 I,?i? TL o /. f' 2 0 0 5 S T? tc_ TFI T / 41 / 1 IJ A s Fo,cL.j A n o o A G d l` /?f?/,v << ?? C, o ?-• r''` p r" I- 8 v- cr Ex-14 r 13, T /10 . Y l Ll. 0C L IUO/??u7 s JC; r?i?c BilE/aX-0, A IN 0 /2 / c 14 n ti 0 So., r1a 1,-:- IL Fia t I G 0 ?mob 1 c t, r A G vRi? lc VE he A3v2C: /aNO I-/V15CA- To ?vs T 31F,1'21 y 00 1-1 is 3 Jo b Apo Q F-LAOS r- o ? 7-t ? 1.12 PO"- 1 C;? /Z f VurY 1621AI"T-IFF 14AS svfrr?2L-0 ??rz??nR ht? t??.??jxy. - r rl? b c o?. n1? „J wf rI4 n2T1-zL N r Lnl?Oil, /ti1•?J ENrJvslly /.,l 2 41 f /?. O» AvcovS r /-7, 2-©os` r? n?o? N? l.?rJvsc?y lc;;o 040c--R No. 701c093 /a /3ovT` 7-14r Viol r,ou dr LAw /auO I©2 13y r{ 0G ?auS1N? CJAJ At-JO Ar SE:- jExl.,1l31r l,, ? yr «? s L,a,noti /aNo- l Auca,jsi- 17, 200 C>R-t9C A-, / S. 7-1w4 r ru /JA 2 AOLD O j s C O A O 17-10 N S ?, ltc: n i c: Q?l?y Ti,l1C S ! /a ! d r/ L ?S !? c.!) / .u Co C- c,; l A N O 1? y ?a / C: ? ?' `/ d!_?C-CA- 1-,JAc_a /tJ IL"A9 A- r/C.V//AIL / ? was ©2o???a ?y L O A- -r Z:N O V s rti. Tl ?? T" ! I.1 /•-. ?`c s / a S roll--:.v A /LicaHT- Lj^.l w??? c i? I S N o N !-lr? 2??,e?ovs_ y 1 J- ?AIVt rt FJ? IZ/tC•:V(,;S /ANO r/-/EA-L / /LC--f A vkS4,1 !-fits I x = ?? s NJ C- G A 0 0 /G. s w c r e T-14 t: ?. S ro /c. fJ oti ??S reLo.?vo Auo rJ? rc,uacNT /-??a??J A C, ZS oti t S S 1 0 Q .4 W L = A- )C C: rA r-<:) k -,l A I A /? t; J `! ? ? ??A N?o IJ \^?t I l Fv I On J s c. o N Ov c t. 2©. Pl.?N,r-OFF /3c-/,cvL1 /?NQ T/-l c2c: ?o e2c: ? vc: ?. J T/-ITT ?NQ.-NI S 1N AV(,-/hhc:Nr No. /7 /genet, lGc;/elltic,ti II NO Sou7-uic_:A- Our rc) Tip?!?- ?s t i t or-?.t w ? ref TH 1C PC- N /i s y ( vim, &j , , q bc: (2A et r j ?: i,, r b CODA t(-,C„ ?i A 2 U12c:c. t (`? AC-J ?ous t b IQ e?oeL t-1f1? A G ri oii S V). o12D - 1 /VA rC=s /,OC L0 A /3o VC; . 21. -tisT??? o /2L.j-n c/gylti/?,ti 1?L.OCiNr.4 ALAtid? G/C/1NLs?t ENO JO\,f'I ?- 77-r (y l?No/2co IK-121A i r/r-/ .c, Go\j 2T r//ii s c ?o j- ?a tN r ? / Abt..AJ Caa.f?1 ENO O S Tzec c A rraK-NL-\I s' & a r rc-A- r o / Aj S r e` v c r` S v 6 0 p i N .-? fc: s r c) 1Z cr L o A-o rk F- ev/? M L J o / ljo . A 6'797 5 Z. . 2 2 . ?` >v ? n s, c .c ?? e 1 c: o ?? l a ? ,vo G c; A,v ? reLC: ? t' lA 4iri C,1111c14 r"Ac14 Ot6,.O.,Nr w^a ol?lr .??Tc a ?vc To T!"ICzr/. >?? s r. o iu s c.., t , { A N o /ox /As A co C . N T.s E7 r 7-H r_- fj. O. G . 6- 2 3. As 9v c.l a PI'AII. r, r?s I "Ic,o 1"c%A ry 'w-A4 s v b J<,c r 7 7-14 r- G O N I-A O? A /i o ? J `-- A. 1/ !l / O /.i co 1W O G 4r L/ l c l? rC-A- n,q L? c!l o / r/!L oc:1c:wrJ /'?Nlf. 2Cl. Ar A wAR0 O I- rl!f-- srArc;, (-21AjNrir-f- 1-(As A Rlc4r4r 1-0 BL / A.c:L. ri-oM A ?Lbl rA..nxy A "O C A W c to o4 A<.-Fr A N O L? A N [-o iV ?I !l f S. c, o N ?OV C F rC p U ?? .c, /J/?, Sr^Tt, A G r4&1 26' T/IAT" r:.re l{ (J?; ?? uo?u?- 13?rla?T OvT.? A `CoNoA-/N (v Gc 4, A/ 1 w `oA-w-^r/ Ol, Alamo PlAlpr,r-r-i / //C-Gnr/otjf or- Ov r./ t,.? rI ! o,jr C. 0 2 ti ©a ?a r/ a c? ri . / C l / c: rya Ao v 6. f A.1 v ?, s %1 Co T, U IC+ ,. ui EX14AVSTOW of-- LGlom^l r?LM<:tit S 2 62 . /:9/A, a rj r -f- v.r C-o Tla c ? ?J h-? o N c s ? ? ? ? v c_, ?a c. c; n ? ? c: ,r AVAr to 6/G? A I- S C ! - CAi,-? 14111 r? 7-7-y Aiuo S'olvC OL 0 6 /c: /-- 2 7 . r r-- A G 14 S ! A coc p Ti4 C- R c v ? C: c.? /",?? c c: s r t.? ?.r lp zS. --jCT ?vllvw.c Ti{?7', l?IAlNrlrr` Souroar ANo WAJ OC:uiLo A191"iN1a t-XA7-14L /LL IlJC I AN4 (_:A e-14 S7A 7-14F- 2L v tLw 6/Loc-csi c,? .? .s 2v 6 6 c: ?. s,-? ? l?.o `` A N PIA iurFF? A" API??Xogln-TC (f 1A sz: 2q. /a// Ac, Ts ©,. oM,e ssioNs ©1- Oc:jam:Nociut`.r sf,% rc:n tN AvC:Atmk:tvT_s ./-?/3ovc ulo/?T'c o /°/A «,t1 F j's JZIcol!?s A) ?L:/?•/'+rr-- /a G?S O F \a? Nr0N uji I 1 ?V 1 tI"lS - ?oNOvc.T //j ?/lo!/aTr oN y2. $55©- ?? 0?=?t hL ll?+Tc. Inc- \.1G Lv!-(1c 14 ?S't1?JN A A- 1140 X V1o/n7-t,o" o ll'- /'? L S. $ 303 GTS b T??, ??r I?y i?C:G?: j t 4N J 1 N V 1 ?J' I/?Toi.? 1? J A s d F /3y vN /A w F, I T? I? t k? t N f?QpjStO 1j N \/tO/Aft o E f1 /? c-rS x.7 r- of --1 rI i /a t... © ("1 C. 127 PA. t.. S. ?. 5301 ____1_ P"yc.x Fox \,?iI F-xx ,.2x, Ooe z-i:> r-tc ll ke AL a Na Nc; c, h cc NT" /AGr,s- nr is^c ji co( n4r-- I NOtvlo J it,/) NC.tric, rltc;??c. C-O`lc:c.cIV0,1, ANO rN TraCttt n?1-tc.t?l CA1 APO /.IL(ApIICOO,--0F /ae.Ts, PtNo Vt~ou /? 6NOli.t(d d r L jAbifiry AG.AiNs r- oNco ti o 2.c. ?? - 0,& 1? s o ?2L lic=-1/ zc- ?c;,T? t l c. o /?+ /3 0 ? c., l'' l ?'? r N t"t fL- T?? rol?ot,.,t u Co /zc_!t L ? ?0 2c. t?/L-LSS /-lt>,-. ?©t? N IS ?2RrgA)LA blF- IM-)"J/t y. it 5-C)Co . O O R? ?vNiZ'ivG ?????coc;s Cl J - ??o ll /? N •. S ? c r{ c7 F' to L ?. /Zc = ! t ? f /Xs r t ? c, /-?o ? 11L G? 8 UF-/t., Fi C /a ! ow ? dv ?c.Ti s S T? r? ?-? ? N t ? ? b c. //,j Fl I A FoA.C-C.a«, ?, /?/?? , N i ? ??a ` G ? ?--?Jl? ? k r Aa(= win4[11 /`'c t,soN^/ /c4/0c,,<<;dCIO ?L LLT vp0LA. sraNo ra?T I N r14 L rO A-- Q? G CI r N co 1?1 c:?'a ?O! N 1 11 n r ?.. s c r T? PIC / Aj^/T(L,J O 1/ /g G•S• ?qoy r'o THE; CfA-j.JuOA-N r-../St / /C?TloN TJ /-lV 7-/-I -Ohc!l <..,f l /IM Sog2- ?ox 0pTc_o ' /aj(,ousr 2e, Z.ao$ 9 F- x14/f:' IT"s vF_sr 7r0l//Nc. OTC/-LNQokT A ?ltjAc-A- G?<?nT /?on?cs 101ia,ti7-1 wA 147-C-0 fCc Pt- 14 is Any. 2. T11oA,sa/,j we s ?v)j /`st{tt, co ?c:L?,?ts r,.A- C.^Q /3ooks. 3 . Ci A, t M ! NA L /v r /-o A- vc r-c- \-JI r14 L /s r o L is w 12 oalLs. ?'. Lis: irex- !3y Sc:l.,,o& Ass,srANr- O/srxlcr Aicc&&Qc.y w S r 7-70 0 /%a N T O e. RJR t; C L t w s ?. d 2 ?C: /L / ?t-o ? ?C ?/N s y /?r?? ? ? h ?? !`'A 1c. t"N. c: ?, r o r ?,/a J3o ? /?,vo ? N o us ? ? y ?. N ,o L c ?? ? ?? J ?_ ?-?.? ?J. s ?: v, t t ? . F- xNrgIT l o -I- mp-, NvOF-P-; PiLoO2?y oF.P- VV11?lAM C utt:r?s Ana X092 3 /3/05 C /1A /- 13/- A f Viz. ? 8 h/f£n { !I F._ w A/7, ?._. J A.1 A, 7 Pn . PAAc-r-c r V3 /+l-..,D V IV 70,,Li? LA w /1"o ADvoc ??c y ?;? Llr?//.; Apo <?Mc gu(.g ?n -,r'c,r 22 l 0 ; 7) IlAkA150,U PI. ?(_)lc?5 ?b/t /2??/f S ?r tilt//?- /'/•DC.rCJr?/1P jl.?F_f/iGK? PA lc r- - ? /53 17 ; 3) 1-9A . PA.AC-JIC` V2- C-/,",,IPA L //t 0c- / o(//YF 13% 1-)A v!/J lLtN??;i/all /abO S05P-Q V 7 f69. 60; 9 PpcTinL LoGic. Pt/c,c A Zo. oo ; 131Asks Li p 191c-- N)N,lA`/ I Rlc F 7 70, o0 Cor/lx SAURu-5 /5l p-?J-1- 0sf, /4/c r: } 2.5.00 Co(.?ci /{i% . ) /??./r/ / 25!60. t 'CHEST GROUP 1P A THOMSON COMPANY • 1 P.O. Box 64779 St.Paul, MN 55164=0779 I :USTOMER SERVICE: 1/8001328-4880 :nr navment instructions and contact information see reverse 1 07 PAGE 1 OF 1 SALES REPRESENTATIVE ORDER DATE SHIP DATE DELIVERY. # PURCHASE ORDER# 02/22/2002 Q2/28/2002 608479106 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OTY UNIT TAX TOTAL PRICE 20032285 PA PRACTICE V2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1 160.0.0 9.60 169.60 S 11911153 PA PRACTICE V3 AND 4 TORTS LAW AND ADVOCACY 1 210.00 12.60 222.60 S 15347635 I PA COURT RULES STATE PAM 1 23.00 1.38 24.38 S THANK YOU TOTAL 416.58 NEW SALE INVOICE# 6005221682 VENDOR# 41-1426973 BILLING ACCOUNT# 1003046131 AMOUNT DUE 416.58 AMOUNT ENCLOSED RETURN BOTTOM PORTION WITH PAYMENT West Group Payment Center P.O. Box 6292 Carol Stream, IL 60197-6292 JLxNb r, I r N o.- New Sale Invoice BILLING ACCOUNT# 1003046131 NEW SALE INVOICE# 6005221882 ORDER# 320038 INVOICE DATE 02128/2002 AMOUNT DUE 416.58 1003046131 WILLIAM CURTIS #AM8092 SCI AT SMITHRELD PO Box 999 HUNTINGDON PA 16652 M9141 I -r IkeI I PINNN 1.'1 1 r' n rIR1 N Z r1 N1 n 1.1 1 11 1 XN? l?? T N o z 13 THOM{SON• WEST P.O. Box 84779 St.Peul, MN 65164-0779 CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1'/800/328-4880 r__ 5????..M:ww? wa wMwM w{w ??iww awn ewv???? 07 PAGE 1 OF 1 SALES REPRESENTATIVE ORDER DATE SHIP DATE DELIVERY # PURCHASE ORDER# 1/22/2002 11/25/2002 618346125 MATERIAL DESC RIPTION CITY UNIT TAX TOTAL 40120653 HARRISON PA FORMS FOR RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 144.50 8,67 16317S (WETTICK) FULL SET TOT AL 153.17 THANK YOU New Sate Invoice ' BILLING ACCOUNT# 1003056768 NEW SALE INV0ICE# 6012222724 ORDER# 755304 INVOICE DATE 11125/2002 AMOUNT 16 H IB1*r-(Z) 8 ?x?-?i 13,T X4.3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY CRIMINAL COMPLAINT D.A. File Number: WILLIAM CURTIS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Affiant vs. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUBER Defendant PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT RULE 504 NAME OF THE AFFIANT 1. Mr. William Curtis NAME ADDRESS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANT 2. Correctional Officer Huber, the Defendant is employed at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, located at 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837, Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837. During the time of these incidents Huber, was scheduled to the 8 am to 4 pm shift and assigned to the "Restricted Housing Unit," (E) Housing Unit. Correctional Officer Huber is a Caucasian male: A) Height between 5 feet 8 inches and 5 feet 9 and a half inches; B) Weight between 167 lbs to 180 lbs. DIRECT ACCUSATION 3. That Defendant Huber, is responsible for numerous acts in bad faith and Huber, is in direct violations of the Penal Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: A) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18,4911 Unsworn Falsification of Documents; B) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 4902 Falsify or Tampering with Official Documents; C) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 3921(A) Theft by Unlawful Taking; D) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 3922(A)(2) Theft by Deception; E) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 2709 Harassment; F) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 5301 Official Oppression. DATE OF OFFENSE COMMITTED 4) The offenses committed by Huber, occurred on April 5, 2005 between 8:45 am and 9:15 am. PLACE WHERE THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED 5) State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837, Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837. Acts committed at the Restricted "Special Management Unit." SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 6) On April 5, 2005, Defendant Huber, came to the cell Affiant occupied to escort Affiant to inventory his personal property. The Defendant knew Affiant was transferred to the Restricted Housing Unit at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill on March 23, 2005, and Huber, deliberately delayed the inventory process for thirteen days. The Defendant Huber, denied Affiant the right to properly unpack and re-inventory his personal property as promulgated under Inmate Handbook 2003 at Shipping of Personal Property(G)(11). Since Huber, denied the Affiant his right to unpack and re-inventory his personal property as stated by Department of Correction policy there was no legitimate way to determine if any of Affiant's personal property is lost, missing and/or stolen. Defendant Huber is responsible for acts of unworn falsification of documents when Defendant Huber, placed his signature on Inmate Personal Property Receipt DC-153 No. A579752, dated April 5, 2005, and failed to follow the procedures enacted under Pennsylvania 2 laws [specifically 37 Pa. Code §§93.4(b) and §§93.5] and Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Directive 815. The portions of DC-ADM 815(G) (relating to shipping of personal property), state: 11) At the receiving facility, you will unpack and re-inventory the property in the presence of an officer, both you and the officer must sign the inventory sheet. 14) In those cases that you cannot be present during inventory procedures, the Property Officer and another employee shall process the property and both shall sign the form. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Directive 815 (2003). Not only do the provisions advance Affiant's claim they specifically provide further insight to Defendant Huber's violation of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Code of Ethics. The portion of the Code of Ethics (B) Specific Rules and Regulations Department of Corrections (relating to personal property of inmates), state: 7) The personal property of inmates will be handled with extreme care and disposed of only by properly designated authority in a manner desi agn ted by Official Department of Corrections Policy. Similarly, no employee may assume the right of ownership of property owned by fellow employees, the state or by inmates, theft or abuse of property or equipment is prohibited. Department of Corrections Code of Ethics. Defendants conduct has also violated Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.4(b) and §§93.5 (relating to incoming publications), when he failed to list approved items on Inmate Personal Property Inventory Receipt DC ADM (153) No. A579752, dated April 5, 2005, such as Affiant's: A) watch; B) non-contraband items purchased legitimately from the "approved master commissary list" DC ADM 815, items such as the following listed on DC- 154A, confiscated items receipts: 1. DC-154A, No. A655824; 1) 4 books "not altered" 2) Photo copies paid for by AfIiant through SCI- Libraries 3) legal materials that are a 4) (1) rug "not altered" matter of public record 6) nail clipper 7) cigarette lighter 8) dental floss 9) minor "not altered" 10) honey 11. DC-154A, No. A655825; 1) ice tea mix 2) two peanut butter containers 3) breakfast drink mix shift 4) two salmon flakes packets 5) two tuna packets 6) lemonade drink mix 7) two keefe coffee creamers 8) three soups 9) instant coffee 10) two candy bars II. DC-154A, No. A655826; 1) bag of rice 2) one shoes/boots "grandfather clause" 4) twenty-seven books is a false interpretation. Since Affiant did not have twenty-seven books Defendant Huber, is responsible for acts of falsify or tampering with official documents when Defendant Huber, placed his signature on confiscated items receipts DC-154A, No. A655824, No. A655825, and No. A655826 dated April 5, 2005, when he failed to follow the procedures enacted under Pennsylvania laws [specifically 37 Pa. Code §§93.4 and §§93.5] and Pennsylvania Department Of Corrections Directive 815. The Portions of IX Property (DC-ADM 815) D. (relating to contraband), state: 1) You may not have any item in your possession, or under your control that was not issued to you by the DOC, purchased by you in or through the commissary and/or otherwise approved for you by the facility. 4 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Directive 815 (2003). Defendant Huber, denied Affiant's reasonable request that he write the following law book titles: A) Pa. Practice V2 Criminal Procedure, price $169.60; B) Pa. Practice V3 and 4 Torts Law and Advocacy, price $222.60; C) Harrison Pa. Forms for Rules of Civil Procedure (Wettick) price $153.17; D) College Thesaurus, price $25.00; E) Black's Law Dictionary 70, price $70.50; F) Practical Logic, price $22.00; G) Harvard Law and Review Books, price $25.00, each, totaled $75.00. Of some market value on Affiant's Inmate Personal Property Receipt DC-153 No. A579752, so any mishaps such as Defendant's employer's property and/or negligence causing the destruction, damaging, lost and/or theft of Affiant's books of law. The description and titles of these books were not properly recorded by Defendant Huber, on Affiant's and Department of Corrections Copy of Personal Property Inventory Receipt DC-153 No. A57952, in accordance with 37 Pa. Code §§93.4, and §§93.5 (relating to incoming publications), DC ADM 815 IX Property(G)(11)(14) (2003) and Department of Corrections Code of Ethics (B)(7). Finally, Defendant Huber is responsible for acts of theft by unlawful taking and theft by deception when he failed to give Affiant his Philadelphia Inquire discount consumer product coupons such as: A) variety of food coupons; B) variety of household cleaning product coupons for detergents, soaps, etc.; C) variety of paper towel coupons Afl:iant, has a First Amendment right to mail these coupons to his family. 5 ACTS AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITYOF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 7. That Defendant chose to knowingly commit acts in violation of state and federal law, under the "Color of State Law," in direct violation against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A NOTATION FOR CRIMINAL LABORATORY SERVICE Request for a polygraph test, Penna. Polygraph Act Title 18 Pa. C.S.A. 7321 REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OR SUMMONS 9. That Affiant has presented the true and legitimate facts to this issuing authority, as best as Affiant could proceeding pro se. These true and legitimate facts pertaining to the unprofessional acts in bad faith perpetrated by Defendant Huber, when he knowingly used his capacity to subject Affant to official oppression, harassment, theft by deception, theft by unlawful taking, falsify or tampering with official documents and unworn falsification of documents are still pervasive. Since the Defendant is acting under the "Color of State Law" and committing acts against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and contrary to the acts of assembly and the acts were illegal the Afliant, makes a reasonable request that a warrant or summon be issued and that the accused Defendant Huber, be required to answer the charges I made. Respectfully submitted, William Curtis Dated: 2005 6 JLxlf r ?I? N ?• `'! CUMBERLAND COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY A L. EBERT, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY July 18, 2005 William Curtis AM 8092 P. O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-200 William Curtis: We have received your Private Criminal Complaint and reviewed the allegations therein. We appreciate the concise manner in which you have presented your claim, but in our discretion, we feel this matter is best handled by the prison complaint process or by Federal civil means. Therefore, we are denying your request for criminal prosecution. We have, however, forwarded a copy of your complaint to the Department of Corrections, SCI, Camp Hill. Matthew P. Smith Senior Assistant District Attorney MPS/cgf cc: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Camp Hill CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE, CARLISLE, PA 17013 PHONE: (717) 240-6210 (717) 697-0371 x6210 (717) 532-7286 x6210 FAx: (717) 240-6164 e-mail districtommevnarena net r;K/11 /3r T N J. t;-A\ I tit IRFAI 1OF (x•(•l IPA 110NAL AND INDt N I RIAL SAFET)' Resntn In(1(1 1 stlxu' K 11xlt?itry fiuiklin 11ARR111il lftl i• 1!^ 171211 1Ji16OR & wlJ.7l lit 717-7ft7-37Nk. I ax: 717-M-5oln! at?ti?.1t..1:ur IYi to% cwwoo??catrw or Ra?[TbaMa File No. 204565 D.I. No. 91-4839 8-17-2005 F 1 Secretary James P. Creedon Department of General Services 515 N. Office Building Harrisburg, Penna. 17125-0001 Re: Order # 701093 Camp Hill State Correctional Institution Modular Housing Unit 5 Lisburn Rd. Cumberland Co. (#21) File No. 204565 Type of Construction: Non-Combustible Protected Type II(222) Type of Occupancy: C-5 restrained Use Condition IV Story fleight: 01 Basement: No Dear Secretary Creedon An inVection of the above facility by Field Supervisor John Faust and Board Re- viewer Jerry Seville, on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 indicates that violations exist of the Laws and/or regulations administered by the Department of Labor and Industry. A list describing the violations, the identity of the regulations violated, and the order describing he necessary corrective actions follows: Fire and Panic Regulations Title 34- Pennsylvania Code FINDING NO. Bureau records indicate that the Occupancy Permit for this build- ing is no longer valid as changes have occurred to the physical layout of the structure. Secretary James P. Creedon File No. 204565 D.I. No. 914839 8-17-2005 F I § 49.9(e) The Department will issue an occupancy permit within 30 days of the final inspection. It shall by the owner's responsibility to maintain and operate the building in accordance with the Act, this Chapter and Chapters 50-60. ORDER MM NO. 1: Correct all of the following violations so that an Occupancy Permit may be issued by the Department. FINDING NO. 2: Plans on file with the Department do not reflect the riot slam gate installed mid-way in the entry corridor nor the creation of the Program Review Committee Room on the first floor day- room of 'B' pod. § 49.3 Before a building to which Chapters 49 - 60 apply (except for C-3 occupancies covered under Chapter 56) is erected, adapted, remodeled, or altered, detailed architectural plans, wall sections and elevations for new construction, remodeling or alterations work and line drawings to scale for all portions of the existing building showing means of egress shall be. submitted to and approved by the Bureau of Occupational and Industrial Safety, Buildings Section, Department of Labor and Industry, as re- quired under section 8 of the act (35 P.S. sectiorr 1228). Dfaw- ings shall be submitted in triplicate. In cases where emergency lighting systems, fine alarm systems, or fire extinguishing appa- ratus is required by this chapter, these. requirements shall be completely shown on or with the drawings submitted before approval of the building is obtained. ORDER ITEM NO. 2: Submit plans reflecting these changes. FINDING NO. 3: A number of automatic smoke detectors are missing from their mountings, resulting in insutlicient coverage of the building. Records on file with the Institution of testing of these devices by Simplex Grinnell reflect the 'missing' detectors as well as some to which "access could not be gained". §49.9(e) See Item No. 1 above. ORDER ITEM NO. 3: Replace missing detectors and supply this Department with a report from Simplex Grinnell reflecting that all devices have been tested and are operational. FINDING NO. 4: In a number of instances within the chase ways between cells, the flex duct of the supply and/or return air is either damaged Page 2 of 4 Secretary Jones P. Geedon File No. 204565 D.I. No. 914839 8-17-2005 F I or disconnected to the defuser. This condition insults in an im- balance in the engineered smoke control system. §49.9(e) See Item No. I above. ORDER ITEM NO. 4: Repair / replace as needed the flex duct lines. N.F.P.A. Life Safety Code 101 1981 edition FINDING NO, 5. Cells 31 of `A' Pod, cells 12, 15 and 16 of `B' Pod, as well as, cells 28 and 29 of `D' Pod have been converted to Storage use and do not carry the proper fire separation from the nest of the area. §14-3.2.1 An area•used for general storage, boiler or furnace rooms, fuel storage, janitor's closets, maintenance shops including wood- working and. painting areas, laundries and kitchens shall be separated from other parts of the building with construction having not less than al -hour fire resistance rating and all open- ings shall be protected with self-closing fire doors, or such area shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection. Where the hazard is severe, both the fire resistance separation and automatic sprinklers shall be provided. ORDER ITEM N0.5: Remove storage from these cells. PETi-TI.ON _ QC _DURE. ANY PERSON INTERESTED OR AFFECTED BY THESE ORD . S MAY APPEAL TO THE PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL BOARD WITHIN SUCTY (60) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. THE APPEAL MAY BE SENT TO ROOM 1520, LABOR AND INDUSTRY BUILDING, SEVENTH AND FORSTER STREETS, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120. THE APPEAL MAY BE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE FIRE AND PANIC REGU- LATIONS OR A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE AND PANIC REGULATIONS OR BOTH. THE APPEAL SHALL REFER TO THE ORDER NUMBER FOUND ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THISORDER. THE APPEAL SHALL SET FORTH THE REGULATIONS INVOLVED, AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH A VARIANCE. IF AN EXTENSION OF TIME IS RE- QUESTED. THE APPEAL SHALL. SET FORTH THE REGULATION INVOLVED, THE AMOUNT OF TIME REQUESTED, AND TIIE REASONS FOR AN EXTEN- SION OF TIME. Page 3 of 4 .I 4 Secretary lames P. Creedon File No. 204565 D.I. No. 91-4939 & 17-2005 F I You are hereby directed to correct all violations by the following date: November 23`d, 2005 Failure to comply with this order may result in legal action, which may include and could jeopardize your continued use and occupancy of this building. Sincerely yours, /?/Pe4/17/?Aft,f Mike G. Gensemer, Director Field Operations ELUJDSrds Cc: Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary Robert CaW- Director Charles Rishel, Architectural Designer II Donald L. Kelchner, Superintendent Howard T. Gouse, CFMM Scott Fair, C1SM Insp. File 4 Page 4 of 4 ?XNr?3ri No.S`? BUREAU OF OCCUPATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL SAFETY Room 1600 Labor & Industry Building HARRISBURG, PA 17120 war. ¦a_wr e?J?711?.L 717-787-3329 Fax: 717-214-9514 wwwAli.state pa us cosaowirsAara or?rawitargAaL File No. 204565 D.I. No. 91-4839 12-8-2005 H 2 William Curtis AM 8092 S:C.I. -Camp Dill P.O. Box 200 - Camp Bill, PA 17001-4531 Re: Camp Hill S.C1. Modular Housing Unit 5 Lisburn Rd. Lower Allen Twsp. 17011 Dear Mr. Curtis: Enclosed please find a copy of Order No. 701093, which is self-explanatory. With regards to the other issues you raised in your recent correspondence to Secretary Schwerin, please be advised that §50.1(d)(5), of the Fire and Panic Regulations man- dated at the time (June 1991), that prisons, jails, reformatories, houses of correction and the like were to comply with the 1981 edition. of the N.F.P.A. (National Fire Protection Association) Life Safety Code 101 °. With the type of construction of the building, the size and travel distance to an exit; Chapter 14 of the Life Safety Code 101° did not mandate that automatic sprinkler coverage be provided. With regards to the provision of visual fire alarms, again at the time when contracts were entered into, October 29m, 1990, there was no requirement mandating them.. The issue regarding the lack of a fine evacuation plan is not true. Section 31- 5.1.2, of the Life Safety Code 101 ° mandated: "The administration of every detention or correctional facility shall have in effect and provided to all supervisory personnel written copies of a plan for the protection of all persons in the event of fire and for their evacua- tion to areas of refuge and from the building when necessary. All employees shall be pe- riodically instructed and kept informed respecting their duties under the plan." Be ad- vised though that the conducting of a fire drill in a penal institution does not necessarily require the movement of the population. One of the criteria this Department requires prior to releasing the Certificate of Occupancy for a jail or prison, would be verification that such a policy existed. Additionally, I have reviewed the fire drill reports recently conducted for `E' block and found no outstanding issues of concern. Page 1 of 2 wMiam Cards Page 2 of 2 File No. 204565 D.I. No. 91-4839 12-8-2005 H 2 Section 49.9(e), of the Fire and Panic Regulations mandates: "The Department will issue an occupancy permit within 30 days of the, final inspection. It shall be the owner's responsibility to maintain and operate the building in accordance with the act, this chapter and Chapters 50-59." The ventilation system for `E' block, likewise, has been properly maintained as reflected by the reports surrendered to this Department re- flecting the replacement of filters on the roof top units each quarter and a cleaning of the ducts approxinoately five years ago when flex-ducts were installed to the cell defusers. In closing, please be advised that while the original compliance date, November 23rd, of the Order has past, a petition, as outlined on page three of the Order, has been filed with the Industrial Board. While this petition is pending, the Department may take no further enforcement action. I trust this addresses your concerns. If you have any specific allegations, which involve matters under the Department's jurisdiction as established by the Fire and Panic Act and regulations, please contact this office. Sincerely, / Jerry D. Seville, / Board Reviewer encl: cc: S. Schmet* Secretary C. Sludden, Jr., Director File M1Y3 I ell j z't :fl' ?- d --]SLODZ WILLIAM CURTIS, PLAINTIFF V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 08-5279 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 104r*' day of September, 2008, the petition of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, IS GRANTED. Plaintiff may proceed without paying the filing costs or the costs of service of the complaint. By the Co , William Curtis, AM8092, Pro se Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 Sheriff :sal l;.ory mStlG.cc Edgar B. Bayley, J. ' 3? lczv3s 9' - j-cv'3CS - soli illb VIAWNN3d AINnr,D fl".?,- 4 LIMWJ aide M'd1QQ - l bd . 3?? SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NO: 2008-05279 P COMMONTWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CURTIS WILLIAM VS BEARD JEFFREY A ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT KELCHNER DONALD but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the t PnMnT.T TATT f_ ATnmT0V the within named DEFENDANT , KELCHNER DONALD 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DEFENDANT IS RETIRED. NOT FOUND , as to Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 R. Tiro Kline Surcharge 10.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 4" 16. 00 v' l blo 00/00/0000 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-05279 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CURTIS WILLIAM VS BEARD JEFFREY A ET AL STEVE BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon D Ar)n .TL'LVVVV A the DEFENDANT , at 0930:00 HOURS, on the 15th day of September, 2008 at 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to STACY SENTZ, OFFICE MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 d ;f 15.00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 43.00 00/00/0000 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of By: Deputy Sheriff A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-05279 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CURTIS WILLIAM VS BEARD JEFFREY A ET AL STEVE BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon SOUTHERS RICHARD UNIT MANAGER the DEFENDANT , at 0950:00 HOURS, on the 15th day of September, 2008 at 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to ROBERT VOLCIAK, ADMIN OFFICER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 15.00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 00 )6/0,3/0.f 31. 00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of By: XX-/ Dep ty Sheriff A. D. So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 00/00/0000 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-05279 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CURTIS WILLIAM VS BEARD JEFFREY A ET AL STEVE BENDER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HUBER CORRECTIONS OFFICER the DEFENDANT , at 0950:00 HOURS, on the 15th day of September, 2008 at 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to ROBERT VOLCIAK, ADMIN OFFICER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 00 fb/d 3?0 y 16.00 So Answers R. Thomas Kline 00/00/0000 Sworn and Subscibed to By: before me this day Deputy Sheriff of , A.D. -ZJU 7)49 CoJIJ- or-GOMMoN OF tip's \J 14^?Jje-\ "A-As- e.Uf-r/ j (,?/, A i " ri F r- V• A IL Oa F w 0r4 T 0 8 -- 5-2--79 GI i, I T S k;; - -fo ?? ? I"I o N 0 ?.? ? 1?. J U n ?p C= .t ? ? T7? ? S r-? 1 t7 C .! 2T- 1 ? !. -rl--jA T ©N S c: ?1'L IS k It. - /?JOTL.? Urns S L?.vl..,b V ?aN 2010g r A C. o w. p1 to " r A Nc> N r-- t?K. rC. "na N i s r ou 7-14L 2. / s O N? V k. H /? c 2 5 2 0 T14 C- D>L 6"ot-Iji-4 I I A vr-- NoT /Q c. s n rte. 3 • 7 AT /-IA I l AS ?N i=ce -14 0 c F6 p o ri c l-p,lU2.t To I?I?An. . 16 V/1-1 FP F- F- rcOR-F- PCT-jl-j<Duel- R t Q v t s r ?E 14?ti'bA^b I V- coJf.r ?tirTrf-?. De?,J1r 1 ??S PG??`.l?I? S?J?MI TTC.b? OAT!"=1,> : IJ a ?: h- /,? /l. S, s0 -,o3 VC 21 1 r Ar ?N '?..i l I r- h- G A.T a 1 •I c: /3 y G C, A- 7-.r, 7-1 4 A r i N k;?_ .S rATL h• `, N M A 0 ro /- ca o N (? I?l N ?l ??J / ?,r i rN u N0 T /C, IE or ! A / v k Q. I-o !?/ 4L-A v Ax E M?? Pi?xsoNAI ku??..,I ocD e /??xL Ttiv ?,No Go A- cT u C,:) J I T A k, S v ?.? C S I Ta T l1 z PIZ I-j?+ L/ 9a V /A 7-1 N TO TNr. UNSwof-Jj ????? 1 ?cA??i,, To T-i,?-J Cjsnj i 6,L 0 st;?- Ah x,092, Box 2yq (&ArC:4 4 A,0, ?. i9Li2- <.? . % (,C-AT-g of Xle&,J,Lc Wd1tA,... 14cAc-By CC- A.Ti 1-14 A F^ Ttiv;; ANa G O 2R.Cc.1" G o ?/ d TN M /?+ ? u T 1 N Ti c L d ti A ?G i ?. ,/ s G l -- V&ATZ /31 J a rr-,L y A - B. /a &%o SS urt-(:.N/ ORIVc- CnMp N, l 1, P/-\ - 1-7,c>) 1 /46lcl4wok OONAIn 2soo C,ls b(JA.u 9-0^0 CA?? /-l, l t a. 1"7 0l I 25'0o Lis /3?„?,u /???n CAI-10 1-?, , l A. l'700l 2 5'00 L I S l3\_)A?N /C.-,?A JO C, K-1 141/l, a. J?all .By W,'l1,A?- c_,fkrd t L0 s? VATUO : Plo j c;r jr L. C l Z ?o a %3 l: k h3 us -7 ? ?_: ? mss. N ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Jeffrey A. Beard, Donald Kelchner, Richard Southers, and Adam Huber, by and through their attorney, Robert B. MacIntyre, and in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1028, raise the following preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint and, in support thereof, aver the following: FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff is William Curtis, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford (hereinafter, "SCI-Graterford") where he is serving a life sentence. 2. On or about September 4, 2008, Curtis filed a civil complaint with the Cumberland County Prothonotary alleging in section V of his complaint, the following claims: a. deliberate acts of "wanton willful misconduct" in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8550 (relating to local agency action, not Commonwealth actors); b. deliberate acts of conduct which "shun a performance of a duty required by law" in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8303(relating to mandamus actions); C. acts of theft by deception in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3922; d. acts of theft by unlawful taking in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3921; and e. acts of official oppression in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5301. 3. The crux of Curtis' complaint stems from his placement in the Special Management Unit (SMU) at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill on March 23, 2006. 4. At that time, Curtis was informed that he was able to retain ten books. Any excess books had to be shipped out or they would be destroyed. 5. Curtis refused to take any action at that time. 6. Curtis alleges that on May 3, 2005, he sent a request to staff (DC-135A) to Defendant Huber to identify 10 books that he intended to retain. 7. Curtis attempted to file a private criminal complaint against Defendant Huber. Said request was denied by Senior Assistant District Attorney Matthew P. Smith on July 18, 2005. 8. Curtis also alleges that on August 17, 2005, the Department of Labor and Industry issued a violation to the Department of Corrections for conditions at SCI-Camp Hill. 9. His claims against Defendant Huber are that his books were either stolen or destroyed without justification. (See paragraph 19 of Complaint.) 10. Curtis' claims against the remaining Defendants are that they failed to properly instruct or supervise their subordinate employee, Defendant Huber. (See paragraph 20-22 of Complaint.) PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 11. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through ten (10) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 12. All claims alleged by Curtis are subject to a two year statute of limitations. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524. 13. All actions alleged in Curtis's complaint occurred prior to September 4, 2006, a date two years prior to the filing of the complaint in this action. 14. To the extent that paragraph 10 of Curtis' Complaint is read to suggest that he was first told of the books loss on September 6, 2006, that is inaccurate as Exhibit 3 of the Complaint indicates that prior to April 5, 2005 (the date of the letter from Senior Assistant District Attorney Smith refusing prosecution of a private criminal complaint - Exhibit 4) Curtis was alleging that he had been permanently deprived of the lost/destroyed items. WHEREFORE, as it appears of record that all actions in this matter occurred prior to September 4, 2006, Defendants request that the Complaint be dismissed as it violates the Statue of Limitations. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 15. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 16. The Commonwealth and its employees acting within the scope of their duties enjoy sovereign and official immunity and are immune from suit except where the legislature specifically provides otherwise. 1 Pa.C.S.A. 2310. 17. At 42 Pa.C.S.A 8522(b), the legislature specifically waived sovereign immunity in nine areas: (1) operation of any motor vehicle in the possession or control of a commonwealth party; (2) acts of health care employees of Commonwealth agency medical facilities or institutions; (3) care, custody or control of personal property in the possession or control of Commonwealth parties; (4) dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks; (5) dangerous condition of highways under the jurisdiction of Commonwealth agency created by potholes or sinkholes or other similar conditions created by natural elements; (6) care custody or control of animals in the possession or control of a Commonwealth party; (7) sale of liquor at Pennsylvania Liquor stores; (8) acts of a member of the Pennsylvania military forces; and (9) administration, manufacture and use of toxoid or vaccine. Faust v. Commonwealth Dept. of Revenue, 140 Pa. Cmwlth. 389,592 A.2d 835 (1991) footnote 7; 42 Pa.C.S.A 8522(b). 18. None of Curtis' claims fit within the enumerated exceptions to sovereign immunity. Intentional tort claims and civil rights actions are not within the narrow exceptions set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8522(b). Faust v. Commonwealth Dept. of Revenue, 140 Pa. Cmwlth. 389, 592 A.2d 835 (1991). WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court to dismiss Curtis' action based on sovereign immunity. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS - INTENTIONAL TORTS 19. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through eighteen (18) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 20. Plaintiff Curtis has alleged numerous acts which could best be termed intentional torts. 21. When an employee of a Commonwealth agency is acting within the scope of his or her duties, the Commonwealth employee is protected by sovereign immunity from the imposition of liability for intentional tort claims. LaFrankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). 22. Willful misconduct does not vitiate a Commonwealth employee's immunity because sovereign immunity protects a Commonwealth employee acting within the scope of his or her employment from liability, even for intentional acts. Holt v. Northwest Pa. Training P'ship Consortium, Inc., 694 A.2d 1134, 1140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). 23. Even if a plaintiff alleges the employees acted outside the scope of employment, if the allegations center around their duties and powers as employees, sovereign immunity is still a bar. See, e.g., LaFrankie, 618 A.2d 1148 (despite allegations he acted outside his employment, Trooper remained employee acting within course and scope of employment because his duties involved investigating, arresting and prosecuting cases). See also Wakshul v. City of Phila., 998 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (intentional infliction of emotional distress did not fall within enumerated exceptions to immunity) WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court to dismiss Curtis' action based on sovereign immunity. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO SUIT AGAINST CORRECTIONS DEFENDANTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES 24. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through twenty-three (23) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 25. With few exceptions, Pennsylvania has explicitly retained Eleventh Amendment immunity by statute. See 42 Pa. C. S. § 8521(b). 26. Under Section 8521, the defendants cannot be sued in their individual capacities. Maute v. Frank, 657 A.2d 985, 986 (Pa. Super. 1995) (sovereign immunity bars damages claims against state prison officials sued in their individual capacities); see also Story v. Mechling, (No. 02-1432 W.D.Pa. 1995). 27. Curtis does not state that Defendants acted outside the scope of their job duties; therefore, they are immune from suit. WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court to dismiss Curtis' action based on sovereign immunity. LACK OF PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT 28. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through twenty-seven (27) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 29. The law is well-settled that liability in a civil rights action may only be based upon a defendant's personal involvement in conduct amounting to a constitutional violation. Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison Officials, 546 F.2d 1077 (3d Cir. 1976). 30. Liability cannot be premised on the doctrine of respondeat superior. Id.; see also, Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Instead, the defendants must have acquiesced or participated in the violation before liability attaches. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. at 377. WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court to dismiss Curtis' action based on lack of personal involvement. CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 31. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 32. Curtis, in his ad damnum clause, asks to be awarded punitive damages against all Defendants. 33. Punitive damages are not recoverable against the Commonwealth in tort actions. Feingold v. SEPTA, 512 Pa. 567, 581, 517 A.2d 1270, 1277 (1986). WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court dismiss Curtis' claims for punitive damages, or in the alternative, to require the filing of an amended complaint requesting damages in conformance to the law. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN FORM OF MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM 34. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through thirty-three (33) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 35. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to comport with the appropriate Rules of Court for form and substance of complaint. 36. Plaintiff fails to divide his Complaint into consecutively numbered paragraphs in violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1022. 37. Plaintiff fails to set forth each cause of action in a separate count in violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1020(a). 38. Plaintiff fails to include a proper notice to defend and/or a notice to plead in violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1018.1. WHEREFORE, Defendants move the Court to dismiss Curtis' action based on failure to conform to Rules of Court. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER 39. The averments of paragraphs one (1) through thirty-eight (38) are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 40. Curtis' complaint should be dismissed for its failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. 41. In ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of the demurrer, the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Doxsey v. Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections, 674 A.2d 11735 1174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); Stone & Edwards Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Department of Ins., 616 A.2d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992), affirmed 648 A.2d 304 (1994). A demurrer may only be sustained when on the face of the complaint the law will not provide recovery. Doxsey, Id., at 1174. A demurrer does not admit to conclusions of law or unjustified inferences that may appear in the petitioner's complaint. Raynovich v. Romanus, 299 A.2d 301 (1973). 42. The complaint challenges the conditions of Curtis' confinement and thereby qualifies as "prison conditions litigation" as defined by the Commonwealth's Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6601 et seq. 43. All the facts alleged by Curtis center upon his placement in the Special Management Unit at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. 44. All claims by Curtis focus upon the acts of the Defendants being retaliatory for other, unrelated legal claims. 45. To establish a claim of retaliation, Curtis must show that: (1) the conduct that led to the alleged retaliation was constitutionally protected; (2) he suffered some adverse action; and (3) the constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to take adverse action. Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 3309 333 (3rd Cir. 2001). 46. While it is beyond question that Curtis has a constitutional right to access the courts, there is no evidence offered or plead which would support claims that his prior litigation was a substantial or motivating factor in the actions alleged to have been committed by Defendant Huber. Clearly, the substantial and/or motivating factor was Curtis' failure to comply with instructions to mail out surplus books. 47. Absent information from Curtis that he was legally entitled to retain the property in question, there remains no evidence to suggest that the actions taken were improper or, in any manner, retaliatory. 48. Curtis' failure to state claims which relief may be granted requires this Court to dismiss the Complaint. Payne v. Commonwealth Department of Corrections, 871 A.M. 795 (2005); 42 Pa.C.S. §6602(e). WHEREFORE, Defendants make this objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a) and requests that this Court dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Respectfully submitted, Governor's f General Co sel, By: Robert B. MacIntyre Assistant Counsel Attorney Identification No. 36817 Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: November 18, 2008 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants : No. 08-5279 Civil Term CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am depositing in the U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the Defendants' Preliminary Objections upon the person(s) in the manner indicated below: Service by first-class mail addressed as follows William Curtis, AM-8092 SCI-Graterford P. O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 Deborah J. Bryan Clerical Supervisor II Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: November 18, 2008 f f_X;} i t??1 i_Y'1 t) J-- ! 1-i a v,G i O Co rY. F. n o , - / t ?a r P/A I Nj 1-F V J,?r-12?y A. gLAA.V, dl-.A I O k.. 01A "T-3 OS--6--Z79 Civil Tomah. Pnon4)o Fa n. Lc AV o r Co%rf_ A Nb Nowj Oo?-•c.S tii1s P/niNT-,rf V /oC-<LLGiN to P/?-b S A N !? J N A G L O !t_ ? ra /J L ?. L? ! T t f PA . /Q . L. P / A I L S L- 19 ow,1?2/AiNT IN k-s kr ro c -, pulr-- / o33 Z _ 0 F_N1? 1 ?/ O? THE c4 I' , 1?11?, N r, f f= 1 S PIL,c,. S ?; J? "r??/ ! I? ?- A R, c. C: 2 ? rGt? /a t' ! / -1 ? ? ?/a rIG Co22L c,T ou ?a IT NsT, TvTi oti ,?a r ??t.n Tc:2 ?oa?o. ?.. J ? I""1=2?y A. ???2? ?s T-i ?. Co?,?, ass ?????I? oT r.„?. 1'L1.1us?/I?/r?l-?jM ?1C-I'??Krr-c:NT O1 Co12lLc=G C> 3. ocntj^l 0 !< Gi{??L 2 ou2iN 71AIL--_ 1-1 M O1 Tia?3? F- 1--C WAS 114F ??1?C+21wl?N0T AT- ?G 1-GraM1?i'{II?. 41. ? I C.- i4 1% 2 t? so v ri t ? ? .c Iou R., H C, ??A G- Ti h.• rte, o ? r-,4 r s r,-, Je P r S U N 1 r f R. T-J A r-- ,S v' A -r S C I - C,nMI? I-I I ``? Hubr--2 Dj21NG T,-ir of-r iara iL r..vt,-:tjT-? o f S C, t- ?, ,? A) It •? s t u C,14 A 2 Cc L. o? 1- 1 A, N r1 rr' -11 7, Jv2is D,C- T-1 <:) N 6. o rt.,, c.Ol w o l .? 2 i s p l ?, o f- G o tr• f. a i?t I s ?oJ&r I s fSAs>r'l? C0us T: /?2T V. ? 3 S 7-H T Q, R, I ?'" I ! f r/a c. T.S U J N %.jAIc14 e1Ya t /, r- I . L` 1 .; C.1 A 11- I s i. n s r.=, n Co 2f Z L- I i r-- I' s o u(. i-t 1 7. 0P A r2.1 5'j 2.OC?S /?? s \,/A 2 D d 1 TT-1 C n lj Lj _ WA.f NVC= l.j O2lL l? A I TN (?-'JA t NT-i 2SUN t:k o /3 Or-- > L N C> rA &r I -I u n rj o I -{ u r3 c. 2 a -I 7fxl ? aL, (cam ? Ns ?21? TIanT ?1?INril l? fy . I N V L N T'o /t I( 0 A /10 S-<o A c CD / ,4112, 2 July S, 20©s, 7-/-/,n7- A c.ol?/ of N71 f r.1, ?- 2 ? ?-• , I C p F- CIA ? N ! w AS 1 -o /L Lv ^ /LO C- CC 7"c: ?? ?2 ? 1? L 1? T? 2 OF- r-r--u pAur.Z 112L AILn lc???,lN 2, A Nb SQv?-/L 2J ? ?v? ! ?o TN?.i 2 /-cis; % ; oJJ.S ?; TI-f > !-1 T.. =?N"'' c- i/??RTtr•L /,, 1? OF Lae R??T ??,.c A2Lfl- - F-ok. -1-oc / c,7-,,oN-j o F Ti4r,2 svJlJ2c- is. Dril rL N on A N cavTi ? ?.,cs n or AC mac;o-v/N co (01A,N? L4i? , 77C/\) ?J a u lE SCi., i a 2 [-A ? c l? Ti o,c--ti, C•/ 1 "A rr1-/ C4_( .S f2SA, ,T4 IL 0Q0 /?/?IN1 1 D rJ rnPZT)-- <Nr O 1 CC)/LAL(-T-i<) JS ^WiO >GAGI{ t-\ 14 FA, /FO To AVF_Q?^Tis?j r??vr--S 1GAi ?C. 1''1,1iNTr C o r ,?1 A u r ? N Q F^ , l c, io Ta A r- (21\ 6 r-- --5- o I -- T-, ?ArN l Si- ^Ti SI?C,j (-ANj 4OA6 4 T (a ?? ,; rJ .% u r C- rL , 1 io T< TN. OF rAC 1-1 &A (x ?0 01- O SoMC M/2kL l N/A o?? 1- P MAr)c_- r -eDar I 6,c 2Ty W ?53 N©. F 747S2- 3 1? .?N /'+pb?I-,oN ?r=r?1Lv?/ /Lo ?fT-l4 , N ?: 1 10 4 L 2s 04z s I' , r r._ L / N C? G 1-? A 2 Co <= CJ WIT / ? R ? ?2L S .S j N ?o C rJ M ? ? /? ? N t .? ?N?? ?NSV/L?N Co T1d?T- ??J ?Jl.? J?Ti-?1?? Go1--?1?? w?T?? All /t/Sow 12(-,kJ <i- cc, T-iatij /'ENO /1C j r-/AI &-oO n ! c;- vA T,L d/L /Zcr o2 C- ss /-/v/3` ,c .r /u)A ?,n C /4 o I)Jr J 21- L C) i N Ca /? o Tj(- rr f3,/ c. 1/IS T"RJL I /A T7`b/1-mL?? /aTr/4CL, /- 3k-, 14 . T-l A r OF_ T-o f Re A r (? 1 A l u r, rrs " i'iC, yes o ?.? ?Ty w / T, { r, a r-- /3^ s , c. 14 is L c: ? , r, ;-^ Tr, ?o A- T-/ Ur,, s ki /,Tic 0 ANA AS A R-CS,1r /-iV13 OCi, bt2- c/-,/ AG %r??? Ov%S, or-- >pc SGoT'L, C) 1114 L=. J- )p1'??//?+`?! 17. 114Ar 191AI 1-i -,F) F F 0,O Nit- kNow ois Lrxw go©/cam p 3oMi Mnii-k-c r v^ lvIL, wc-- 2c Nor l i? /41s (-Z;-- /zsoK,? ) AWD i-\iSs,f,,,(o s i oI .,0 Atjo )oIL Ors rko.lc:o v,v (-r= I v N 14As ".COE R-1--/ To gF, AN-s ri- 2/tc-!0 0k_AT- ©F S e i- eA?M? /-1.11 0j !;p A ! 8. 0 N 1` ?Tt: h /? c R ?-/, 2 0 ©? O rc, Ck? N 0 A N n, p r 1 r? 11A r N/o A- S r A _ 4Q t? /3 o c7c l,.r Or-- J9. /igAr Oo/*!,jf ?4v/??!C.? /?G%S WC:2L U,?jYJ?? /0& o ?- &A AND t- /s Scr SS L?-2 v1 2ro r? b r? L/k W /\ Na Ap!? oss, b l? IL/ Q ,.r l?? z /-1 rl ?,,, ?? s c /? TH L 0 ti., l Ti ( ;? ?? v 714 0 /4-- TT -v o f" T-7--s r L Z-©. -T1- /-o / /a Li x 7-1-1.1 l- R (.;F/L c v c. Is i o u r© or-- S [ &C) y (-21A 1 N T I 1 I r L tv A 0 o /c -S /-1 A )t V/A /v C, . N T, Fr- Hlav& 17S?c.s1 I L rA/I C',?Lnti c13 &oo ks T`cD T^ i u By of -- 7-1.1 r- 7-/z , e- r A T-ro c- I.1 Lys C) F- (-I c c o r C. k- h 2 W 0 CO -) 1v i -/, C CD /1 M o I..? (-21 S C--> J 12 T- o r C- ..? X-. b ` C N 0 CZ);,/ N T--, A N ?0 tv, L >? i o F C. eD 2/t e c, r1 ,?o ii -j FoA I... C l S" / -i u l3 cc? n url?/ ?is2??2na?.o ct? h/ DT c nNr:> T"s , t?;, ?; rw S L o J -l s c >~. ?G' /a ?/ w, ` ?, /ENO COC)r_- o F F.r>41L-s. 2/, ?1-IAT XAC-14 or- r-,L-;P0AwT 1 ji A jC- /L 1 `leis /S SvL0 /MDiI/J0,J•1?1?? /?l?O j/s HI ©?11Clam' ?-?1 -c11`/ 64 A p A G cv N I o ? T l1C ? f? r1t= ? e >J rss, ?/ ? ?n+ N ? ? A WO 0,JXiN Ca T4 Z, 2c. 1Lvr_nAi r -7 Mlv x/0000 /\N?? s- ohs 1? ?L 1 N 1-ra2T i-Q2 1-1 r? s? 2- vcT"I©ti SIf.?C [?nc1? ?? i?? ???w? Acf-c <D r- ?2. /MA r 0 x..?rz:Na??Nrr 1?v?c /L Or-- srnUGiI (DP o i? ?? G /1 c .r oo /C S p r S N• /,-A 2 k k- T-" V /a / v C,,v A s >J A G r I I,j 7-(-- v i-1 /j A c, l? I ?:- /? c: c. ?L 1 <:= s s G o ti OU c 7- , 's F F_ w sr, s r C? it 0 v S r-1 E N v 0 1 e. r» r12l tA 1-i T- F x 14 1 R, 1?. F, 1 F_ c? /4/ to 2 3. %/AT or rL N OA H Tr ?'S c ra it rD ?C c. l c. N N /c. A l r O s o J r a c:,? s A /Z r,- L7 ir?nNcL o ?/ n- Qv>2c= ?/ LAw W14K:/.v 7-4 P11-) / Ai 7- /L Lures ??rJ Tom/ No f ;c L / L ?l?ra//.ii N <o l ?. Ca 1 T J-- n TL ? G Ts ©? ?1V' ! L. l.? ?J.? /.r ?r ?-? ? /? c_ /L . l A l /--. z n- Fnc- ra Dt;. f`uo/-N rJr is 2LS o t? tia ( 61 am. Ae:-l-t of- CoNduc 141 c 11/-i ?/.1 /?• !-c:.2 ??2?? N L L p tau r -/ F-c-'P v la-c o Ay L n L-j '?r 1J v ?? 1 r-, o L.S./?• T Slo 3 ,?an?- 0 Irc u O? ?, T n On M /-l G ! s 2 M / S i O,G S OCAr 8c 2A r /1 ?!? Q w/A N i o N? / /•r v J O / /? 7ii a 1.j I e-12- 1e,'- Of G tTS Q L/ I o ?1 J? L SS I O IJ r 1?] v i cl I A T i? Iv o 1" lip, I JN 0? IS 1?? c,.S.n. 3 392Z. 4 E. nGr"s or 1 a1?=?T 13./ v'j, /A?j?? l TAkiij Qo IN violn?r ow OF C,. s. A. I 3? Z I . I? E L I E F \,-ji4v-2r, Fo2r.:., ('11, -C- Ff- R>LQv,s i 7-j-1Is 14ouo rL CoJ2.r r,o G2raNr rd C-:- rollCD \,aiNC. 2L./? ? A - E N rr- rL /lN V L cr I A 2A "T0 /i,,/ Jv 0 &v h+ c N r 714 A r Or, 6. IV tq - A P ri A c, r s c) A, o,,., i s s, o ti s ? 2 c_ A iv cr Iq - (Z.. r-"-. ?.... ,q iv c L O F ?v r,? /a N J v i ! r, ?.? s c? t-? rcr G ?? c,, rJ o Q. ,c\ 60, / ANA ?0 G ?GI??.. O` ?.fa) LSD' 'I IS. AN r G©w.r CNS rA I h/ A w c7 v /.? ! f? / N S T /? 1 °i ?C: 1J rJ ti T- ?O 2 ?°Q 0?1 /CS T?a t570 0 CD I-? n 1 u s T c c! d K= 1 ?=? 1.i can N T- ?o ,L 3 S"o r2o / /n ,-,c I-q 1S00(0 ENTr--A- CJ /C.-2 % ///? I ter.,Ts A /( C Tc? \--,/) J J J'13 I- CV 2 ( 1's A M ?5 oq 2 /3 ox 2 C/ aZn.i LA- / A-ro) dl-?- I /04 y2 9 F_? X't4 i a T- 1. Low, ?.,, o ? w ?, ? l T-i a o f 1 c= ?.? ??r y 1 v ? ?., ? . Co/Z/LCcl-i opi N MA"Tt',. 1 `2soNn C- -- / 5 3 !./v. A 'S 7 Q T5 Z. a Inc a-& T",,, k. ij T o 9 INMATE PERSONA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA INMATE PERTY INVENTORY Transfer 0 Hold 0 -Other DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DC Number ?1? 7 Name r? t (4? 11\ r h2 Method of ..Disposition S-Ship R-Return to Inmate D-Destroy - H-Hold for Inmate CLOTHING & ACCESSORIES TOBACCO ITEMS MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ITEM NO. METH. - ITEM NO. METH. ITEM NO. METH. - ITEM NO, METH. ITEM NO. METH. Ath. Shorts T-Shirt Ash Tray Bag-Laundry Playing Cards Ath. Supports Undershirt Cigarette Papers Basin Posters Belt Undershorts Cigarette` Roller Batteries Religious' Books Cap Underwear Bot. Cigarettes-Car. Books eligious Mat. Coat Underwear Lg. Cigarettes-Pkg. Bucket Religious' Metal Coat-Rain Underwear Top `- Cigars Carbon Paper Rug Coat-Top Vest Lighters Checkers Ruler Gloves GROOMING Matches Chess Spoon Handkerchief ITEMS Pipe Cup Tablet Paper Hat ITEM NO. METH. Pipe Cleaners Dictionary Thread k. r Jacket , Brush Pipe, Filters - Earphones Tissue Overcoat Comb Tobacco-Chew Envelopes Tub Pajamas Dental Floss Tobacco-Cig. Erasers Typing Paper Robe Denture Cup Tobacco-.Pipe Extension Cord C? Wallet Scarf Dentures Tobacco-Pouch Eyeglass Case 4' Wastebasket " Shirt Deodorant Tobacco-Snuff Eyeglasses g. Writing Paper f Shoe Brush Hair Dressing FOOD Eyeglasses-Sun i Shoe Polish Hair Pick ITEMS Games " Shoes-Boots Lotion-Shave ITEM NO. METH. Glass - ,, 0 1 44 Shoes-Dress Lotion-Body Candy-Bag Gym Bag y Shoes-Over Lotion-Hand Candy-Bars Headset 4' G F At A Shoes-Shower r Mirror _ C': T,- - -; 1S,eY--vBing - _ Shoes-Sand al Nail. Clippers Coffee Keys _ Shoes-Sneakers Petroleum Jelly Cookies Lamp Shoes-Tennis Razor Crackers Legal Books Shoes-Work Razor Blades Creamers Legal Material Shower Cap Shampoo Drink Mix Lock ,Slipper §' Shaving Cream Hot Chocolate Loose-leaf Binder Socks Soap 1,4 Peanuts Magazines Suit Soap Dish Pretzels Neck r Chain S;Weate? ? a% ?+t P Talc,?mr?,yowder. r{ bSugar. Needles f SuJeat»,Pa is F Toothbrush` A Tea Notebook Sweat Shirt Toothpaste/Pwd. rr, y e Pencils Sweat Suit Towel Pencil Shrp. Sweaters Tweezers . Pens Tie Washcloth °Photo :Album N Trousers rjQ iy r"t 1 -7 f4i Photographs 1 16 "-L 4iIF-1 T1-1AT Tip -.. kl,l 1) -: I N T'M I_ Fo n. L ©/ C o v t T- lo ni-,e?j-o ??.?, co?..ni.???, ?2? ?/ T1111.r ? /?NO?/LAVc- /?RL %/t •,L Axio Gog& _ ,Ec%. L/PO BLS T -A N+o T-14 J4 r ??l??? r? Tier L n?. st"c Ta TM -- - /90L/ //Ar/ ?o i 1IL i ?- li tiUti h ? 'a / i S, / A/,4u ???iL?l?tio. I n- 19y2Cn /o a CF- XFt 1 c. ATE, p t c. .?- , wt'l11 ?--- C U 2 i t Ncc lc. C A'/ C- c z i 6 7-1-IA 7-A R vc: /1 Iv o C, o 2 A c: c, i c. o (?2_j ©I'- 7-14g_ WT-141" /.10,- , N- Ic: c a Ga ?? r To /? M r`? 4 C I Vt f c. a ?l . N T 14A S l?+?ilc-r, y S' C i - ?/ZA rLJ???a? ,rA1 1 OL CR T? ti t" ?c ?? ?. i ? ? ?? i o 1 ? e. ©2 R rc, i ? ? u j 'Loos tl C7. i l } - Im n ?.e ? r ¦ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. C o r0 JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. rn CO 4 = Defendants ern rte-; w o ao a 2 n PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT DC= " ?C") GENERAL AND SPECIFIC AVERMENTS -G w 7?0 AND NOW, comes William Curtis, Plaintiff proceeding Pro Se in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P. files a Supplemental Complaint pursuant to General and Specific Averments Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1019 (d) and (g). I. ROUTINE PRACTICE A. Pa.R.E. Rule 406 (stating, in pertinent part... Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization... is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.) 1. That Defendants Beard, Kelchner and Southers, instead of remedying Plaintiff's legitimate claims once Senior District Attorney Matthew P. Smith, forwarded his letter and Plaintiff's Private Criminal Complaint to Department of Corrections and each Defendant failed to adequately investigate Plaintiff's Personal Property claims and act in accordance with their performance of duty required by law. See Exhibit E. 2. At page 5 of Plaintiff's Private Criminal Complaint it stated in specifically clear language that Defendant Huber failed to write the titles of each brand new law book of some market value on Plaintiff Personal Property Receipt DC-153 No. A57975. See Exhibits (D) and (M). 3. In addition, Jeffrey Beard, along with Defendants Kelchner and Southers, despite being in charge with redressing complaints and ensuring that prison staff comply with all prison rules, regulations and policies failed to alleviate or redress Huber's acts or omissions after receiving notice by Senior District Attorney Matthew P. Smith, as early as July 18, 2005, at least an entire year before their subordinate Huber claimed the complete destruction of Plaintiff's brand new law books. 4. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, Defendants knew about the conduct and facilitated it and their lack of supervision conveyed an approval of deliberate indifferent misconduct. See Exhibits (B) and (C). 5. That Defendant Beard's policies promulgated December 1, 2009, pertaining to Plaintiff's access to photocopied legal case law materials while confined in the RHU, that no legal case law materials will be photocopied and sent by the Librarian to Plaintiff in the RHU if available on the law library computers and said policy is promulgated unnecessarily narrow to condone their pernicious practice and routine of indifference to legal materials past and present inclusive of Plaintiff's brand new law books being needlessly destroyed causing undue hardship. See Exhibit (I). 2 II. DC-ADM 007 B. Access to Provided Legal Services Sec. 1, and Subsection C.1 shall now read, 1. (Legal materials that are not available via the law library computers, shall be requested by using the Comprehensive Paging System Request Form.) See Exhibit (I) 6. That photocopies of voluminous legal case law available on the computer will not be photocopied and sent to the RHU such as the following: a. McCleskey v. Kemp 107 S.Ct 1756, (61 Pages); b. Furman v. Georgia (U.S. Ga. 1972) (152 Pages); c. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 126 S.Ct. 2749, (121 Pages); d. Regents University of California v. Bakke (U.S. Cal 1978) (105 Pages) and are not longer available as photocopies to be held for a period of 30 days and then returned to the law library. If Plaintiff is fortunate he may be scheduled by RHU personnel for the law library 3 hours each week. Defendants expect Plaintiff to be able to read, decipher, and understand legal jargon in case law (a,b,c,d) stated in this averment No. 6 above in a one hour law library session. III. DC-ADM 815 C. Personal Property, revised April 2009, C. Handling of Property for Transfers, 2.C Facility Transfers (stating, in pertinent part, if there is space available on the bus/van for additional boxes, the inmate(s) approved excess authorized written materials may be transported. If there is no space available, the excess boxes will remain at the sending facility for shipping at a later date. The sending facility shall first attempt to transport any remaining boxes via other department vehicles going to the receiving facility. See Exhibit (K1) 3 7. That Defendant Beard promulgated a significant distinction that is an impediment between DC-ADM 815 revised April 2009, above which provided for legal property to be transported if space was available on bus/van. At C. Handling of Property for Transfers, 2.c Facility Transfers and a new DC-ADM 815 revised 11/2009, below which is void of any good faith, illogical and deeply disturbing pertaining to Plaintiff's Personal Property stating at DC-ADM 815 revised 11/2009, the following: C. Handling of Property for Transfers 2.b Facility Transfers. (stating in pertinent part ...the inmate shall be informed that additional boxes ((two additional boxes for permitted cell contents items, and any additional boxes of authorized legal materials) Will be shipped by the least expensive common carrier available (U.S. mail. UPS. etc.)). See Exhibit (K2) 8. That each new policy DC-ADM 007 12/1/09 Access to Provide Legal Services, DC-ADM 815 C. Handling of Property for Transfers revised 11/2009 and Policy: No Free Legal Forms 3/19/09 all promulgated by the Dept. of Corrections are not a developing perspective that would make Plaintiff substantively better off. As a result, each policy is contrary to any penalogical purpose and compelling state interest. IV. NO FREE LEGAL FORMS No Free Legal Forms: (stating, in pertinent part, Department of Corrections is no longer providing free forms...). See Exhibit (P) 9. That the restrictive view of each policy is an affirmative link to problematic patterns of abuse suffered by Plaintiff past and present because of the Department of Corrections routine practices. 4 V. Pa. Department of Corrections Code of Ethics 7. (stating, in pertinent part, personal property of inmates will be handled with extreme care and disposed of only by properly designated authority in manner designated by offical Department Correction's policy ...theft or abuse of property or equipment is prohibited.) See Exhibit (0) 10. That Defendant Huber's acts and admissions were a failure to perform legally mandated ministerial duties such as handle Plaintiff's property with extreme care, without theft or abuse of his property that are violations of Department of Corrections Code of Ethics Rule No. 7. 11. That Defendant Huber's flagrant misuse of power was brought to the attention of the other Defendants, by way of Plaintiff's second Private Criminal Complaint filed pertaining to an assault which occurred on April 5, 2005 and mailed to Cumberland County District Attorney Office between June and September 2005. See Exhibit (F) 12. That Plaintiff filed several Formal Complaints with Pennsylvania's Labor & Industry since Defendants had an abject indifference to State and Federal Law such as substantial building construction alterations without state certification and creating fire hazard conditions pertaining to the storage of Plaintiff's property by Defendant Huber. See Exhibit (G) 13. It follows that, the facts stated in averment No. 12 Labor and Industry issued (Order No. 701093) at File No. 204565 dated August 17, 2005, because of Plaintiff's complaints. 14. The Department of Corrections requested a Variance for Modular Housing Unit 5 (E-Block) from Labor & Industry dated November 23, 2005. See Exhibit (G1) 5 15. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, Labor and Industry's Order No. 701093 at Page (4) states at COMPLIANCE DATE November 23, 2005, "Failure to comply with this order may result in legal action which may include and could jeopardize your continued use and occupancy of this building" specifically directed to Defendants Beard, Kelchner and Southers, caused them to condone and facilitate Huber's acts and omissions when he destroyed Plaintiff's law books. See Exhibit (G) at Page (4). 16. That Plaintiff did not give Defendant Huber permission to destroy his pristine law books of market value. 17. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, it is specifically clear language in his initial copy of "Form DC135A Request to Staff Member" dated May 3, 2005, what law books to be stored and retained in his personal property and this request was deliberately ignored by Defendant Huber. See Exhibit (B) 18. That Plaintiff made it specifically clear language in his Private Criminal Complaint at page (5) filed around July 2005, what law books to be stored and retained in his personal property. See Exhibit (D) Page (5) 19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, his detailed descriptions of different categories such as: "law book titles", "name of authors" and "law book purchase price" in his Habeas Corpus Petition at averment No. 28, pages (6) & (7) leave no room for speculation what books are wanted, but Defendants rebuked Plaintiff's reasonable request and exponentially defying logic that "no measure of a process effectiveness can be wholly separated from the purpose of which it was initiated." 6 20. That Defendant Southers despite being charged with redressing complaints and ensuring that prison staff comply with all prison rules, regulations and policies failed to alleviate Huber's acts of wanton willful misconduct. See Exhibit (H) 21. That Defendant Kelchner despite being charged with redressing complaints and ensuing that prison staff comply with all prison rules, regulations and policies failed to alleviate Huber's acts of wanton willful misconduct. See Exhibit (J) 22. That Defendant Huber violated the DOC's Code of Ethics at No. 7: (stating, in pertinent part, the personal property of inmates will be handled with extreme care . in a manner designated by Official Department of Correction Policy ...) on 9/4/06 the day Huber packed Plaintiff's property pre Revised April 2009 DC-ADM 815 Personal Property 2.C Facility Transfers: (stating, in pertinent part, ... space available on the bus/van for additional boxes, the inmates(s) approved excess authorized written materials may be transported ...) It follows that, Huber failed to follow DOC Policy and that failure cost Plaintiff ($81.57) and Defendant Beard, Kelchner and Southers failed to alleviate Huber's acts and omissions. See Exhibit (L) 23. On April 5, 2005, Defendant Huber did not fill in the number of "legal books" in the proper slot and Huber did not "write the names of the law book titles" at "items description" on the Cmwlth of Penna. Dept. of Corrections DC-153 Personal Property Inventory No. A579752. As a result, Plaintiff refused to sign this document. See Exhibit (M) 7 24. That Defendant Huber acted with impunity to destroy personal property, use excessive force, in addition to his blatant acts of antagonism which were all thwart by a jury trial verdict of "Not Guilty" on August 12, 2009, in the Common Pleas Court of Cumberland County CP-21-CR-2370-2008, for non-legitimate charges Huber filed is a vivid illustration of his continuation of problematic patterns and abuses." See Exhibits (N) & (Nl) 25. That the Department of Corrections routine practice and their non-expansive view and now a restrictive view of legal property under Policy DC-ADM 815 Revised ll/April 2009, was illustrated Pre-Revised DC-ADM 815 ll/April 2009, by Defendant's denial to transport Plaintiff's legal property on an "empty bus" with only "(3) inmates" on September 6, 2005, costing ($81.57) to transport property by UPS, is illogical and serves no penalogical purpose and compelling state interest. See Exhibit (K2) 26. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, Defendant Huber, was not only allowed to approve the destruction of Plaintiff's pristine law books, but could authorize the destruction of Plaintiff's pristine law books of market value in excess of an amount of ($850.00) without approval of the DOC's "Unit Manager", "Superintendent" or "Commissioner." See Exhibits (A), (Al) & (D) at Page (5) 27. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, whatever policies Defendant Huber claimed were applied to Plaintiff's law book destruction were not the least restrictive means of furthering any compelling government interest. 8 28. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, any least restrictive means would be to allow Plaintiff to choose what property he may keep in the storage units and Plaintiff told Defendants by way of descriptions such as "Law Book Titles", "Name of Authors" and "Law Book Purchase Price" written in his "Inmate Request to Staff Form DC-135A", "Private Criminal Complaint" and "Writ of Habeas Corpus" and because of Huber's personal animus and deep seeded resentment towards Plaintiff each reasonable request was denied. 29. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, rescinding and eradicating the harmful effects of restrictive and narrow policies which serve no compelling government interest such as, "DC ADM-815 Inmate Property Revised April 11/2009 Transfer C.2 Handling of Property for Transfers", "DC ADM-007 Access to Provide Legal Services, (Sec.l, C.1)", and "Dept. of Corrections Legal Form Policy" should be a reversal from deep problems of resentment and unwillingness of state employees not to use the proper care when handling Plaintiff's property providing prospective relief. See Exhibits No. (K2), (I) and (P). 30. That Defendant Beard, Kelchner and Southers are responsible for a non-performance of duty requried by law, when they rebuked Plainitff's numerous complaints as warning of Huber's acts and omissions which turned out to be true and legitimate concerns pertaining to his personal property. 9 VI. CLAIMS a. Each DOC Policy (DC ADM-007) "Access to Provide Legal Services", (DC ADM-815) "Inmate Property Revised April 11/2009 C. Handling of Property for Transfer 2. Facility Transfers" and "Legal Form Policy", did not further a valid government interest, as a result are punitive acts not furthering any compelling government interest. b. Each Defendant is responsible for deliberate acts of conduct which "shun a performance of duty required by law" in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. 8303. C. That Defendant Adam Huber's acts and omissions are deliberate acts of "wanton willful misconduct" in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. 8550. d. Acts of Theft by Deception in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3922. e. Acts of Theft by Unlawful taking in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3921. f. Each Defendant is responsible for deliberate acts of "Official Oppression" in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 5301. 10 VII. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: a. Enter a Declaratory Judgment that each DOC Policy stated in Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint be rescinded; b. Enter a Declaratory Judgment that Defendants acts or omissions are a non-performance of duty and violations of State and Federal Law and Dept. of Corrections Code of Ethics; C. Grant compensatory damages in the following amount against each defendant for $3500.00 Dollars to $5000.00 Dollars; d. Grant punitive damages in the following amounts against each defendant for $3500.00 Dollars to $5000.00 Dollars; e. Enter an order that defendants are to comply with Pa.R.C.P. Discovery Rules; and f. Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated:. $ , 2010 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint General and Specific Averments and Appendix of Exhibits has been mailed by way of SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: 4Z&Z&? a William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: PLf ?-. ti 2010 12 } IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Civil Term No. 08-5279 C-) • C= 0 :a C3 C= O -? r'r1 rn -? Fri F*1 ' f*1 - x ?u U) r 7 C -- v r i =C3 • ?D r w ono C O 2 0 -•p 0 _ C 2> N C:) -< C3 y APPENDIX OF PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT AND GENERAL AND SPECIFIC AVERMENTS Exhibit A: West Group Sale Invoice total price ($153.17) Exhibit Al: Thomas West Sale Invoice total price ($416.58) Exhibit B: DOC Form DC-135A Carbon Copy dated May 3, 2005 Exhibit C: Writ of Habeas Corpus No. 05-2926 Exhibit D: Private Criminal Complaint Pa.C.Crim.P. 504 Exhibit E: Letter of Matthew P. Smith Senior Assistant District Attorney dated July 18, 2005 Exhibit F: Private Criminal Complaint No. 2 Pa.R.Crim.P. 504 Exhibit G: Labor and Industry Order No. 701093 Exhibit Gl: Defendants Variance Request Exhibit H: Plaintiff's Grievance No. 164511 Exhibit I: Defendant's DC ADM-007 Access to Provide Legal Services Exhibit J: Plaintiff's Appeal Initial Grievance No. 164511 to Superintendent Kelchner Exhibit K: DC ADM-815 Inmate Property Revised April 2009 Transfer C. Handling of Property for Transfers (2. Facility Transfers Pg. 1-5) Exhibit K2: DC ADM-815 Inmate Property Revised April 11/2009 Transfer C. Handing of Property for Tranfers (2. Facility Transfers Pg. 1-5) Exhibit L: Plaintiff's Appeal No. 164515 to Chief Hearing Examiner Exhibit M: DC-153 Property Inventory No. A579752 Exhibit N: Letter of Michael D. Rentschler, P.C. Exhibit N1: Verdict Slip of trial for Defendant Huber Cumberland County Exhibit 0: Department of Corrections Code of Ethics (Pg. 4 No. 7) Exhibit P: Department of Corrections Legal Form Policy. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: 2010 ¦ EXHIBIT NO. A THOMSQN New Sale Invoice WEST BILLING ACCOUNT# 1003056768 NEW SALE INVOICE# 6012222724 ORDER# 755304 P.O. Box 64779 INVOICE DATE 11/25/2002 St.Paul, MN 55164-0779 AMOUNT DUE 163 17.• . CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1Y800/328-4880 For payment Instructions and contact information see reverse 07 SALES REPRESENTATIVE ORDER DATE SHIP DATE DELIVERY # 11/22/2002 11/25/2002 618346125 P MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q . UNICT 40120653 HARRISON PA FORMS'FOR RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (WETTICK) FULL SET 1 144.50 . PAGE 1 OF ASE ORDER# K TOTAL 8.67 153..17 S THANK YOU TOTAL 153.17 WEST GROUP '11.':P ATHOMSON COMPANY P.O. Box 64779 St.Paul, MN 55 1 64-077 9 JSTOMER SERVICE: 1/8001328-4880 en+ inatn/rrinne snrl rnnn?aet infnrmation see reverse EXHIBIT Al 07 PAGE 1 OF 1 SALES REPRESENTATIVE ORDER ;DATE SHIP DATE DELIVERY. # PURCHASE ORDER# 02/22/2002 02/26/2002 608479106 ARTERIAL DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT TAX TOTAL PRICE 20032285 PA PRACTICE V2 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1 160.00 9.60. 169.60 S 11911153 PA PRACTICE V3 AND 4 TORTS ,LAW AND ADVOCACY 1 210.00 12.60 222.60 S 15347635 PA COURT RULES STATE PAM 1 23.00 1.38 24.38 S TOTAL 416.58 THANK YOU NEW SALE INVOICE# 6005221682 VENDOR# 41-1426973 BILLING ACCOUNT# 1003046131 AMOUNT DUE 416.56 AMOUNT ENCLOSED RETURN BOTTOM PORTION WITH PAYMENT 1003046131 WILLIAM CURTIS #AM8092 SCI AT SMITHFIELD PO Box 999 HUNTINGDON PA 16652 West Group Payment Center P.O. Box 6292 Carol Stream, IL 60197-6292 9141 _?!f X13 ! r1 __ _____________?????.. .. .. .. ter. nn,r. ••r?r ?s T&111 nn nn 1.n I rn nn1 n 'I nrs1 r11,f 1'11 7 New Sale Invoice BILLING ACCOUNT# 1003046131 NEW SALE INVOICE# 6005221682 ORDER# 320038 INVOICE DATE _ 02126/2002 AMOUNT DUE 416.58 9 v EXHIBIT B tiv 1 I 1 i n 1, C U10 tS A/)-*) 9092- 5-13105- C F l'z. /S / NLrD /"I1F a/ L? w kl_??- ??J ???` f? 5???.?? P? IOAACTic F_ V3 4 1,j0 v 41 761L Ts LA w n No Ab voc ? c. y R y 6/', Ail /-JTvlkl ? A.io Gr&.Arn Mc)/u(,//, ic.r 2Z Z 6o 2) 11ArcA150" PA. or CIvrL ? 3) fA f-A.ACIICF- VZ C?1t,11-rAL Poor(-'m.r 9y 0A wj 2u k7 it a So5,U? v P/cr- X /69. 601 PAr-rie,L Loc,/c rc,C 20. 00 ; l3/nck> Lf; ?? l?,CJ ??N,alt !'Rrc>' ?'70, 00 y /?nF,,(,' :?•7/GUS/ 7`iE/c r ` 7_.?.0C1 Ur,r vF,f. l0/ t ul?r:lii??l f / ?t,VC% llf? Ju C/-r" tvOcm7 (/`1% ) / ./°,i: 2vDO. EXHIBIT C IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Petitioner No: VS. JEFFERY A. BEARD, PhD, COMMISSIONER; DONALD KELCHNER, SUPERINTENDENT, SCI-CAMP HILL; EUGENE BRANNIGAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR FACILITY MANAGEMENT; D. PATTON, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR CENTRALIZED SERVICES. Respondents ORDER OF COURT And now, this day of , 2005 upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 42 Pa. C.S. §§6502(b) et. seq., the Court hereby declares that the decisions imposed by the Program Review Committee, "Special Management Unit" in matters of Administrative Custody Status pertaining to William Curtis, DC-141 Part III of March 24, 2005 and April 5, 2005, are declared to be illegal and are vacated in accordance with Federal and State Law. J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS . Petitioner No: VS. JEFFERY A. BEARD, PhD, COMMISSIONER; DONALD KELCHNER, SUPERINTENDENT, SCI-CAMP HILL; EUGENE BRANNIGAN, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR FACILITY MANAGEMENT; D. PATTON, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR CENTRALIZED SERVICES. Respondents PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 42 PA. C.S. 666502(B) et. seq. 1. Petitioner William Curtis, is a prisoner proceeding pro se and confined in the Restricted Housing Unit, sub-unit "Special Management Unit" (SMU) at the State Correctional Institution Camp Hill, P.O. Box 8837, 2500 Lisburn Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17001- 8837, a facility operated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 2. Respondent Jeffery A. Beard, Ph.D. is Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 3. Respondent Donald Kelchner, is Superintendent at SCI-Camp Hill. 4. Respondent Eugene Brannigan, is Deputy Superintendent for Facility Management at SCI-Camp Hill. 5. Respondent D. Patton, is Deputy Superintendent for Centralized Services at SCI- Camp Hill. 6. Each Respondent in Averment No. (2) through (5) has acted under "The Color of State Law" in their official and individual capacity. And each Respondent is responsible for Petitioner's "Conditions of Confinement." JURISDICTION 7. Original jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court is based on Pa. Const. Art. I, §§5. HISTORY OF THE CASE 8. On March 23, 2005 Petitioner was transferred from the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, while being confined on Administrative Custody (AC) status in the Restricted Housing Unit, to the Restricted Housing Unit, sub-unit "Special Management Unit" (SMU) at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. A facility operated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 9. At SCI-Camp Hill's, Restricted Housing Unit, sub-unit "Special Management Unit" between 10:45 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. Petitioner was strip searched with 6 to 7 of Respondent's agents, servants and/or employees watching. Then Petitioner was assigned to the (SMU) Phase IV Housing Unit. 10. On March 24, 2005, Petitioner was taken to a "Special Management Unit" initial Program Review Committee hearing in an extremely repressive, demeaning, and humiliating manner. Respondent's agents handcuffed Petitioner with a (tether attachment) defined as, "something (as a rope) by which an animal is fastened." Respondent's agents placed their tether 2 between Petitioner's legs and crotch area so that the tether was rubbing aggressively up against his genitals causing unnecessary agitation and discomfort. While the tether was being held and pulled from behind by one of the Respondent's agents, servants and/or employees. 11. During the "Special Management Units" (PRC) hearing on March 24, 2005, Respondents did not present any special information, circumstantial or substantial evidence as to why Petitioner should be confined in the Restricted Housing Unit Phase (4) of the (SMU). The established "Special Management Units" hearing procedures fail to provide reasonable standards by which Petitioner may gauge his conduct from the past, now or future conduct and these acts are not permitted under U. S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14 12. At the "Special Management Unit" hearing on March 24, 2005, Respondents denied Petitioner's request that he be provided with his basic fundamental hygiene items such as skin moisturizing soap, body lotion, toothpaste, partial denture plate container, and deodorant. Petitioner also asked the Respondents and their agents, servants and/or employees for his eyeglasses. Each of the Petitioner's reasonable requests were denied by Respondents, and these acts are not permitted under Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.11(b) Administrative Custody Shall Preclude Punitive Punishment. 13. Petitioner informed Respondents that while being sanctioned to 30 days disciplinary custody (DC-ADM 801) and confined under Administrative Custody (DC-ADM 802) at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield Petitioner was allowed to purchase basic fundamental hygiene items from the Institution's Commissary. Items such as moisturizing skin soap, for his extremely dry skin, body lotion, toothpaste, a partial denture plate container, and deodorant. 3 14. Prior to confinement in the Restricted Housing Unit, sub-unit "Special Management Unit" at each custody level stated in averment (13) disciplinary and.administrative levels Petitioner could purchase a variety of family, friend and acquaint greeting cards, such as birthday cards, get well cards, and sympathy cards. 15. Respondent's agents, servants and/or employees denied Petitioner's reasonable request on March 24, 2005, that he be given his moisturizing soap for his extremely dry skin. Respondents told Petitioner to make a request to the Medical Department if he had skin problems and that he would be charged a co-pay medical fee. 16. Because Respondents acted indifferently to Petitioner's serious medical need and denied Petitioner his moisturizing skin soap and body lotion Petitioner developed a skin reaction. A skin rash with itchy and scaly skin. 17. Respondents denial to provide Petitioner with his proper hygiene items "moisturizing skin soap and body lotion" resulted in Petitioner being examined by a Physician Assistant who prescribed a moisturizing skin lotion for Petitioner. 18. Respondents acts an omissions resulted into Petitioner developing a skin reaction then, a charge of $4.00, co-pay, by the Physicians Assistant. 19. That Respondents acts an omissions pertaining to Phase (4) "Special Management Unit" are a punitive response to Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.11(b), since Respondents deny the purchase of basic fundamental hygiene items, and the non-legitimate confiscation of Petitioners eyeglasses, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 20. That Respondents acts and omissions has created a severe disability and loss of function that affects Petitioner. The confiscation of his eyeglasses and loss of vital function. A 4 condition that "significantly affects an individual's daily activities" is serious. Koehl v. Dalsheim, 85 F.3d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1996) (loss of vision) U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 21. Petitioner believes and therefore avers, that by Respondents subjecting him to using only toothpaste by the name of (Freshmint) net wt. 2.75 oz, with an expiration date of 4/3/72, 33 years past its legal use for human consumption and that there might be a danger to his mouth, teeth, gums and throat and Petitioner not knowing it, or he might be what is defined as a "future - a person who is not sick now but, may someday get sick" McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (future injury) U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 22. Petitioner believes and therefore avers, that Respondents "Special Management Unit" DC-141 Part III Program Review Committee hearing and decision date March 24, 2005, deprived Petitioner of Due Process because Respondents did not present any special information circumstantial or substantial evidence of any wrongdoing that Petitioner received a Misconduct Report under (DC-ADM 801) Class 1 charges 1 through 14 that may have warranted the harsh punitive conditions imposed by confinement in the (SMU). Punitive Administrative Custody is not permitted under Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.11(b), and the deprivation of a liberty interest is not permitted under U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14. The totality of conditions in the "Special Management Units" Phase (4) is not permitted under U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 23. Respondents acts and omissions have subjected Petitioner to sleep deprivation. Incessant light in the cell Respondents assigned him. An intentional infliction of emotional distress fit's punitive punishment] - light on all night. 24. Respondents are responsible for poor and faulty building maintenance of the (E) Housing Unit infrastructure. Incessant noise, a continuing clanging noise, banging noise, hissing and pinging noise, pounding and knocking noise between the cell walls. This variety of noise 5 pollution being caused in or around installation pipes, duct canals and/or pipes for plumbing and heating. The noise pollution is more intensified at night, causing Petitioner sleep deprivation. 25. Petitioner believes and therefore avers, Respondents knowingly and deliberately attempt to stifle, impede and frustrate any resolution to defending any complaint or legal matter since he is not given access and use of the paper stapler to hold his legal papers together. Respondents have made an "oral rule," that's not "on paper." Petitioner must send the "Special Management Unit" Counselor a request form to use the paper stapler for legal materials. There is no guarantee the (SMU) Counselor shall be there and no guarantee that any of the Respondent's, agents, servants and/or employees, shall be willing to perform such an important and at the same time, ministerial duty. 26. Respondent's agents, servants and/or employees reopen all of Petitioner's letters, legal mail, etc. A second time once his mail arrives to the "Special Management Unit" from the mail department, which inspects each piece of incoming mail and x-rays each piece of incoming mail first, therefore, no compelling state interest exist to warrant the opening and inspection of Petitioner's mail a second time. 27. Respondents acts an omissions have exposed Petitioner to potential harm from infectious disease such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis A, B, C and foot fungus during shower period since the "Special Management Unit" permits toenail clippers and fingernail clippers to pass from one inmate to another without first dipping the grooming instruments into a virus or bactericidal disinfectant and these acts are not permitted under P.S. Title 35 Health and Safety and U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 28. Petitioner believes and therefore avers, that Respondents "oral rules" that are not written on paper which have denied Petitioner the following law books: 6 A. Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure - Form and Commentary by David Rudovsky and Leonard Sosnov; B. Pennsylvania Torts - Law and Advocacy by S. Gerald Litvin and Gerald A. McHugh, Jr.; C. Pennsylvania Form for Rules of Civil Procedure; D. Black's Law Dictionary Because the books of law, are hardback and there is no legitimate compelling state interest for Respondents to deny Petitioner access to his books of Law, so he can defend legal cases other than to impede Petitioners access to the courts. 29. On April 5, 2005 at the "Special Management Unit" (PRC) hearing the Respondents agents, servants and/or employees at DC-141 Part III, "Rubber Stamped" their March 24, 2005, decision that Petitioner's liberty privileges and rights remain a retraction without presenting some evidence to legitimately continue him in the harsh conditions of Phase (4) of the (SMU) Program. 30. In fact, the "Special Management Units" Administrative Segregation and Punitive Conditions appears to be specifically prohibited by: A. Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.11(b) B. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend 8; C. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend 14. 31. Respondents "Special Management Unit" imposes "atypical and significant" hardship on Petitioner in "relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." COMPARISON OF GENERAL POPULATION TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT UNIT PHASE IV GENERAL POPULATION (SMU) PHASE IV A) Family visits contact at least (5) to (6) hours each visit. A) Non-contact visits (1) hour. B) Out of cell at least (14) hours daily. B) Out of cell (5) hours each week. 7 C) Education programming G.E.D., vocational, college therapeutic and social programs. D) Weekly religious services. E) Family telephone calls daily. F) Personal hygiene showers daily C) Post high school correspondence course. D) None. E) None. F) Showers only (3) times each week. G) Personal hygiene items, cosmetics soap, G) None. toothpaste, body lotion, deodorant, partial denture container and cleaner I) Winter clothing, thermals sets; tops and I) Winter clothing internal none. Jumpsuits bottoms, sweat shirts, pants, insulated same material winter and summer. No boots. boots issued for daily winter conditions. External clothing coat inadequate lining for frigid winter temperatures. I) Exercise yard (3) times a day April through I) Exercise yard (1) hour (5) days each week September, (2) hour intervals. and no recreation equipment. J) Commissary items vast varieties of food J) None: Must sign up and pay $4 to co-pay, ` concessions, non-food materials and since purchases of medications such as cosmetics. analgesic tablets, aspirins and allergy medication is prohibited and no family greeting cards. K) Grooming and shaving each day. L) Free from physical restraints. M) Typewriter, radio, television, walkman, musical instruments. K) Shaving only (3) times each week. L) Physical restraints and strip searched constantly; physical restraints handcuffs, leg iron shackles, and tether (animal rope). M) None. N) Regular scheduling of law library session, N) (SMLJ) mini law library inadequate. No with Sheppard Citation books. Sheppard Citation books. Scheduling is inconsistent. O) Drinking cup purchasable at Commissary. O) None. 8 32. Respondents handbook for (SMU) inmates page (2) Phase IV (stating, in pertinent part, the First Administrative Custody Phase.... inmates will receive the required minimum privileges and services established by (ADM 802).... inmates will have no services beyond the Phase V inmates). Phase V meaning, disciplinary custody inmates. 33. Petitioner believes and therefore avers, that Respondents acts an omissions to punish him to services and privileges a standard on equal measure under Disciplinary Custody (ADM 801) while Petitioner's Disciplinary Custody sanction expired on December 20, 2004 at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, and now to subject Petitioner to the services and privileges of disciplinary punishment while he is sanction to Administrative Custody (ADM 802) is an act of punitive punishment and the like which appears to be specifically prohibited by: A. Title 37 Pa Code §§93.11(b) (stating, in pertinent part... precludes the presence of punitive punishment in Administrative Custody...); B. Fourteenth Amendment U.S. Const. (stating, in pertinent part ...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due ` process of law; nor deny to any person ...the equal protection of the law). 34. Moreover, Petitioner has been housed in the "Restricted Housing Unit" since November 21, 2004, at SCI-Smithfield. While sanctioned to (30) days disciplinary custody services and privileges included personal hygiene items such as soap, toothpaste, deodorant, aspirins, allergy medication, analgesic tablets and family greeting cards, all available by way of commissary purchases and while on Administrative Custody Petitioner was permitted to make (1) phone call each month. 9 .CLAIMS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 35. All acts an omissions of Respondents in averments 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, violated Petitioner's Eighth Amendment Constitutional rights. 36. Petitioner's Eighth Amendment Constitutional rights to be free from: A. Excessive strip searches with 6 or 7 of Respondents agents, servants and/or employees watching; B. Physical restraints such as a tether that is degrading, humiliating and used as an instrument to intimidate; C. Incessant noise pollution which is more intensified at night causing sleep deprivation because of faulty infrastructure maintenance; D. Incessant light causing sleep deprivation, cell light on all night, instrument of psychological torture; E. Deliberate indifference to provide toothpaste with an expiration date of April 3, 1972; F. Deliberate indifference to (loss of vision) and headaches due to confiscation of eyeglasses; G. Deliberate indifference and forced to use soap that caused a skin reaction; H. Deliberate indifference exposure to infectious disease such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis A, B, C and foot fungus, disinfectant not used on toenail and fingernail grooming instruments. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 37. All acts an omissions of Respondents in averments 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, violated Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. 38. Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from: 10 A. Confinement in harsher conditions under Administrative Custody since March 23, 2005, than received from a sanction of (30) days disciplinary custody under Misconduct Report No. 267662, from November 21, 2004, until December 20, 2004; B. Procedures that arbitrarily abrogate and systematically fail to provide due process; C. Summary punishment and punitive punishment; D. Denial of legitimate legal books of law to defend legal cases; E. "Rubber Stamp" and vague written responses of the PRC on DC- 141 Part III, stating that "Petitioner is a serious risk to any staff and inmate;" F. Obstruction in preparing legal papers for the courts. Denial of access to the paper stapler and no Sheppard Citations in R.H.U. law library. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 39. All acts an omissions of Respondents in averments 12, 13, 14,15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, violated Petitioners Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.11(b) rights. 40. Petitioner's Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.1 l(b) rights to be free from: A. Punitive Administrative Custody and confinement under (DC- ADM 802); B. Privileges and rights retractions, which are a significant modification while, confined to Administrative Custody that the retractions of these acts are below the established standards for disciplinary custody confinement throughout the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. C. The conditions of confinement that are absolutely disciplinary "in kind and degree" while being subjected to Administrative Custody confinement with the denial of the release of my personal property and all privileges restored. 11 RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner request this Honorable Court to grant the following relief: A. Issue a Declaratory Judgment that Respondents violated the United States Constitution and Pennsylvania Constitution and State Laws when Respondents: 1. Use excessive cavity and strip searches that are an instrument for harassment, degradation, humiliation and intimidation. 2. Use physical restraints (tether attachment) that is not banal an unnecessary an instrument for harassment, degradation, humiliation and intimidation. 3. Permit incessant loud noise at night causing sleep deprivation, noise between walls of building because of faulty infrastructure maintenance. 4. Permit incessant light, cell light on all night causing sleep deprivation. 5. Are wholly responsible for deliberate indifference to fundamental basic hygiene needs and provide a toothpaste by the name of Freshmint with an expiration date of April 3, 1972. 6. Are wholly responsible for deliberate indifference causing physical pain "headaches" loss of vision "confiscation of eyeglasses." 7. Are wholly responsible for deliberate indifference to medical need causing a skin reaction. 8. Expose Petitioner to infectious disease such as Hepatitis A, B, C, HIV/AIDS and foot fungus, non-disinfectant grooming instruments. 9. Refuse to transfer Petitioner or release Petitioner to general population. 10. Stop or impede access to petition the court and denial of possession to legitimate books or law to defend legal cases. 11. Continue the confinement of Petitioner in punitive Administrative Custody abrogating due process creating "atypical and significant" hardship. B. Issue an Injunction ordering Respondent's and their agents, servants and/or employees: 1. To refrain from conduct that impedes or stops access to the court. 12 2. To refrain from excessive force, intimidation and harassment directed towards Petitioner for filing this suit of law in court. 3. To refrain from the denial of appropriate and necessary personal hygiene items. 4. To rescind the use of (DC-ADM 802) policies and practices pertaining to the "Special Management Unit" as punitive and unconstitutional. Return Petitioner's eyeglasses and release all personal property. 6. Transfer Petitioner or release Petitioner to general population. C. Grant that a meaningful review of the facts herein is warranted. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: .2005 13 EXHIBIT D COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY CRIMINAL COMPLAINT D.A. File Number: WILLIAM CURTIS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Affiant VS. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUBER Defendant PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT RULE 504 NAME OF THE AFFIANT 1. Mr. William Curtis NAME ADDRESS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANT 2. Correctional Officer Huber, the Defendant is employed at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, located at 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837, Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837. During the time of these incidents Huber, was scheduled to the 8 am to 4 pm shift and assigned to the "Restricted Housing Unit," (E) Housing Unit. Correctional Officer Huber is a Caucasian male: A) Height between 5 feet 8 inches and 5 feet 9 and a half inches; B) Weight between 167 lbs to 180 lbs. DIRECT ACCUSATION 3. That Defendant Huber, is responsible for numerous acts in bad faith and Huber, is in direct violations of the Penal Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: A) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 4911 Unworn Falsification of Documents; B) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 4902 Falsify or Tampering with Official Documents; C) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18,3921(A) Theft by Unlawful Taking; D) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 3922(A)(2) Theft by Deception; E) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 2709 Harassment; F) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 5301 Official Oppression. DATE OF OFFENSE COMMITTED 4) The offenses committed by Huber, occurred on April 5, 2005 between 8:45 am and 9:15 am. PLACE WHERE THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED 5) State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837, Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837. Acts committed at the Restricted "Special Management Unit." SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 6) On April 5, 2005, Defendant Huber, came to the cell Affiant occupied to escort Affiant to inventory his personal property. The Defendant knew Affiant was transferred to the Restricted Housing Unit at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill on March 23, 2005, and Huber, deliberately delayed the inventory process for thirteen days. The Defendant Huber, denied Affiant the right to properly unpack and re-inventory his personal property as promulgated under Inmate Handbook 2003 at Shipping of Personal Property(G)(11). Since Huber, denied the Affiant his right to unpack and re-inventory his personal property as stated by Department of Correction policy there was no legitimate way to determine if any of Affiant's personal property is lost, missing and/or stolen. Defendant Huber is responsible for acts of unsworn falsification of documents when Defendant Huber, placed his signature on Inmate Personal Property Receipt DC-153 No. A579752, dated April 5, 2005, and failed to follow the procedures enacted under Pennsylvania 2 laws [specifically 37 Pa. Code §§93.4(b) and §§93.5] and Pennsylvania Department of Connections Directive 815. The portions of DC-ADM 815(G) (relating to shipping of personal property), state: 11) At the receiving facility, you will unpack and re-inventory the property in the presence of an officer, both you and the officer must sign the inventory sheet. 14) In those cases that you cannot be present during inventory procedures, the Property Officer and another employee shall process the property and both shall sign the form. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Directive 815 (2003). Not only do the provisions advance Affiant's claim they specifically provide further insight to Defendant Huber's violation of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Code of Ethics. The portion of the Code of Ethics (B) Specific Rules and Regulations Department of Corrections (relating to personal property of inmates), state: 7) The personal property of inmates will be handled with extreme care and disposed of only by properly designated authority in a manner designated by Official Department of Corrections Policy. Similarly, no employee may assume the right of ownership of ro rt owned b fellow employees, the state or by inmates, theft or abuse of property or equipment is prohibited. Department of Corrections Code of Ethics. Defendants conduct has also violated Title 37 Pa. Code §§93.4(b) and §§93.5 (relating to incoming publications), when he failed to list approved items on Inmate Personal Property Inventory Receipt DC ADM (153) No. A579752, dated April 5, 2005, such as Affiant's: A) watch; B) non-contraband items purchased legitimately from the "approved master commissary list" DC ADM 815, items such as the following listed on DC-154A, confiscated items receipts: 1. DC-154A, No. A655824; 1) 4 books "not altered" 2) Photo copies paid for by 3) legal materials that are a matter of public record 6) nail clipper 8) dental floss 10) honey Affiant through SCI- Libraries 4) (1) rug "not altered" 7) cigarette lighter 9) minor "not altered" II. DC-154A, No. A655825; 1) ice tea mix 3) breakfast drink mix shift 5) two tuna packets 7) two keefe coffee creamers 9) instant coffee 2) two peanut butter containers 4) two salmon flakes packets 6) lemonade drink mix 8) three soups 10) two candy bars H. DC-154A, No. A655826; 1) bag of rice 2) one shoesiboots "grandfather clause" 4) twenty-seven books is a false interpretation. Since Affiant did not have twenty-seven books Defendant Huber, is responsible for acts of falsify or tampering with official documents when Defendant Huber, placed his signature on confiscated items receipts DC-154A, No. A655824, No. A655825, and No. A655826 dated April 5, 2005, when he failed to follow the procedures enacted under Pennsylvania laws [specifically 37 Pa. Code §§93.4 and §§93.5] and Pennsylvania Department Of Corrections Directive 815. The Portions of IX Property (DC-ADM 815) D. (relating to contraband), state: 1) You may not have any item in your possession, or under your control that was not issued to you by the DOC, purchased by you in or through the commissary and/or otherwise approved for you by the facility. 4 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Directive 815 (2003). Defendant Huber, denied Affiant's reasonable request that he write the following law book titles: A) Pa. Practice V2 Criminal Procedure, price $169.60; B) Pa. Practice V3 and 4 Torts Law and Advocacy, price $222.60; C) Harrison Pa. Forms for Rules of Civil Procedure (Wettick) price $153.17; D) College Thesaurus, price $25.00; E) Black's Law Dictionary 7`t', price $70.50; F) Practical Logic, price $22.00; G) Harvard Law and Review Books, price $25.00, each, totaled $75.00. Of some market value on Affiant's Inmate Personal Property Receipt DC-153 No. A579752, so any mishaps such as Defendant's employer's property and/or negligence causing the destruction, damaging, lost and/or theft of Affiant's books of law. The description and titles of these books were not properly recorded by Defendant Huber, on Afliant's and Department of Corrections Copy of Personal Property Inventory Receipt DC-153 No. A57952, in accordance with 37 Pa. Code §§93.4, and §§93.5 (relating to incoming publications), DC ADM 815 IX Property(G)(11)(14) (2003) and Department of Corrections Code of Ethics (B)(7). Finally, Defendant Huber is responsible for acts of theft by unlawful taking and theft by deception when he failed to give Affiant his Philadelphia Inquire discount consumer product coupons such as: A) variety of food coupons; B) variety of household cleaning product coupons for detergents, soaps, etc.; C) variety of paper towel coupons Affiant, has a First Amendment right to mail these coupons to his family. 5 ACTS AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITYOF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 7. That Defendant chose to knowingly commit acts in violation of state and federal law, under the "Color of State Law," in direct violation against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A NOTATION FOR CRIMINAL LABORATORY SERVICE 8. Request for a polygraph test, Penna. Polygraph Act Title 18 Pa. C.S.A. 7321 REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OR SUMMONS 9. That Affiant has presented the true and legitimate facts to this issuing authority, as best as Affiant could proceeding pro se. These true and legitimate facts pertaining to the unprofessional acts in bad faith perpetrated by Defendant Huber, when he knowingly used his capacity to subject Affiant to official oppression, harassment, theft by deception, theft by unlawful taking, falsify or tampering with official documents and unswom falsification of documents are still pervasive. Since the Defendant is acting under the "Color of State Law" and committing acts against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and contrary to the acts of assembly and the acts were illegal the Affiant, makes a reasonable request that a warrant or summons be issued and that the accused Defendant Huber, be required to answer the charges I made. Respectfully submitted, William Curtis Dated: 2005 6 EXHIBIT E CUMBERLAND COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY M. L. EBERT, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY July 18, 2005 William Curtis AM 8092 P. O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-200 William Curtis: We have received your Private Criminal Complaint and reviewed the allegations therein. We appreciate the concise manner in which you have presented your claim, but in our discretion, we feel this matter is best handled by the prison complaint process or by Federal civil means. Therefore, we are denying your request for criminal prosecution. We have, however,, forwarded a copy of your complaint to the Department of Corrections, SCI, Camp Hill. Matthew P. Smith Senior Assistant District Attorney MPS/cgf cc: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Camp Hill CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE, CARLISLE, PA 17013 PHONE: (717) 240-6210 (717) 697-0371 x6210 (717) 532-7286 x6210 FAX: (717) 240-6164 e-mail: districtattomey@ccpa.net EXHIBIT F COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY WILLIAM CURTIS Affiant CRIMINAL COMPLAINT D.A. FILE NUMBER.: COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA vs. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUBER Defendant PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT RULE 504 NAME OF THE AFFIANT 1. Mr. William Curtis NAME. ADDRESS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANT: 2. Correctional Officer Huber, the Defendant is employed at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, located at 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837, Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837. During the time of this incident Huber was scheduled to the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift and assigned the "Restricted Housing Unit," (E) Housing Unit. Correction Officer Huber, is a Caucasian male A) Height between 5 feet 8 inches and 5 feet 9 and a half inches;. B) Weight between 167 lbs to 180 lbs. DIRECT ACCUSATION OF THE AFFIANT 3. That Defendant Huber, is responsible for numerous acts in bad faith and Huber, is in direct violations of the Penal Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: A) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 2902 Unlawful Restraint; B) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 2903 False Imprisonment; C) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 2709 Harassment; D) Penna. C.S.A. Title 18, 5301 Official Oppression. DATE OF OFFENSE COMMITTED 4. The offenses committed by Huber, occurred on April 5, 2005, between 8:45 a.m. and 3:25 p.m. PLACE WHERE THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, 2500 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 8837, Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837. Acts committed at the "Special Management Unit" (D) Housing Unit Cell No. (14), second tier. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS 6. On April 5, 2005, Defendant Huber came to the cell Affiant occupied on (E) Housing Unit Cell B2 18, to escort Affiant to inventory his personal property. Defendant Huber, knew Affiant was transferred to the Restricted Housing Unit at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, on March 23, 2005, and Huber deliberately delayed the inventory process for thirteen days. Before Affiant exited the cell Huber, handcuffed Affiant's hands in the front through the cell door slot. Then once Affiant exited the cell Defendant Huber, fasten the handcuffs to a metal chain which he closed tightly around Affiant's waist. Prior to entering cell (14) on (D) Housing Unit Defendant Huber, escorted Affiant to cell on (D) Housing Unit's second tier. In this area the Defendant had unpacked and strewn Affiant's personal property all over this area, without Affiant being present. Which is a direct violation by Huber, in accordance with Inmate Handbook 2003 at Shipping of Personal Property (G)(11). 2 Then Huber, rudely shoved a DC-153 Personal Property Receipt in front of Affiant and told him to sign this document. Affiant, politely explained that since he was not present to unpack his property there was no way for him to know if any of his personal property was stolen, misplaced and/or lost at this point Huber, became extremely agitated. Sometime during the time interval stated in Paragraph No. (4), Huber escorted Affiant to cell (14) on (D) Housing Unit where Huber, had placed what he perceived to be all of Affiant's legal material that he unpacked without Affiant being present. At cell (14) Defendant Huber, knowingly and deliberately committed the acts of unlawful restrain and false imprisonment when he did not remove Affiant physical restraints, and left Affiant in cell (14) over (4) hours. Interfering substantially with Afl'iant's movement to sort, separate and search his legal material and exposing him to risk of serious bodily injury. Defendant Huber's, act to leave Affiant locked in Cell No. (14) for over (4) hours with handcuffs tightly fastened to his waist and attached to a metal belly chain serve no legitimate purpose. Defendant's intent to harass, and annoy Affiant, were meant to antagonize him into reacting negatively so, Huber, could write a Misconduct Report that would have resulted in Affiant being removed to disciplinary custody from administrative custody. Defendant Huber, seized the opportunity to take advantage of his official capacity while acting under the "Color of State Law" to mistreat Affiant when he put Affiant in Cell No. (14) locked the cell door and left Affiant handcuffed to a belly chain for more than (4) hours. ACT AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 7. The Defendant chose to knowingly and willfully commit acts in violation of state and federal law acts such as, harassment, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment and official oppression under the "Color of State Law," in direct violation against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A NOTATION IF CRIMINAL LABORATORY SERVICE 8. Request for a polygraph test, Penna. Polygraph Act Title 18 Pa. C.S.A. 7321 REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OR SUMMONS 9. Affiant has presented the true and legitimate facts to this issuing authority, as best as he could proceeding pro se. These true and legitimate facts pertaining to the acts not in good faith by Defendant Huber, when he knowingly used his capacity to subject Affiant to acts of harassment, official oppression, unlawful restraint, and false imprisonment. For the reason that, Defendant Huber, is acting under the "Color of State Law" while committing acts against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and contrary to the acts of assembly and the acts were illegal and the Affiant, makes this reasonable request that a warrant or summons be issued and that the accused Defendant Huber, be required to answer the charges I made. Respectfully submitted, William Curtis, pro se Dated: 2005 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION WILLIAM CURTIS Affiant vs. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HUBER Defendant CRIMINAL COMPLAINT D.A. File Number: ARREST WARRANT AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM CURTIS I, William Curtis, declare according to law deposes and say that the following statements are true and correct and a based upon personal knowledge: 1. On April 5, 2005, Defendant Huber, carne to the cell I occupied on (E) Housing Unit B2 18, and he put a pair of tightly fitting handcuffs on Affiant. Then Huber attached the handcuffs to a tightly fitting metal chain around Affiant's waist. 2. The Defendant deliberately did not remove Affiant's handcuffs attached to a metal chain around his waist when the Defendant locked Affiant in (14) cell, on the second tier at (D) Housing Unit, for over (4) hours, on April 5, 2005, to inventory his legal materials. 1 verify that the facts set forth in this Affidavit are true and correct to Affiant's personal knowledge and that any false statements therein are made subject to the Penalties of Crime Code 18 Pa. C. S. §§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Respectfully submitted, William Curtis, pro se Dated: 2005 EXHIBIT G [itIRFA1tO t)(1111'A110NA1.ANDIN' )t isIRIAI.s., r-rN, Itc,t+m MOO I nlxtr K Ihdu,trr 11?tiklit?g 11ARRIS i IR6. 1'A 17120 LABOR & uWlA)ff 717-7147-UM, lax: 717-7311•51N?? ?„?e:h..l:?it I':1 u+ COMMORIPLALTf OT r9*ft$TLTAx1A File No. 204565 D.I. No. 91-4839 5-17-2005 F 1 Secretary James P. Croedon Department of General Services 515 N. Office Building Harrisburg, Penna. 17125-0001 Re: Order # 701093 ' Camp Hill State Correctional Institution Modular Housing Unit 5 Lisburn Rd.. Cumberland Co. (#21) File No: 204565 Type of Construction: Non-Combustible Protectdd Type II(222) Type of Occupancy: C-5 restrained Use Condition IV Story fleight: 01 Basement: No Dear Secretary Creedon An inspection of the above facility by Field Supervisor John Faust and. Board Re- viewer Jerry Seville, on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 indicates that violations exist of the Laws and/or regulations administered by the Department of Labor and Industry, A list describing the violations, the identity of the regulations violated, and the order describing he necessary corrective actions follows: Fire and Panic Regulations Title 34- Pennsylvania Code FINDING NO. 1: Bureau records indicate that the Occupancy Permit for this build- ing is no longer valid as changes have occurred to the physical layout of the structure. Secretary James P. Creedon File No. 204565 D.I. No. 914839 8-17-2005 F 1 § 49.9(e) The Department will issue an occupancy permit within 30 days of the final inspection. It shall by the owner's responsibility to maintain and operate the building in accordance with the Act, this Chapter and Chapters 50-60. ORDER ITEM NO, 1: Correct. all of the following violations so that an Occupancy Permit may be issued by the Department. FINDING NO 2: Plans on file with the Department do not reflect the riot slam gate installed mid-way in the entry corridor nor the creation of the Program Review Committee Room on the first floor day- room of `B' pod. § 49.3 Before a building to which Chapters 49 - 60 apply (except for C-3 occupancies covered under Chapter 56) is erected, adapted, remodeled, or altered, detailed architectural plans, wail sections and elevations for new construction, remodeling or alterations work and line drawings to scale for all portions of the existing building showing means of egress shall be. submitted to and approved by the Bureau of Occupational and Industrial Safety, Buildings Section, Department of Labor and industry, as re- quired under section 8 of the act (35 P.S. sectiorr 1228). D&w ings shall be submitted in triplicate. In cases where emergency lighting systems, fire alarm systems,. or fire extinguishing appa- ratus is required by. this chapter",. these, requirements shal I be completely shown on or with the drawings submitted before approval of the building is obtained. ORDER ITEM NO. 2: Submit plans reflecting these changes. FINDING NO. 3: A number of automatic smoke detectors are missing from their mountings, resulting in insufficient coverage of the building. Records on file with the Institution of testing of these devices by Simplcx Grinnell reflect the `missing' detectors as well as some to which "access could not be gained". §49.9(e) See Item No. 1 above. ORDER ITEM NO.3: Replace missing detectors and supply this Department with a report from Simplex Grinnell reflecting that all devices have been tested and are operational. FINDING NO. 4: In a number of instances within the chase ways between cells, the flex duct of the supply and/or return air is either damaged Page 2 of 4 Secretary James P. Creedon File No. 204565 0.1. No. 91-4839 8-17-2005 F 1 or disconnected to the defuser. This condition results in an im- balance in the engineered smoke control system. §49.9(e) See Item No. 1 above. ORDER ITEM NO. 4: Repair / replace as needed the flex duct lines. N.F.P.A. Life Safety Code 101 1981 edition FINDING NO. S. Cells 31 of `A' Pod, cells 12, 15 and 16 of `B' Pod, as well as, cells 28 and 29 of `D' Pod have been converted to Storage use and do not carry the proper fire separation from the rest of the area. §14-3.2.1 An area, used for general storage, boiler or furnace rooms, fuel storage, janitor's closets, maintenance shops including wood- working and.painting areas, laundries and kitchens shall be separated from other parts of the building with construction having not less than a.l-hour fire resistance rating and all open- ings shall be protected with self-closing fire doors, or such area shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection. Where the hazard is severe, both the fire resistance separation and automatic sprinklers shall be provided. ORDER ITEM NO 5: Remove storage from these cells. PETITION PROCEDURE. ANY PERSON INTERESTED OR AFFECTED BY THESE ORDERS MAY APPEAL TO THE PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL BOARD WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS .ORDER. THE APPEAL MAY BE SENT TO ROOM 1520, LABOR AND INDUSTRY BUILDING, SEVENTH AND FORSTER STREETS, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120.. THE APPEAL MAY BE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE FIRE AND PANIC REGU- LATIONS OR A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE AND PANIC REGULATIONS OR BOTH. THE APPEAL SHALL REFER TO THE ORDER NUMBER FOUND ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THISORDER. THE APPEAL SHALL SET FORTH THE REGULATIONS INVOLVED, AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH A VARIANCE. IF AN EXTENSION OF TIME IS RE- QUESTED, THE APPEAL SHALI, SET FORTH THE REGULATION INVOLVED, THE AMOUNT OF TIME REQUESTED, AND TIIE REASONS FOR AN EXTEN- SION OF TIME. Page 3 of 4 e Secretary James P. Croedon File No. 204565 D.I. No. 91-4839 8- l 7-2005 F I You are hereby directed to correct alt violations by the following date: COMPMIANCE DATE November 23r°, 2005 . Failure to comply with this order may resit in legld =dM which may include and could jeopardize your continued use and occupancy of this building. Sincerely yours, Ge4lt ?Avt,f Mike G. Gensemer, Director Field Operations ELUJDSIds Cc: J+ey A. Hcwd, Secretary Robert Calik,- Director Chades Rishel, Architectural Designer II Did L. K , St4mintcndent Howard T. Gouse, CFMM Scott Fair, CISM Insp. File Page 4 of 4 NOV.23'2005 10:05 7177033623 #2075 P. 002/002 1 EXHIBIT G1 L&I File No. 5 K-1 laa3A!05 Building Name: Tenant Name: Building Address: VARiA MT PLEASE COMPLETE ONE FORM FOR EACH REQUEST Modular Housing Unit 5 ('E' Block) PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY SCI - Camp Hill Date: November 23. 2005 P. O. Box 8837, Lisburn Road , Political Subdivision (Township, Boro): City: Camp Hill Lower Allen Township County: Cumberland Contact Person: Company. Charles Rishel - Architectural Designer 2 Bureau of Operations, PA Department of Corrections Address: P.O. Box 598 City: Camp Hill State: Pa. Zip Code: 17001-0598 Telephone: (717) 975 - 4884 FAX: 717 - 703 - 3623 Variance request from Section regarding Extension of time request until March 31, 2006 to comply with Labor and Industry Order No. 701093 Reasons for request and/or compensatory features: (additional SW x 11' paper may be used) The Department of Corrections requests additional time in order to complete the work show on drawings approved by the Buildings Division on 11122/05 (file #457706 / Index #05-03155). The maintenance department at SCI-Camp Hill is understaffed. and needs this additional time to complete the work. This request faxed 11/23105 with hard copy to follow ' Requirements for Variance Review: alljdinga and Tenant Areas: One (1) set of drawings Including floor plans Exceptions: Pre-1927 buildings AND C-3 occupancy buildings One. (1) set of sketches and photopraphs Mailing Address: Industrial Board Telephone: 717-787-6114 Department of Labor and Industry Room 1622, Labor and Industry Building 791 and Forster Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 1.11&115 PEE 34E C MMOWWM r.i OF PEHaL`RYAMf 01PANTMENT OF LABOR AND RIOUSTRr PADUSTRUy BDARD RECEi.VEC TWE NOV. 23. 10:2/AM PRINT TIME NOv, 23. 10:28AM DC-804 EXHIBIT H r Part-1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - {' DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 16 ?? -1 P.O. BOX 598 OFFICIAL INMATE GRIEVANCE CAMP HILL, PA 17001-0598 GRIEVANCE NUMBER TO: FACILITY GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR FACILITY: DDATE: Ian Taggart = Cam Hill /06 FR OM: (INMATE NAME & NUMBER) Will C SIGNATUR of INMA L iam urtis AM-8092 id WORK ASSIGNMENT HOUSING ASSIGNMENT: "Special Management Unit" INSTRUCTIONS: 1 Refer to the DC-ADM 804 for procedures on the inmate grievance system. 2. State your grievance in Block A in a brief and understandable man ner. 3. List in Block B any actions you may have taken to resolve this matter. Be sure to include the identity of staff members you have contacted. A. Provide a brief, clear statement of your grievance. Additional paper may be used, maximum two pages. On September 4, 2006, during the inventory of my property CO I Huber, claimed the legal books such as (Penns lv i y an a Criminal Procedure-Forms and Commentary, Pennsylvania Torts-Law and Advocacy, Pennsylvania Civil-Forms, Black Laws Dictionary , Practical Logic Book and College Thesaurus) were destroyed. Sometime betwee th n e month of June and July of 2005, by request form and other documentation to Huber I made it , specifically clear that I wanted all of my hardback books retained including the books (Without Sanctary and Secrets of the Federal Reserves) retained in my property. This blatant act of unprofessional conduct which is an act of retaliation by Huber becau f , se o an order from Pennsylvania Labor and Industry "August 17, 2005", pertaining to the fir e hazards and other dangerous life threatening conditions Huber, created in th e property area. It follows that, compensation in the amount of $850.00, is warranted. B. List actions taken and staff you have contacted, before submitting this grievance. I informed Unit Manager Southers, of this unprofessional conduct and blatant a t f c o retaliation by way of Form DC-135a. Your grievance has been received and will be processed in accordance with DC-ADM 804. Signature of Facility Grievance Coordinator Date WHITE - Facility Grievance Coordinator Copy CANARY - File Copy PINK - Action Return Copy GOLDENROD - Inmate Copy Revised EXHIBIT I pennsytvania DTO: All Inmates FROM: reyA. Bqar Ph.D. ecretary of Corrections DATE: December 1, 2009 RE: Revisions to DC-ADM 007, "Access to Provided Legal Services," and DC-ADM 816, "Inmate Compensation" This notice is to inform you that. the Department has revised the DC-ADM 007, "Access to Provided Legal Services" and the DC-ADM 816, "Inmate Compensation." The revisions are listed below. DC-ADM 007. "Access to Provided Legal Services" Section 1, Subsection A.2. shall now read: 2. Legal. reference materials will be supplemented or replaced according to the schedule established by the publisher and at the direction of the Library Staff, as based upon the facility's specific need. Section 1, Subsection C.1. shall now read: 1. Leger materials, that are not avaNab/e We the law ilbr'aity co ui ers, shall be requested by using the Comprehensive Paging System%Request Form ijAttachmofit T-0). Section 1, Subsection C.3-.d. & C.7. shall now read: d. the original request form shall be retained by-the facility for a three. year period for verification-of processing. the request. 7. The Corrections Librarian shall, at hisAierdiscredon, maintain a file of all copied case law, by Reporter, .to fill future requests without incurring excessive copying expense. Section 1, Subsection E.1.a. shall now read: " a. communicating with the Library Staff and/or inmate Legal Reference Aides; Section 2, Subsection A.1.h. shall now read: h. transcription of an inmate's oral statements into documents or forms for the inmate to file In court. Such transcription services shall not Include any legal advice (which constitutes the practice of law) to the inmate concerning the content oUthe filing: In the event, that the innate seeks to prepare. a document that contains threatening or obscene language or otherwise may violate federal, state, orlocal law, the. Library Assistant or Legal Reference Aide shall bring the matter to the attention of his/her supervisor before completing the proposed court document. Section 2, Subsection A.3.a. & b. shall now read: a. submit requests for legal assistancethrough use of the D0-135A, Inmate Request to Staff Member (an inmate who is illiterate or othewse.unable to Complete. th& DC -35A may have the'form completed by his/her. Counselor, W&Manager or other designated I 'dividual)- and b: once. received; library staff will review it to deteniiine eligibility for ass/stance, and where, .. appropriatewill. (1,1 appoint an.Mmate Legal Referencg Alde.to provide. legal assistance to the requesting Inmate; or (2) personally provide legal ass/stance fo the requesting Inmate. bepbrtment of .Corrections. ) Standards; Praet(ces, aecreditadon A Intemat Audits 1. SO Utley. Drive I Camp Hill, •Penns? lVarUa 17011 1 717.731.7114 1 ywWw.pa.gov EXHIBIT J William Curtis AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Superintendent Kelchner SCI-Camp Hill P.O. Box 598 Camp Hill, Pa. 17001 October 20, 2006 RE: Appeal from Initial Review Complaint No. 164511 Superintendent Kelchner: 1. Sometime between the months of June and July 2005, I filed a Private Criminal Complaint with the Cumberland County Office of the District Attorney, pertaining to my personal property. 2. By way of response dated July 18, 2005, Matthew P. Smith, Senior Assistant District Attorney stated that he forwarded a copy of Appellant's complaint to the Department of Corrections, at SCI- Camp Hill. (See Copy of letter enclosed) Evidence & Exhibit no. (1) 3. At page (5) of Appellant's Private Criminal Complaint Appellant states that Huber, denied Affiant's reasonable request that he write the following "law books titles" (see paragraph no. 5) "books of some market value" on Affiant's Inmate Personal Property Receipt DC-153 No. A579752, so any mishaps such as acts of negligence by state employees, causing the destruction, damaging, lost and/or theft of Affiant's books of law. The description and titles of these books were not properly recorded, by Huber, on Affiant's and Department of Corrections' Copy of Personal Property Inventory Receipt DC-153 No. A57952. 4. Moreover, Appellant, sent a DC-135a request form to Huber, stating that he wanted the follows hardback books kept in his property: a) Pa. Practice V2 Criminal Procedure; b) Pa. Practice V3 and V4 Torts Law and Advocacy; c) Harrison Pa. Forms for Rules of Civil Procedure (Wettick); d) College Thesaurus; e) Black's Law Dictionary 7th; f) Practical Logic Book; g) Harvard Law Review; h) Without Sanctuary; i) Secrets of the Federal Reserves. 5. Appellant, never had more than 3 of his personal books in his procession while being housed in the (SMU) and property issue receipts DC-153, will substantiate that fact. 6. This blatant act of unprofessional conduct which is an act of retaliation by Huber, because Appellant, filed Complaint No. 204565, with Pennsylvania Labor & Industry, which resulted into Order No. 701093, of August 17, 2005, which mandated changes by Pennsylvania Labor & Industry, pertaining to the life threating fire hazards and other dangerous conditions created in the (SMU) property area by Huber. 7. It follows that, these frequently occurring asinine acts by Huber, warrants his resignation. And compensation in the amount of $850.00, for the law books and other books is warranted. Sincerely, William Curtis DC ADM 815, Personal Property, State Issued Items, and EXHIBIT KI Commissary/Outslde Purchases Procedures Manual Section 1- Basic and State Issued hems Revised April 2009 C. Handling of Property for Transfers All clothing will be laundered 12 prior to cell contents being packed for any type of transfer. 1. If the inmate cannot by physically present when his/her property is being packed and inventoried, or if he/she represents a security threat, two officers shall inventory and process the inmate's property and both officers will sign the DC-153. A notation will be made as to why the inmate was not present. The two officers will be responsible for sealing the boxes with sealing tape and signing his/her name over the tape. The boxes shall be numbered i.e., 1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc. 2. Feckty Trrs a. When an inmate is scheduled for transfer to another facility, he/she.will be permitted a maximum of two records center boxes and a television box for shipment on the bustvan. One standard size footlocker may be substituted for the two boxes. b. If an inmate's personal property requires additional standard boxes (only for excess authorized written materials), the inmate shall be informed that additional boxes will be shipped by the least expensive common carrier available (U.S. Mail, UPS, etc.) to the receiving facility, or to an address of the inmate's choice at the inmate's expense, or the items are to be destroyed. The Facility Manager may approve an exception for an indigent inmate in extraordinary circumstances. c. If there is spw* available on the be an for additional bo=k ft.kYneN( ) emveas auftOzed wriftn a nary be 11" Pork6t N 00(i is no 0 arra lb, do meop boom wilt rep' ain at sohdWofedRy for sh4*ft at a ' cam. The swKWV Ity shall first aftem;A to transport any r initlg bow via o0wr DeNutn*tt vehicles going to the receiving facility. If this cannot be arranged within 30 calendar days from the inmate being transported, the sending facility shall ship the remaining boxes by the least expensive common carrier available (U.S. Mail, UPS, etc.) to the receiving facility at the inmate's expense. d. Three sets of state issued clothing shall be packed with property that is to accompany the inmate. The clothing items shall be labeled and properly sized for the inmate who is being transferred. If the inmate has'less than three sets of state issued clothing, he/she will be charged for the sets that are not accounted for. If the inmate has more than the basic state issued clothing, it will be confiscated, laundered and returned to inventory for reissue. This does not apply to inmates transferred from DCC facilities. e. The inmate's televisions should be securely packed, either in the original container or in a box supplied by the facility with appropriate packing material. If the original box and packing material is not used, the box containing the television should be clearly labeled as containing a television set. Inmate clothing may be used to secure or pad the television. When an inmate's property is used for packing material, the box shall 12 4-4339 1-5 EXHIBIT K2 DC-ADM 815, Personal Property, State Issued Items, and Commissary/Outside Purchases Procedures Manual Section 1- Basic and State Issued Items Revised 11/2009 C. Handling of Property for-Transfers All clothing will be laundered 12 prior to cell contents being packed for any type of transfer. If the inmate cannot by physically present when his/her property is being packed and inventoried, or if he/she represents a security threat, two officers shall inventory and process the inmate's property and both officers will sign the DC-153. A notation will be made as to why the inmate was not present. The two officers will be responsible for sealing the boxes with sealing tape and signing his/her name over the tape. The boxes shall be numbered i.e., 1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc. 2. Facility Transfers a. When an inmate is scheduled for transfer to another facility, he/she will be permitted a maximum of two records center boxes and a television box for shipment on the bus/van. One standard size footlocker may be substituted for the two boxes. b. If an inmate's personal property requires additional standard boxes, the inmate shall be informed that additional boxes (two atonal boxes for per~ cell contents items, and any addN*nal boxes of autltorlaed legal materials) will be shipped by the least expensive common carrier available (U.S. (Wail, UPS, etc.) to the receiving facility, or to an address of the inmate's choice at the inmate's expense, or the items are to be destroyed. The Facility Manager may approve an exception for an indigent inmate in extraordinary circumstances. c. Three sets of state issued clothing shall be packed with property that is to accompany the inmate. The clothing items shall be labeled and properly sized for the inmate who is being transferred. If the inmate has less than three sets of state issued clothing, he/she will be charged for the sets that are not accounted for. If the inmate has more than the basic state issued clothing, it will be confiscated, laundered and returned to inventory for reissue. This does not apply to inmates transferred from DCC facilities. d. The inmate's televisions should be securely packed, either in the original container or in a box supplied by the facility with appropriate packing material. If the original box and packing material is not used, the box containing the television should be clearly labeled as containing a television set. Inmate clothing may be used to secure or pad the television. When an inmate's property is used for packing material, the box shall be marked on the outside accordingly, e.g., "This box contains one television and inmate clothing has been used for packing." The condition of the television (working/not working) and a list of property used as packing should be noted on the DC-153. e. When property is broken or damaged in transit, and the item is no longer under warranty, the receiving facility shall pay reasonable repair costs, unless the repair cost 12 4-4339 1-5 EXHIBIT L William Curtis AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Chief, Secretary's Office of Inmates Grievances and Appeals Department of Corrections 2520 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 598 Camp Hill, Pa. 17001-0598 December 1, 2006 RE: Appeal from Superintendent's Response Complaint No. 164515 Chief, Secretary's Office: 1. On September 4, 2006, CO I Huber, packed Appellant's property. Huber, vehemently stated that Appellant's excess legal property could not be shipped with him to SCI-Graterford. Huber, told Appellant that his "Excess Legal Property" would have to be destoryed on sent to an address of his choice. 2. It follows that, Huber was responsible for making a "false material statement" in violation of IX Property (DC-ADM 815) at (G) "SHIPPING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY" No. (3) states the following: If the space on the bus/van for additional boxes, approved excess legal material may be transported. If there is no space avai- lable, the excess boxes will remain at the sending facility for shipping of disposal at a later date. At No. (4) states the following: The "sending facility" shall first attempt to transport any remaining boxes via other "DOC" vehicles going to the receiving facility. If this cannot be arranged within (30 calendar- days) from the date of transport, the sending facility shall ship the remaining boxes by the least expensive common carrier available (U.S.- Mail, UPS, etc.) 3. Enclosed is a copy of DC-153 Inmate Personal Property Inventory No.A763219, dated October 28, 2006. CO I Harriman, inventoried the (3) boxes from SCI-Camp Hill. And just as Appellant stated in paragraph (1) CO I Huber, knew the (3) boxes were legal material on September 4, 2006, when he made the "false statement" that, Appellant could not have his "Excess Legal Material" shipped to SCI-Graterford. 4. It's evident that CO I Huber, one of the last remaining "Special Management Unit" (SMU) personnel retained as Property Officer, only because no one would "bid" for that position after the entire 6:00 am to 2:00 pm shift were removed on December 19, 2005, "I MOVED FOR NOT -D10ING THEIR JOB." On September 4, 2006, Huber, 'tried to create a situation so he could write Appellant, a misconduct report and stop Appellant's transfer and send Appellant back to "phase 5" of the (SMU). 5. The documented evidence speaks for itself DC-153 Inmate Personal Property Inventory No.A763219, dated October 28, 2006, and signed by Property Officer Harriman, of SCI-Graterford, and Appellant. The property was (3) boxes of legal materials. 6. Finally, a refund is warranted in the amount of $81.57, for the following non-legitimate "U.P.S. Postage" deductions: a. $27.48, from Batch No. 437, dated b. $ 8.32, $8.88, and $9.51, all from No. 536, dated 10/2/06; C. $18.85, from Batch No. 633, dated d. $ 8.53, from Batch No. 676, dated Sincerely, 9/13/06; Batch 10/17/06; 10/20/06. William Curtis -EXHIBIT M DC 153 CsOMMONWEALTH O.F PENNSYLVANIA INIWATE=RERS ONAL.'PR " PERTY INVENTORY DEPARTMENT OF'-CORRECTIONS El Transfer ? Hold ''l Initial' Disposition ?,•Other. DC Number Name M t Method of Disposition R Return wto Inmate-,A -5 7 `9 7 5 2 , S ,-Ship , , D Destroy„ .H -.,Hold for Inmate TOBACCO MISCELLANEOUS ' CLOTHING & ITEMS' ITEMS ACCESSORIES NO METW - 11TEN1 '. e ??ETH. ?-? ' ? '-- ITEM -* 'k'7 'ENO METH ITEM f" NO METH - ITEM NO METH. '. a ' ITEM M- xa?i I Ba9Laundrti rds Playing. C A 44, Und I ters r Supports Urrh4o WIN Batterie ious Books - a iar Boo ll ious' Mat g Underwear 1Lg F ? t g tte s Pkg $uc Religious Metal '"? '` 'U 'der-wear`-Top r < , Clgar.?s Carbon';?Paper' Rug ' C;o at R a gin;, • x t T op;ti -'Oa P Vest ?f? ti ?< rLlghters I Checkers Ruler Gloves " GROOMING '- :Matches Chess.' I Spoon t Pa er bl T Handkerchief ITEMS Pipe Cup ctiona D p e a 'Thread -- z Hat . iTE%i'.FF 3. . NO a nerH Plpe ieaners ,_ ry- i Jacket Brush Pipe'Filters Earphones Tissue Overcoat Comb Tobacco-Chew Envelopes Tub ' P T i H Pajamas ` Dental Floss Tobacco-Cig. Erasers aper yp ng a. Robe Denture Cup Tobacco-Pipe Extension Cord -j Wallet Scarf Dentures Tobacco Pouch Eyeglass Case 4 Wastebasket r P i i W f I ' Shirt Deodorant ` Tobacco-Snuff Eyeglasses =y ape r t ng ir Dressin H FOOD Eyeglasses-Sun ?GII ?I Shoe Brush g a w Shoe Polish /.? Hair Pick ITEMS Games co Shoes Boots Lotion-Shave ITEM NO. METH. Glass }r Yi "1? Shoes Dress Lotion-Body Candy Bag GYm' Bag r. l , ,d ;S'hoes Quer _ Lotion"-Hand Candy-Bars Headset A r r Shoes Shower Mt?ror s ?- C t s = ` Y?g z, _ _ hoes'Sartdal hi s " iN ilCllppe 'F iUL5 aCoffeG "p w' Keys S'hoes Sfieakers.s Peft4leumJelly' Cookies' Lamp =- V I? JShoes T'bnnts ' Razor, zof BI,des' R' r Crackers " a Creajrers *?egal' Books I', A 16g t? ork hoes% r ShowefCap' a Shajnpou g , Drmk?Mix U er $ PP rShavmg Craam = x Hot?Ch?ocolete Loose.leaf Binder t ' f, docks ?r r ? t o 'Soap 8 Peariuts? t: Magazines ' Neck7Chain $uit hssi ish ISgapi D Pretzels - r 5?weat?t 4 q j CUrn P6wder Sugarf° v eedle' - r S eatyans o h rush Tea A . u Sweat Shirt tr a t`?.tPvJd s ?, ed ..y?w. ._ r. it1`rr f Pencllsr ,: (. ?9. Sweat Suit ! - Tgoe4 FMT * ` Pencil Shrp M $weatens r s,M T,uv, e"e AM r " Pens „ T c oth I f +i Photo ,Album, ie + ;=', Photographs f? M .Trouserst 7, s 1 j" t`y ITEM I `? a _= IP710rN;OR SEAIAlyNO IN t.: METH ITEMs, DESCRIPTION-OR?SERIAL NO. NO. METH. Briefcase, 'Calculator g. t , - Footlocker ,Guitar `,Guitar'Case :Guitar Strings Medical.:Bracelet Rin g, T V.? f T V Anntenna TYpewri:ter . ; r p + t gWatch' '? vp *t yr° t' r ? fit r < 1wov `< 4 a . 4 -a .? k - °aa?f dI _? h '??1 1?FZ'? .. - •• `Artlclesj,marke Smailed(sigiature andtitle) Date Mailed IVIAIL'TO + tie Ihe+proFierty described above was inveptoried?ahd processedis Indicated A' TThe ro art above, wascreceived and processed P" P, Y ? ? 't 1C: :c l • ? ? ,, ,n / m I Officer 3S_na ure o lnma ? Signature of Property;a r r?s a-^ n ate Signature of Property Officer Signature of { Facility Date Facility Date I NG COMPLETED #AFTER ALGPROCESSI ' , CANARY INMATE COPY AFTER ALL PROCESSIN6?G D DC 15 WHITE . _, E`:INY GOLDENROD 1NMATE;COPY WHEN ITEMS AR PINK-SENDING FACI •MAIL RO:OM'IF "APPUrCABLE LITY COPY OR ?`G< Y` ?`i 1 EXHIBIT N LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. RENTSCHLER., P.C. 28 N. 32"d Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone (717) 975-9129 Facsimile (717) 975-2939 August 28, 2009 William Curtis. AM 8092 State Correctional Institute at Graterford Box 246 Graterford, PA 19426 Re: Commonwealth v Shawn Pressley Dear William: 'Thank you for your letter. More importantly, thank you for testifying at Shawn's trial. The jury found Shawn not guilty of the charges. I think a lot of it had to do with your testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses. Shawn took the stand and detailed the treatment and harassment that he received from Officer Huber. In the end, I believe that the jury believed that Shawn was defending himself from Officer Huber and that his actions against Officer Huber were justified based upon their past issues as testified to by our witnesses and by Shawn. Finally, my records indicate that Shawn is at SCI-Mahanoy. Thank you again for your persuasive testimony. I know that Shawn appreciated it. Very truly yours, Michael D. Rentschler Cc: client ti EXHIBIT N1 Commonwealth vs. Shawn Pressley Find Defendant Date: J :? /f 3 In the Court of Common Pleas Criminal Division of Cumberland County, Pa. CP-21-CR-2370-2008 Criminal Charge: Aggravated Assault We, the jury empanelled and sworn to try the issue joined between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Shawn Presslev 71 'rep on ?, ` U EXHIBIT 0 7. The personal property of inmates will be handled with extreme care and disposed of only by properly designated authority in a manner designated by official Department of Correction's policy. Similarly, no employee may assume the right of ownership of property owned by fellow employees, the state or by inmates, theft or abuse of property or equipment is prohibited. 8. No employee shall leave his/her assigned post or leave the institution or grounds without being properly relieved and receiving proper authorization from a supervisor. Proper relief involves communicating any special observations or orders to the relief personnel. 9. Lawful orders by a supervisor to a subordinate must be executed promptly and faithfully by the subordinate even though the employee may question the wisdom of such order. The privilege of formally appealing the order may be done at a later date through either the supervisor command structure, civil service appeal, or the grievance machinery. 10. Employees are expected to treat their peers, supervisors, and the general public with respect and conduct themselves properly and professionally at all times; unacceptable conduct or insolence will not be tolerated. 11. All facility keys issued to employees will remain in their possession at all times. Under no circumstances are keys ever to be unguarded, mislaid, unaccounted for, taken from the facility, or turned over to an inmate. 12. Employees in uniform are required to keep said uniforms in a clean and neat condition, free from decoration, other than those officially prescribed. Non-uniformed employees will be required to meet the standards of neatness and grooming as established by their facility. 13. Employees may use their identification as an employee of the Department only for identification in performing the duties and responsibilities required in the scope of their employment. Department identification will not be used where an employee may have other employment or in representing other interests. 14. Employees will promptly report to their supervisor any information which comes to their attention and indicates violation of the law, rules, and/or regulations of the Department of Corrections by either an employee or an inmate, and will maintain reasonable familiarity with the provisions of such directives. 15. Alcoholic beverages and controlled substances shall not be carried, stored, or consumed on state property or in any state Facility or vehicle. When a controlled substance or nonproprietary drug is prescribed by a physician, the employee shall immediately notify his/her supervisor and obtain prior written approval to bring the medication onto facility grounds. Such medication must always be kept under the secure control of the employee. An employee shall not report for duty in an unfit condition. 16. Personal weapons shall not be brought onto state property without the advanced written approval of the Facility Manager/designee. 17. Employees shall not testify in any civil case in which the Department of Corrections may have an interest without informing the Secretary, unless under court order. Department of Corrections Code of Ethics Page 4 4 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Department of Corrections SCI- Graterford Libraries (610) 489- 4151 x2341 or x2595 March 19, 2009 ?, SUBJECT NO FREE LEGAL FORMS PCRA forms are provided set free for each case. You must sign for it. EXHIBIT P TO: ALL INMATES C FROM: L. Shan, Correctio THROUGH: Z c , School Principal Department of Co iofls is no longer providing free f wms. SCI-Graterford Libraries will not provide any legal forms other than PCRA free of charge from now on. We keep a master copy of most used forms for you to make copies. We also have books to show you how to create most legal forms. You can still write to courts to request forms from them. The following are courthouse addresses. United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania U.S. Courthouse Independence Mall West 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797 United State District Court Western District ofPennsylvania U. S. Courthouse 700 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 United State District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania U. S. Courthouse 235 North Washington Ave. P. O. Box 1148 Scranton, PA 18501 CC: Deputy Williamson Unit Managers D. Thomas D. Wright IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA?,1i j,,, ( 9 t n._ WILLIAM CURTIS rb,; ^ V¢ - n Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, William Curtis, proceeding Pro Se, and he hereby request this Honorable Court to compel defendants to preserve the evidence described in this motion and in support thereof avers the following: 1. This 42 Pa. C.S. 8550 civil action concerns a standard of conduct for state employees imposed by statute. Violations pertaining to conduct where by the actor desired to bring about the result that followed. The destruction of Plaintiff's most expensive hardback books. 42 Pa. C.S. 8303 failure to perform legally mandated ministerial duties. 2. The Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that some of defendants, if not all of the defendants, due to their positions with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections are directly responsible for the actions of their subordinates may have generated interval communications about Plaintiff's Appendix of Exhibits (A) through (P). Additionally any comments about various Appendix Exhibits documents may be stored electronically through computer systems. 3. Plaintiff requests that the defendants preserve evidence such as any and all records, files, notes, during the time intervals relevant to this complaint. 4. That the defendants preserve evidence such as any and all records, files, notes, pertaining to Plaintiff's filing of Appendix Exhibits (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (G1), and court testimony by Plaintiff pertaining to defendant Huber's :2009 trial in Cumberland County (N), (N1). 5. Much of this electronic information and non-electronic information may be archived for a limited period of time and then destroyed in the normal course of business. In order to preserve evidence so as to fairly and justly evaluate and prosecute his case Plaintiff seeks this Honorable Court's entry of an order preserving these records and communications by prohibiting the defendant from routinely, inadvertently, or otherwise, destroying records and electronic information which could possibly be relevant to this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request this Honorable Court to enter the Order of Court attached to this motion. 2 Respectfully Submitted, ?a - William Curtis, Pro Sew Dated: JAN rati?? ! 2 *2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve the Evidence has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated:- JA/.,'-JeNk-j J Z- 2011 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA$ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN ?q; >,? F 19 WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ADAM HUBER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, William Curtis, proceeding Pro Se, in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P, files a Procedure on Deposition by Written Interrogatories pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. Rule 4004. 1. State when you first received notice by way of Request Form DC-135a stating what books Plaintiff wanted to be retained? 2. State when you first received notice by way of Plaintiff's Private Criminal Complaint which stated at Pg. (5) what books Plaintiff wanted retained in his property? 3. State when you first received notice by way of Plaintiff's Writ of Habeas Corpus No. 05-2926 at averments No. 28, Pg. (6) & (7) stating what books Plaintiff wanted retained in his property? 4. State when you first received notice of Pennsylvania Labor and Industry's Order No. 701093 dated 8/17/05? 5. As a result of Pa. Labor and Industry's Order No. 701093 dated 8/17/05, how did that order effect your work habits for storing Plaintiff's property and inmates property on Modular Housing Unit 5? 6. Why did Pa. Labor and Industry's single out your work habits for storing Plaintiff's property and inmates property on Modular Housing Unit 5? 7. What is the period of time that you have worked in the capacity as property officer at SCI-Camp Hill? 8. After the Pa. Labor and Industry order No. 701093 dated 8/17/05, especially their finding No. 5 § 14-3.2.1 why did you request not to work in the capacity as property officer on Modular Housing Unit 5? 9. On DC-ADM-153 A.579752 Inmate Personal Property Inventory 4/5/05, Appendix Exhibit M at Miscellaneous Items is there a space to have a "numeral notation" for the amount of law books owned by Plaintiff? 2 10. Why is the space for law books left "blank" and "incomplete" on Inmate Personal Property No. A.579752 dated 4/5/05 when Plaintiff owned at least "10 pristine law books?" See Appendix Exhibit (M) 11. Are there any other employment capacities that you have occupied during your stay at the Penna. Department of Corrections besides property officer? 12. Is the Department of Corrections Grievance System DC-ADM 804, an avenue to be used by Plaintiff when acts of willful misconduct, deliberate indifference occur by state employees, and there are blatant contradictions to the DOC's Code of Ethics and acts to contrary DOC policy, state and federal law? 13. As property officer was it your responsibility to inventory and store Plaintiff personal property with extreme care on 4/5/05 in accordance with DOC's policy? See Appendix Exhibit (0) 14. Why did the most expensive items of Plaintiff's property in monetary terms as opposed to items of sentimental value, not handled with extreme care, were destroyed in spite of the fact Plaintiff made it specifically clear what books to be retained in his property? See Appendix Exhibits (B), (C) Pgs. 6 & 7 and ( D ) Pg. 5 3 15. What was the date Plaintff's hardback pristine law books, Black's Law Dictionary, College Thesaurus, and hardback books Without Sanctuary and Secrets of the Federal Reserves were destroyed and what DOC document listed each book's title for destruction? 16. As property officer was it your responsibility to inventory and store Plaintiff's law books and other hardback books with extreme care in accordance with the DOC's Code of Ethics No. (7)? See Appendix Exhibit (0) 17. What were the least expensive books in Plaintiff's property the Hardback Books or Paperback Books? 18. Because of Plaintiff's 1 Pa. Code § 35.9, Complaints to Penna. Labor and Industry which made you change under state law the dangerous and fire hazard conditions you created and is this the reason why you retaliated against Plaintiff by destroying all of his pristine hardback books? 19. Please explain why the entire 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM shift personnel assigned to Modular Unit 5 at SCI-Camp Hill during a time interval from March 23, 2005, through December 19, 2005, were resigned out of the SMU with a stipulation not to work on that particular Unit again? 4 20. State when you first received notice by way of a letter from Matthew P. Smith Senior Assistant District Attorney for Cumberland County, Penna., dated 7/18/05 that Plaintiff made and attempt to file a Private Criminal Complaint against you? See Appendix Exhibit (E) 21. Why did you deliberately leave Plaintiff behind a locked cell door 14 on D Housing Unit in physical restraints, handcuffs fasten to a metal chain closed very tightly around Plaintiff's waist for more than "4 hours" on 4/5/05, to inventory legal property? 22. When Plaintiff was confined in the cell he occupied on Modular Unit 5, once the door was closed were Plaintiff's handcuffs removed? 23. Is that your handwriting on Inmate Personal Property DC- 153 No. A579752 dated 4/5/05? See Appendix Exhibit (M) 24. When you received notice that Plaintiff made an attempt to file a Private Criminal Complaint against you around June 2005, based solely on the way that you inventoried Plaintiff Personal Property and his missing property on DC-153 No. A579752 on 4/5/05, what did you do? 5 25. When you received notice that Plaintiff made an attempt to file a second Private Criminal Complaint against you solely because you deliberately left him in physical restraints behind a locked cell door for more than 4 hours, what did you do? 26. During the time period of Plaintiff's transfer out of SCI- Camp Hill to SCI-Graterford around 9/6/05 did DOC Policy promulgated for that time interval under DC-ADM 815 C. Handling of Property for Transfers, 2 Facility Transfers: (states, in pertinent parts, ... if there is space available on the bus/van for additional boxes ... written materials may be transported ...)? 27. What type of vehicle transported Plaintiff from SCI-Camp Hill to SCI-Graterford on 9/6/05? 28. How many inmates were transported from SCI-Camp Hill to SCI-Graterford on the same vehicle with Plaintiff on 9/6/05? 29. On April 5, 2005, when Plaintiff told you he would not sign the DC-153 Inmate Inventory Sheet No. A579752 that you filled out while he was not present and did that prudent act by Plaintiff cast the challenge as a personal vendetta against Plaintiff with a personal ax to grind? See Appendix Exhibit (M) 6 30. What is your educational background and what are the names of the accredited educational institutions you attended? 31. Did you make any mistakes inventoring Plaintiff's personal property April 5, 2005? 32. Should a pattern of complaints pertaining to that same subject matter such as: missing property, destroyed property, damaged property, stolen property, and storage of property for years as a fire hazard be indicative of the system you created and its inability to eradicate these persistent problems? 33. Why did you continue to act with impunity pertaining to the care and handling of Plaintiff's property when you were presented with substantive notices on what should be done? 34. By destroying Plaintiff's law books you knew that would cause financial injury and harm to Plaintiff a Ward of the State of Penna. for more than without financial means to obtain that type of legal materials. 35. From the very outset once you saw Plaintiff's pristine law books it was your desired to bring about the results that followed, Plaintiff would not leave the SMU with his law books by you deliberately not listing his books on Inmate Property Inventory DC-135 A579752, dated 4/5/05? See Appendix Exhibit (M) 7 36. When you destroyed all of Plaintiff's pristine hardback books and left only inexpensive paperback books and the fact that you received several notices what not to do, are the results an act of malice? 37. Your deliberate acts of destroying Plaintiff's law books were specific acts of intent to stop and/or permanently impede use of specific legal information seeking a warning and deterrent to redress against government and state employees? 38. Should several notifications pertaining to the same subject matter in the case from outside law enforcement authorities and institutions be used as information on how to perform your duties? 39. Is the deliberate destruction of hardback books and hardback law books with a monterary value of more than $850.00, to a Ward of the State of Penna. for the past 24 years a sufficiently immediate injury in the nature of present impairment without a chance of accumulating those monterary funds again? 40. Did Plaintiff's averment No. 28 at pages 6 & 7 in his Writ of Habeas Corpus No. 05-2926 state that he we aware of the danger involved of not seeing his property again and should keep the law books in his possession at all times? See Appendix Exhibit (C) 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Adam Huber has been mailed by way of SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: . J William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated• JarrvA" 6 2011 9 FILED-OFFICE , n IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE NE t?DTNi"?`?r sz`I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN 4 JAN, 25 AM 11: 1+ J WILLIAM CURTIS CD PENNSYLVA I ? Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff William Curtis requests Defendants to make the following admissions and within 30 Days from the service of this request, all in accordance with Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures. 1. The averments in the attached photocopy of the document marked G(b) Formal Complaint 1. Pa. Code 35.9 et. seq. are in accord with the facts. Respectfully Submitted, Z"? 044?- William Curtis, Pro Se Dated : JAWQA?,f 0 , 2011 Ekhibit G(b) William Curtis AM 8092 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 883.7 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 FORMAL COMPLAINT I PA. CODE §§35.9 et. seq. DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act. Act of April 27, 1927, P.L. 465, as amended 35 P.S. §§ 1221- 1235.1, and Pa. Code §§35.9. I. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES 1. William Curtis is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Complainant, is proceeding pro se, and at all times relevant to these events Complainant was housed on (E) Housing Unit "Special Management Unit" in the Restricted Housing Unit. 2. Respondent Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., is Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 3. Respondent Donald Kelchner is Superintendent at SCI-Camp Hill. 4. Respondent Eugene Brannigan is Deputy Superintendent for Facility Management at SCI-Camp Hill. 5. Respondent D. Patton is Deputy Superintendent for Centralized Services at SCI- Camp Hill. 6. Respondent Robert Marsh, Jr., is Unit Management for the "Special Management Unit" (E) Housing Unit at SCI-Camp Hill. 7. During all times relevant to these events each Respondent in averments (2) through (6) was acting under the "Color of State Law" and Pa. Const. Art. 1, § § 13. 1 II. JURISDICTION 8. Jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry is based on the Fire and Panic Act, Act of 1927, P.L. 465, as amended 35 P.S. §§1221-1235.1. III. THE MATERIAL FACTS UPON WHICH COMPLAINANT'S CLAIM IS BASED FOR RELIEF SOUGHT 9. Complainant believes and therefore avers, that Respondents acts and omissions are direct violations of the Fire and Panic Act, Act 1927, P.L. 465, No. 299, Section 1., Section 8., and Section 11. 10. That on March 23, 2005 Complainant was transferred to the Restricted Housing Unit "Special Management Unit" at SCI-Camp Hill, from SCI-Smithfield and assigned to Housing Unit (E) cell B2, 18. 11. On Saturday, April 23, 2005, between the hours of 8:45 am and 7:45 pm Respondents by way of their servants, agents and/or employees with several SCI-Camp Hill, inmates alter POD (B) of Housing Unit (E) by erecting a cinder block structure to the adjacent wall to POD (A), and interior wall to POD (B). 12. Complainant believes and therefore avers, that sometime between April 24, 2005 and April 25, 2005, Respondents by way of their servants, agents, and/or employees with several SCI-Camp Hill, inmates demolished this incomplete cinder block add-on building structure with sludge hammers and heave wooden-handled pick tools. 13. That sometime between the time interval of April 24, 2005 and April 29, 2005, Respondents by way of their servants, agents, and/or employees with several SCI-Camp Hill 2 inmates alter POD (B) of Housing Unit (E) by erecting a cinder block structure to the adjacent wall to POD (A) replacing the partially built structure that was demolished a few days earlier. 14. Complainant believes and therefore avers, that the dimensions of Respondents incomplete structure appears to be as follows in terms of cinder blocks = [CB's], length = [9 CB's], height = [9 CB's] and width [13 CB's], with one door opening of this (3) wall structure parallel to the lower tier showers on POD (B) and the other door is parallel to POD's (B) exit door. 15. That on June 8, 2005, Respondents by way of their servants, agents, and/or employees with several SCI-Camp Hill inmates welded thin metal slabs into a rectangle, which was placed on the (3) wall erected building structure to support roof construction on POD (B). 16. Complainant believes and therefore avers, Respondents are responsible for a non- performance of duty and in direct violation of the Fire and Panic Act. 17. In fact, Respondents acts and omissions appear to be specifically prohibited by: A) Fire and Panic Act Section 8 Approval of Plans (stating in pertinent part, it shall be the duty of the owner, architect, or contractor of every building or structure, as described in this Act, hereafter erected, adapted, remodeled, or altered, to submit to the Department of Labor and Industry for approval, architectural drawings, specification...no such building or structure shall be erected, adapted, remodeled, or altered, until such plans have been examined and approval...) B) Section 11. Failure to submit plans or obtain approval, (stating in pertinent part, any building or structure to be erected or adapted, remodeled or altered shall fail to submit plans to the Department of Labor and Industry, or, having submitted plans, shall have failed to obtain approval of such plans, and shall nevertheless proceed with the work of erecting, adapting, remodeling, or altering the said building, the Department of Labor and Industry shall serve notice .... to immediately cease all work on said building or structures;...); C) Pa. Const. Art 1, §§13, (stating, in pertinent part, the guarantee against: cruel and unusual punishment... ). 3 18. Complainant believes and therefore avers, that Respondents acts and omissions are a deliberate indifference to his health and safety. 19. Respondents, disregard to a reasonable increase of risk and probability to risk that their structure may collapse and cause injury and bodily harm to Complainant while he walks pass their structure or collapse during attendance of a (PRC) review since Respondents have failed to seek the expertise and approval from Labor and Industry before erecting a structure and altering POD (B) of Housing Unit (E), "Special Management Unit," which appears to be specifically prohibited by Pa. Const. Art. 1, §§13, Fire and Panic Act Section 8 and 11. 20. Complainant believes and therefore avers, Respondents did not seek plan approval from the Department of Labor and Industry to erect a structure and alter POD (B) of Housing Unit (E) "Special Management Unit," Restricted Housing Unit, for the Program Review Committee, review room which is a violation of the Fire and Panic Act Section 8 and 11. IV. RELIEF RESOLUTION And Section 15. Enforcement That Respondents are in violation of the Fire and Panic Act. A) Section 8. Approval of Plans; B) Section 11. Failure to submit plans or obtain approval. WHEREFORE, Complainant, respectfully request that Labor and Industry reprimand 4 and fine Respondents for failure to comply with provisions of the Fire and Panic Act. Respectfully Submitted, a William Curtis Dated: J ..l )./ ZS 32005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Request for Admission has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: JAM'i?~y / ?1 92011 FILED-OFFICE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS O THE FORC11P fONO TARY CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA71 ! JAN 25 Ate 1 { : ({ 5 WILLIAM CURTIS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff William Curtis requests Defendants to make the following admissions and within 30 Days from the service of this request, all in accordance with Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures. 1. The averments in the attached photocopy of the document marked G(a) Formal Complaint 1. Pa. Code 35.9 et. seq. are in accord with the facts. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: 19 , 2011 Exhibit G(a) William Curtis AM 8092 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 FORMAL COMPLAINT I PA. CODE §§35.9 et. seq. DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act. Act of 1927, P. L. 465, No. 299 as amended 35 P.S. §§1221- 1235.1, Pa. Const. Art. I §§13 and Eighth Amendment U.S. Const. i. IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES 1. William Curtis is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. The Petitioner is proceeding pro se, and at all times relevant to these events Petitioner has been housed in the Restricted Housing Unit, (E) Unit "Special Management Unit." 2. Respondent Jeffrey A. -Beard, Ph.D., is Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 3. Respondent Donald Kelchner is Superintendent at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pa. 4. Respondent Eugene Brannigan is Deputy Superintendent for Facility Management at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pa. 5. Respondent D. Patton is Deputy Superintendent for Centralized Services at the ' State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pa. 6. Respondent Robert J. Marsh, Jr., is Unit Manger for the "Special Management Unit" at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Pa. 7. During all times relevant to these events herein Respondents in averments (2) through (6) were acting under the "Color of State Law" and Pennsylvania Fire and Panic Act, Act of 1927 P.L. 465, No. 294 as a amended 35 P.S. §§1221-1235.1, and Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. JURISDICTION 8. Jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry is based on the Act of 1927, P.L. 465, No. 299 as amended 35 P.S. §§1221-1235.1. II. THE MATERIAL FACTS UPON WHICH PETITIONER'S CLAIM IS BASED FOR RELIEF SOUGHT 9. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that Defendants acts and omissions are direct violations of Pa. Fire and Panic Act. 10. The Petitioner is confined in the Restricted Housing Unit "Special Management Unit" (E) Housing Unit. 11. The Petitioner believes and therefore avers, there are no sprinkler systems and fire alarms on (E) Housing Unit, which is not permitted under Fire and Panic Act Section 1 and 3. 12. The Petitioner believes and therefore avers, there are no automatic fire detection devices for the hearing impaired on (E) Housing Unit, which is not permitted under Fire and Panic Act Section 3.1. 13. The Defendants have failed to promulgate any type of fire evacuation plan for (E) Housing Unit, which should be included in the Department of Corrections State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill's, Special Management Unit "Inmate Handbook." 2 1 4. That there are no fire extinguishers on each tier of each (E) Housing Unit PODs, at the "Special Management Unit," which is not permitted under Fire and Panic Act Section 4.1. 15. The Petitioner believes and therefore avers, if there are any fire extinguishers on (E) Housing Unit, these objects are obscured from view, which is not permitted under Fire and Panic Act Section 4.1. 16. That Deputy Superintendent for Facility Management Brannigan, has failed to develop a fire-evacuation plan for (E) Housing Unit, Fire and Panic Act Section 4., and Pa. Const 1 § § 13., violations. 17. That Unit Manager Marsh has not conducted any fire drills for (E) Housing Unit and there are not any maintained written record of all fire drills, pertaining to the "Special Management Unit," Fire and Panic Act Section 4., and Pa. Const 1 §§ 13., violations. 18. That Superintendent Kelchner of the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, has not promulgated and sufficient ways of egress and means of escape from Fire and Panic for (E) Housing Unit, Fire and Panic Act Section 4., and Pa. Const 1 §§13., violations. 19. The Petitioner believes and therefore avers, that Commissioner Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., who has been employed by the Department of Corrections in a Central Office Administrative capacity since the construction of (E) Housing Unit and Beards' acts and omissions which pertain to the Fire and Panic Act, continue to subject Petitioner to excessive risk to his health and safety that is not permitted under Pa. Const 1 §§ 13, and U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 20. That Petitioner believes and therefore avers, that Defendants are responsible for permitting structural or other defects and/or poor and faulty building maintenance of the (E) Housing Unit infrastructure which is not permitted under Fire and Panic Act Section 1. 21. On (E) Housing Unit there is incessant noise, a continuing clanging noise, banging noise, and a pounding and knocking noise between the cell walls. 22. This variety of noise pollution being caused in or around installation pipes, fiberglass ductwork canals and/or pipes for plumbing and heating as a result this noise pollution is more intensified at night, causing Petitioner sleep deprivation which is not under Const. Act. 1 §§ 13 and U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 23. The Petitioner believes and therefore avers, that Defendants are responsible for deliberate and faulty building maintenance which has resulted into high levels of bacteria and other pathogens, some which may be caused by cigarette smoking, to accumulate in the (E) Housing Unit ventilation system because the entire system has not been properly cleaned in a substantial period of time which is not permitted under the Fire and Panic Act Section 10. 1, Const. Art. §§13 and U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 24. That Defendants deliberate indifference to Petitioner's Health and Safety and their non-performance of duty and failure to properly clean by frequent time intervals (E) Housing Unit's fiberglass ductwork and ventilation system and that there are levels exceeding guidelines for contamination of molds and fungus such are the following: A) Cladosporium B) Penicillium C) Aspergillus D) Alternaria And these types of conditions appear to be specifically prohibited by Fire and Panic Act Section 10. 1, Const. Art. 1 §§13 and U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 8. 25. The conditions created by Defendants non-performance of duty has caused the Petitioner to suffer from ailments such as headaches, eye irritation, bleary and distorted vision and skin reaction. 4 26. In fact, the refusal of the Department of Corrections to upgrade and vastly improve fire and safety conditions in the Restricted Housing Unit "Special Management Unit" appears to be specifically prohibited by: A) Fire and Panic Act (stating in pertinent part, to provide for the safety of persons... housed or assembled in certain buildings and structures by requiring certain construction and ways of egress, equipment and maintenance....); B) Pa. Const. Art. 1, §§13 (stating in pertinent part, the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment...); C) Eighth Amendment U.S. Const. (stating, in pertinent part,... nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted). 27. By complaint DC ADM 804 dated June 28, 2005, the Petitioner brought this matter to the attention of all Defendants. RELIEF A) Labor and Industry perform an inspection of the Restricted Housing Unit (E) Unit "Special Management Unit." B) Labor and Industry perform an inspection at SCI-Camp Hill. C) Following any and all inspections issue orders citing all violations of the Fire and Panic Act. D) Furnish information concerning the measures, which have been taken by Defendants at the "Special Management Unit" for protection from fire. E) Any and all information pertaining to fiberglass materials used for the infrastructure of (E) Housing Unit "Special Management Unit." F) Any and all files and records pertaining to fire drills at the "Special Management Unit" (E) Unit from January 2000 through June 2005. 5 G) Any and all tiles and records and cleaning process for the ventilation system for (E) Housing Unit "Special Management Unit," from January 2000 through June 2005. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis William Curtis AM8092 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 Dated: Jej 1 `/ -- .0 , 2005 VERIFICATION I, William Curtis, hereby state that I verify that the statements made in the foregoing formal complaint to Pa. Labor and Industry are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. These statements are subject o the Penalties of the 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. William Curtis. Dated: J i ),/ Z O .2005 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Request for Admission has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: •JAN%?Ati? /9 , 2011 FILED-OFFICE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE PROTNONOTAR`i CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2011 JAN 25 AM Ik 45 CUMBERLAND COUNTY WTLLIAM CURTTS PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT JEFFREY A. BEARD, PH.D 1. What is your educational background and what are the names of accredited educational institutions where you have received any form of Provost Status, Honorary Degree and/or degree? 2. What is the length of time you have been employed as the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections? 3. Are there other employment capacities that you have occupied during your stay at the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections? 4. Is the Department of Corrections Crievance System DC--ADM 904, a avenue to be used by Plaintiff when mistakes, action of state employees are a contradiction to their code of ethics or contrary to law and DOC policy? 5. Should a pattern of complaints pertaining to the same subject matter "Plaintiff's property" such as DC-ADM 804 No. 164511 and No. 164515, Habeas Corpus Petition averment "Vo. 28 pages 5 and 7" and Private Criminal Complaint "page 5" be indicative of some large malice in the system's inability to eradicate these persistent problems? See Appendix Exhibits (C), (D), (H) and (L) 6. If any staff member retaliated against Plaintiff for invoking his constitutional rights to seek redress by way of DC-ADM 804, 42 Pa. C.S. 6502 (b) et seq. Habeas Corpus, and Private Criminal Complaint Rule 504, what would you do? See Appendix Exhibits (C), (D), (F), (H), (J), and (L) 7. On Plaintiff's DC-ADM 153 No. A579752 at law books is a "numeral notation" pertaining to the amount of law books own by Plaintiff to be written in the column and space stating law books? See Appendix Exhibit ("?) 8. State when you first received notice by way of a letter for Senior Assistant District Attorney for Cumberland County, Penna., Matthew P. Smith that Plaintiff made an attempt to file a Private Criminal Complaint against your subordinate staff for missing property and the non-legitimate inventorying of Plaintiff's property by Huber. See Appendix Exhibit (F) 2 9. When did you first received notice by way of Labor and Tndustry's Order No. 701093 that you and subordinate staff were responsible for various state and federal Life Safety Code 101 violations pertaining to the storage and care of Plaintiff's property and maintenance of Modular Knit No. 5, at SCT-Camp 14ill? 10. Ts it your responsibility as Commissioner during the relevant time period to ensure that prison staff comply with all prison rules, regulations and the Wept. of Correction's Code of Ethics? 11. Due to your position within the Sept, of Corrections during the relevant time periods were you directly responsible for the actions of your subordinates? 12. During the relevant time periods why did you fail to adequately investigate Plaintiff's property complaints? 13. Did the Dept. of Corrections Policy during the time of these events give permission for Plaintiff to have magazines and newspapers in addition to boots? 14. Ts defendant Duber a State Civil Service employee under the Penna. Civil Service Merit System? 3 15. Does the Dept. of Corrections receive federal funds collected under the Civil Service Act ""Merit System" for employees of Dept. of Corrections? 16. Is defendant Adam Huber's job performance evaluated each year pursuant to the Civil Service Act of Aug. 5, 1941 (P.L. 752, No. 236)? 17. Did defendant Adam Huber fail to satisfactorily perform his duties on April 5, 2005, pertaining to Plaintiff's DC-ADM 153 Inmate Property Inventory No. A579752 with substantial correlating facts stated within Plaintiff's Complaint? See Appendix Fxhibit (M) 18. Did defendant Nuber's acts of destroying plaintiff's most expensive "hardback books" and "hardback law books" show a willingness to inflict substantial financial impediment an injury with a conscious indifference to the fact that Plaintiff is a "{lard of the State" and indigent without the means to purchase $850.00, worth of "quality books" again? 19. What type of falsifications or concealment of material information is your subordinate staff responsible for pertaining to the relevant time periods of this lawsuit? 4 20. What actions did you take specifically pertaining to the letter from Matthew P. Smith Assistant District Attorney for Cumberland County Pa., addressed to the Dept. of Corrections dated July 18, 2005? 21. Is Labor and Industry's Order 701093 dated Aug. 17th 2005, pertaining to acts and omissions by you and state employees violations of N.F.P.A. Life Safety Code 101 and Title 34 Pa. Code at Modular Housing Unit 5, SCI-Camp 'Till, Pa.? 22. Is Labor and Industry's Order 701093 Aug. 17th 2005, and Matthew P. Smith District Attorney dated July 5, 2005, stating, in pertinent part, "concise manner in which you have presented your claim" he indicative of the Dept. of Corrections proclivity to be in denial of state employees acts and omissions regardless of obvious undisputable facts? 23. Yhere defendant: !tuber's acts contrary to 37 Pa. Code 95.245? Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendant Jeffrey Beard has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford 'fail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 ??tley Drive Camp Trill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se Am-8092 Box 244 yraterf_ord, Pa. 19425 Dated: JA04AL,/ /q 2011 6 M / i F !L.rn-0F r11£'E y b` IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVAMA-I ,?.` ' : ^ a CIVIL ACTION-LAW r-, i t in, WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants MOTION TO DISMISS NOW comes Debra Sue Rand, counsel for Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("Department"), Department former Secretary Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., and the other named Corrections' employees (collectively, "Defendants") and files this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Section 6602(f) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f). 1. Judge Bayley issued an order in this case on September 10, 2008 granting in forma pauperis status. 2. , Plaintiff is William Curtis (Inmate No. AM8092) and is currently housed at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. 3. The named defendants are former officers and employees or current officers and employees of the Department. 4. The term "Prison conditions litigation" is defined in Section 6601 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 Pa. C.S. § 6601, as, "A civil t r , proceedings arising in whole or in part under Federal or State law with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by a government party on the life of an individual confined in prison." 5. Curtis alleged in his complaint that certain of his books were improperly confiscated and/or destroyed and seeks money damages. 6. This allegation concerns "prison conditions litigation" as that terns is statutorily defined. 7. Section 6602(e) of the PLRA, entitled "Dismissal of litigation," states that [n]otwithstanding any filing fee which has been paid, the court shall dismiss prison conditions litigation at any time, including prior to service on the defendant, if the court determines any of the following:... (2) The prison conditions litigation is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or the defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense, including immunity, which if asserted, would preclude the relief." 8. Section 6602(f) of the PLRA, entitled "Abusive litigation," permits a trial court to dismiss prison conditions litigation "[i]f the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation and: (1) three or more of these prior actions have been dismissed pursuant to subsection (e)(2) [of the PLRA]." 9. Plaintiff Curtis has had more than three prior actions dismissed pursuant to subsection (e)(2) of the PLRA. See attached Exhibit A. 2 1 ? 1 10. Although there is an exception to the abusive litigation provision where the prisoner seeks preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order "which makes a credible allegation that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury," 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f)(2), none of Curtis's allegations indicates that he is in such danger. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant this Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully submitted, Office of Chief Counsel By: 1 r, Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Attorney I.D. No. PA41661 PA Dept. of Corrections 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 728-7763 Dated: January 24, 2011 3 r , IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA William Curtis, Petitioner V. ; Jeffrey A. Beard, PhD, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, et al. Respondents No. 72 M. D. 2006 Cart-fled from the Remr. APR 2 6 2006 - PER CU RIAM O R D E R send Order E* Now, April 25, 2006, upon consideration of respondents' preliminary objections, the objections are sustained, and the petition for review is dismissed under Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA, 42 Pa. C.S. §6602(e)(2). The petition for review in this matter is duplicative of the matter petitioner filed at No. 474 M.D. 2005, which this Court dismissed for petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On the merits of petitioner's claim that prison officials confiscated personal property and refused his request to ship the items home, internal prison operations are properly left to the legislative and executive branches; prison officials must be allowed to exercise their judgment in the execution of policies necessary to preserve order and maintain security free from judicial interference. Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 554 Pa. 317, 721 A.2d 357 (1998); Weaver v. Department of Corrections, 829 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). DOC policies do not create enforceable rights. Id. EXHIBIT A Prison inmates do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protections afforded to non-incarcerated citizens, and an inmate's claim for constitutional violations must fail unless the inmate can identify a personal or property interest not limited by Department of Corrections (DOC) regulation. Id. An inmate is not protected from the seizure and destruction of property because his Fourth Amendment rights are among those subject to curtailment upon incarceration. Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803 (9th Circ. 1989). Where a deprivation of property results from the unpredictable negligent acts of state agents, the availability of adequate state post- deprivation remedy satisfies the requirement of due process. Id. (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981)). The Pennsylvania grievance system provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for inmates. Austin v. Lehman, 893 F.Supp. 448 (E.D. Pa. 1995). IN THE CGIVI'MUNINEALTH-ORT?O-F PENNSYLVANIA William Curtis, Petitioner V. Jeffrey A. Beard, PhD, Commissioner, Department of Corrections, et al., Respondents PER CURIAM ORDER No. 474 M.D. 2005 Now, October 28, 2005, upon consideration of respondents' preliminary objections and petitioner's response, and it appearing that petitioner does not aver that he sought and was denied administrative relief through the state correctional institution grievance system and therefore cannot establish that he lacks another adequate and appropriate remedy, see Harding v. Stickman, 823 A.2d 1110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), the objection alleging failure to exhaust administrative remedies is sustained, and the petition for review is dismissed. Respondents' remaining preliminary objection is dismissed as moot. Certified from the Record OCT 31 2005 _? and Order Exit IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUNTINGDON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff Vs. NO. 97-989 WILLIAM LOVE, CAPTAIN NORRIS, LT. HAYES, J. HARRIS, C. STONER and W. BRENNEMAN,, Defendants: O R D E R Peter Hobart William Curt AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, A.D., 2001, the preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer filed on behalf of all Defendants is sustained and this action is dismissed. , Esq. Ls ?l of this Doculnem has bee Tl f2 i I;i Yl?? Office of t}t? Pro01;orota-ry/C1Crk of Court on 3 BY THE COURT, rotQ???,z?.cct?? J. N -rtir- Couiz"1 of Cor,moo P IF-A'S o F Hviamiw ,Dow COVUIy, Pr-wtjsy(VAV,) t? 1,?1 i t 1 ri, C, v a?T? s C', Aitoi FF C)v7L- AcrioN- LAW v. ?..?? 1IiAM Lov1E., ("'ARA1N NoR12is Cr. S TO N/L J ?RNN?MI?N Fr,- vi o A w-, -t Civic C'???,,.F'1A ?„-? >>ITLE 4Z. PEONA., Roiv-S of Civ,L PitocrDuar, Rair- iogss wi I l ?;A r- cvTC? z Aiv, TO q;7 1111 Al Amuc ,i RIVD. FR. I - 3 i JUN 20 10 r VVus1)1C1 oti HtS IS A CAVIL. A- (,-novj AT L.Mw UwDxn- C,S.A• TiTLE L1Z Rv1Es of CIV1L PROCEDORL. `rHNS C..ovlzT HAs )omaD?Cllvw (UNoF-n- CG. S. iA. T T LE yz PY-UNA. RUIES O f7 CIV11 PP-or-f-DUX-E a???z ??? o F P NO N ATi12r- OFTH, ACT IOW i) i s l ! i?r• G:.R."i'is, 1 s Pn ?Nt ?y cnn.c. r?r?i ?o AT SCI - F?c.kv,l1E7 1 NCI rYLAGV.1J1 I IE. i P .Nus `I I •/,?1•>> I'1?, JS PxocEIvo 1 NG P.o EL AND r( T YA I ? Ti M *F- -V A Ni TO 11i tS V, JK U'g NT-S C) o w F, .T c i;'l io ?- Awl) ?'?ST?IR:JCTiONJ ?? PILo pgyz Y P)AINjIiFF L,.JAS CONI-IWrt.0 1W I Nv, UNI i (i S C.1-1-1vN?T,U?poN 2) Q 1 ?NTaAN? 1 ?tY?N? J. Uvr-1 Li AS PXtL)v- rz,WDEUT AT C i- ???N!INGOoN i'aT l lid TIME T-IIS 1NS1VA"i 1°1C11oN ?(LoS? A-r fri, S>? ti?T V ? .tvb?I.iT UJrr- i S Gt o I?raL F-As 1 truo ptPor? C bt,M,%,s N YZ I Drr-CAr: r%r,w-r cD F c,one.rcT toPS voh- PtuNr\.IlQANN+a, eAP-rwo Norals, Ll v1FNr?ul IAA\irr-s, C. Brown? C?Z ? t,J. ?n?N>JX r??aN Cam, ?N? ?, 1-lr??,rz?s Co..i? ?i ?'N?. ?1M of 'riAv- SxcoNo )?vxp-F Aizost rA1 Prc S ?i ? n6Kr??? Z, C_ D N?I'11JI S 1~+PfO.??ZC? j? l 14Amp.,s, DJP.,NG rr-WC H tV*K-WT' S C 1- 14\JNS i N?, ooN F-Ari4 o F Tiirz- I 1 h1(J i ?! P O v (? LS 1 N (FL m .N i Z ?R, Sv'-() 1N TH1ii2 tNb1VJOQ(AL. n"ID OFF-c-lviLCAPAclM-Ei I t Li) ALi- p??UnANTs 1-?,?v? PcT?o UtJvY- n,. Lo Iotz o- S FATF, LrAw // Dv2?u- ALL TtMtS ,v-I vAli TO TH?s COk.PIA?uT- S 144- MA-rtt.?Al._. Fric.i s U LOH)e14 PI rA,NT TFs 1wy, ?s QiAS o Foy Rrllrt-F Snv6Ni YAM 1' 1 V> i uTi V-r I" Tfii r- iA Q o V)Z - t 1.r 1 i 1 L-r?- D C IM -TI-A s s A i rz.r%,rz WT o F?V) V i r.n?AU TrycTf. i Fot1uws THAT, V1GIAT10NS 6F S-rATE L.At,.,s YA WP VI C) (,AT-) ow d? I? Gv1 r? 1 t o NS o Dr-CA'Z r?V.NT OF Con2Ee- iott L1R>?Ci 1V1 3 aC- ADM 251Y-3 VI'DIA17l0Us of Rpps\/Iv/qNivq C?Ns? ?T'? i »U r?Nn Pr7,WNS•/ IVA ?jlw Co;?i3o1 iosqTt-o ST?ivT s P N v joTn-rv-o V 10 1 ATE o NS © F P I rA i NTi V s F, -ii 14, i '?> >? r? ?? n r? r? i ? c? r?s r3F To r- l)U ?T b SThT?s C o us i IIv11?NZ? Tl-?raT (2rC I4ATTr, ,L_ of Nom -??nkx i fy)ov,A61rz, 11AtWGS, Gr_sot-j&qL wi-lick HrAs NU e.dNI•tl? -1) otJ wi-rW TZAL )zSThT1, LiIE n*. Rjmc14Asr(J 0VjDEIZ QC-AD>M '2151 Cov"MISIAmly Plzojk?rr-ror,-s gr -onz rFFEc,Ttvr, OF IZ -2 - ?f z rANID VAL?o vNlDrca F%PWA. S-rrATJTX T TLrz- 3--7 P,l6Hrs (?N17 ?i2??1(_?6?5 ?q3•?? ?Q? C? J. 3 THAT- Blncks L A w ?? c.T'i oNr?n•? 'Dri-F, o i bRANI Fn lity-- CIAQ- s As R PILiov, SIoN IN n "r-w L6 u o?,- K zrGv ? I R T I o N E N ?- r-r- t- f L) -1 ti G TIA 0 s 1z. lit I e V- A py 1 N 0 e rk pn Ri OF Tlif- E'XIST1 WG S ySTFLh, Lill tc i 1S RF-11.JG R1z1?>QI?TXn )I N '? P T N T o n jZrRTv i c i i o ?j 'TH(A i Yx?! l o o s YA 1 l T14 o s "k- rjI R2TA Dy V O 1 N ?c M TN N 6 TO C o N T 1 N v K ) I E V 1z N i F TI Y 1,,.10 v L 0 $ S i o PPto By THt Ntw tZtsTQici ow TH(;-r THE DEFAx-r->,rzur 01 ?.?>znrcr?o?s 2,jt1Eijp D - r? per, Z/5 C.o>~•r,?ssrAxy Pm%v,? Gds Pvl icy 1vvr•Rrn. VG-AOr- gjS - 3 DATFL b?1SS\jZ 3, )GG3 - TD So f2r-i.iUitvND- NTS ! srAFF n w) D1 2K-C T07z.S IS n I)CY,GihMr?Trz- Prtr?;r-??6r?rtoN yAtjo 902ymsrN-rA noN OF Q1nck,S Lr-,w Q I-1i??T'to? of Gm?1No ATj-1 n. C Ir \-)jr-, irr- r EXHlGIT s? Ar P1i N-rf"F N?1 n???? 1c?n??o6 of rip Possrss?aN QF 10 1 1 et a 1. ?? TI-1rT" ON DV-Cri.>MQ'k2 Z1 IeigZ( PIAtNTif CHn)JGXo ?? ?vS I NS STnT,)j x. ,. 6XwrxAC.. Po Pu l,gTi oF,) To Tli IF, P-tsiamFrz, Uus r AT' S C 1 - DAI(AS, 'roAl' ow )vtir?-, (t, 1 ?q3, N9 tf--FL-.)fAs Trz?NS?zrln>; i ?u in Tl?f- RtSTn.?c-Tlla I1 o vS t uG UNiT- AT S C I - VA l(AS TO T14r- R. fri? U,. AT S C I - P T-n 9vci,1{ . $? 'T IA AT PI A l wn F F Co wT N,j c o To f? v- 1-1 v \.j s x o i w H F. (? N U 1aT 2 C, 1-- , .T..-S E v tt b 9.9 p-! o o v i L V I W v- a ri ),3 W rz, q) I q q3 Uwi L 141,S TnrawFYL To S C 1- H2'2 TU(opat,3 J??y 21? 1 c1 9s 9J _r14AT ?O-GvY??NT??T1?N 1 ?-?1?. 1-14E I?pr,-,tA . Cojtr A jo )m Dr,PA(L-i )mrwt Ol C ?¢.2kcrloN LoNIimr.. IHlc 1Mrilrr- n.ioCFe-t c r it?l,ai Pl,q,wT-,FF HAo Ermw CouFNjro 1N rH ?. ?r??c? o 1-?o?S?N? UIj?i 9ErnrL. T14F- 'r`'(---rr-eiIVV- DyAT)r- oF'TIiX )2IF-v?Sko Di;-App 'sIs L'ji-I?CIA C)C CUP.P-KD 17--22'-9Z AWb fZ'F-w,rlltito 11,3THE Raa\j. VNitL PVGvsf ) o, )9Q5'. S rr-V- tmi Bir (Z) 10) -FF)AT 0N J, ly PIA1),j T-, FF TOLD C. s-IOPrrL 01 Awo (3fL Ni.??h+?a?.? Y?Qov i A (-SMVjof THzr, CIAUI : fAUO ; Hn I rALL C.010n.S Of- e ioiHiu6 L-41 -f M V(4 LID Avjo I Hrz-?n- 1 N 1?; rz. Pn y f? i 1 ? ?' ? N ? C o ? c, tvP ?i o N b ? ? D w? ? ?, S n?li v K P.IIC_y C'?p T/S S)-Iouip o I ME QXRzLNCH1^,XtJT EXCAU11C PIr??wr??? ossr_ssr:0 A l l P?aOrun.i ?j RXF - 'DrLc, 77 I 942, S IZ%S,.)II-? I` ???t??i ? R1?T-vSXrJ ?O i ?N DC-?53 1t? A?TL 1 rzs o I, ?.- Q?? Pt'?.Ty 1 N V N To Ky S I-i is *rL i y 4 -7 L/ - s Tc. r,-x1 B + I (3) I? N( T i No Ti DJnIuG Ti-t NON - LG?T? r,wr rZ Nv N?a?y Pno? 1) r_- s Pi0 Tc0 R\ pr??No???s July 3., ???? p? Pi?A??T'i?? C1vx AvrNomrui 'ioN Fart. Qr.Srnljc.T-iau -'r"Hri r O N ?av C., QS T- *3 ) 9 P? NT Rr- I N F-on Y, o ?iCr n.rwTrr- vior- 1.r.1?I1,A>, Lovx, P>z?????s PXrz-rA?Nlw? -? i -? cohsl t scr+f oN ?,?? TON O 21 1? 1 N , fr P nS O 1J ?? L P)t_ 0 ?= XT?j' f 1 3> ld o w tAu Gj s T , o, ? lil-I FF 1J A s i2 r r- AS lE b -TO or ow. D N /?vC,vsT? 12? 1 99s P1?1 1.?! I ?F wT-xA(- Pa P`' I?T) 1, X0 A Cor,PI IVNT Ficx-rAiwiw T-b c sL ATiaU p F H,S cr,,,,A(- RoFrz.?-(Y- -TNA-r p N o >?. PA ov WO FA\J GJsr l z 1 9s P)MOT)IFF R rL C>?1 r o A x z ws r 10 r u n k'' Nr Cf 0 v r.- P,?>z? {J 1 F.? (o -11 C) AIVJT? -Fs ??vG?3`i" 3 19?.S Carcx.K3I`oNo-t-i CK O1 cow1 s- P F 1 CA 1 1 n w YA WiO V ST1R c i I QN S F-)(141 11%T- (5 s 'THAT P1 ?,1Jrl FF rz.1- cj:-wro A 2rs P wsr To 1-Ni r??, , GRITL,,?AVJC ??, U4?7' 9S- ? 0 v6vS1 lZ) g9 5- 1"xor- Drff.-woAwT- Nonais, STSr1NG No Gn.(ANt)FAT-HE E. C, A,,) S>v A I s r, S Y?)r EX H I B ITs ap? (&R) 0 ? 11nT ow r1v6osT 2L,) )gqS, F)A)w-r'r--rwmQT-rz, TIM Krcoylo SPrr-cIAtIn- SvPXRVIJ0" l,unTiS C. CrAn,so>J To fAc,quln 1N ?onr?raTloN TNr?I Sjgg-rAtSrm :?ro S\jCr?-m)i,-- )1 WvrNT- Lovr s INVAt(D 1NT?n.Pn,?.Tr?r?l? of QC- Anm 7/5--3_ SEE )EXI-t 191-" C-7i ?t) TTA (AT Q t-3 (2) A I NT, F? n rt. vv I vrx 1? h'ttSCoNQ?CI I-17K ??i-41?IN?,S I? ?.SJ?? Piw11NT1FF (Lr.TvnNr-o To rt?1i. 4jrl2lcrrz'0 11o\js) N(t, UNIT-. sr? I HAT 4N )??NvArte 13/ 1 'iqL, rz- FzNvr1,T ra\/*F-j M N o 1-11 I2 i-s j w v r b rz. I r o P 1 A t N T : Fs' PrUR-S ":, ?lj (A (-- py-0 Fw?q? 714AT- P1M ITT) FF 1 w ?nw.?o D1iFru-onuT l (A\/rj TiiAT" 2 PA c v- s O F TLAzo 1Z 91 n D z S C o N f--uc.raTT)::-o To 13E DEsTk,v-'IX0 sir,-YL):- f I?j riCHArFo AT A SiATr CaTt"-cT-1oNr1 L 1 NSTtTvi1? o)-j / r,4r.1Zr, 1'or?T: Lac rn Q?cavJr C) Crq grzriuo- Gwrlgrsr, C 1 rA Qs v-. 7-0) 'TI4n-F Vkf:r--t4 0AIj 1-?ra.? S, Ac1CNow IM0ro -0 Tian. FAc,T- ?l-tr?T Ttir fZn-ZQrL VADkS wXR.E VORCHASkD AT A Tr-FE Cop,Toic-no wAL 1 NsTlTvrlo ), (3vT S ? T F.n 9Xcrqv4F P1V?tNr??? Ab rA ?rII? f,T, vUlpucT -H ISS 1T?1?s w To ZIF- NsTrzot?>zn ?XMrgi C8? IA TL 16HT-S 7-0 Pvssr.9' s t oU OF n L»6tT-1 t,A Coy.r-s wary puncNAsIE ()1 V-Azov. X31VN DW-s Dr I r!VJ0AUi 14A\/ X-S AU0 )-(-NyctttS pow I-?Sc.r?1 17 P1v1iNTt FC Q)Jr LIIuTr.rL CoraT. ?F T? L -o Dr- Fr, N b /-? 1.?T3 ?-? "-/ a 22) I t4VAl P I P? 1 113-T-1 R N o I-I A rr. rc S -t t S 1 I i -w, w n s h? rJ U? QDI c ?-• A T K Mourlgs AGO 0Q i995-. 23 ? i 1? ?? ? D ? N er??T 1??y S, s TrArYLD To Pi n i is WFF i (A A k1wU 7i4rz- 1R,-JI . S I'?Nt? j 1 t C orb ?" t?vs Ql`. c ?N ?3?c ATxo T14 AF j?rLc.*AQst- t' ?A»rl IFS' To L0 Nn /I NTi 1-? 14A0 p L Ti t. AT-- 12I GNT r'bm Cc, SsxsS o TC '1C-Erz.-P IA13 corer Issvrz-o Pill?tJTi F-F-- ?1SctP???Ar?y ?iS6o>JUv?T R-QonT pC--i 11 Sys YH1BiT r liE AcT 0fZ DVTY ii _ V? UDA? t 1!1tL? >? rJ?lirZrfl ? &Foixv- Apo -TNt 1 R. er, F-usA- L -ro HAI ?`"rc NDAwi Lo'vr- IS A>J M ,?wammniwr- DzRwvAwrs Noerz?s AUp JIAyXS »R.E MMWAGXr^fuT- A6xNiS mwo Dx- F-r- wopuTs' I-AZ]Z?s, SToij A- AwC) RR.XPPf--M?`?N fA V--r- 2V-)Z v9 urs= A ?Z>iNbAWT$ Ac Ts Awo or?rss?c?r?S sr,x uwDrm 1 N*F- CO1^?Mbuw?CA 1-Ti4 n 6r-.jcy/ RVR>;AV OF Con2r-cl 10US Of ?WW.V\1(VAWlvq Y\"D YIIZF. RE-s FoUst6IZ. For- WILLF-u l hA i s C,o ?,; 0 v C- T. FA ?? u rzr?- To Cr o *P^ P y w t i t i Roijn ? T-A T u i )?. t ? rL.r? 3-? (q z- LI) (133)(C) p c,- Arr, ?is--3 C-or r,?SSjn Fmlvi?Y-C-'FU ? PTKrr?f3 - 3) 1993. "Ti-iV- 1 N knzsTr o F -ruF- QlA, -n F-t w -n-A,;-; ResvlT: A) I t tjoivG Tl4rAT ME lAc.1 s AQA v 1?„SS ?vr.?s O? Py,.oXi),-rAT-rz- , 1 rf: UOA1.?TS RIME TlA?cAVSrz OF11J) Umy 30 FF TL1?b QL/ ! A%UT-,FF otJ -rwo IJ1 FFr,:..Toz?oi C) CCnx1ow. s 1 HE DAN AGrL-s , I F ^N\i " A) --rH/AT Dr- u?,?rJis u,i c v l M^ scowoQc i IS -ME 12 rc 1 C tA v s x OF- P f /? r w l i ??? PvAki-A.T? Lo ss i:r.S. i-1?KA1 RAiwFiFT-4E rLN1IILVD To Cor,PjruSniork I r QAMe\GIZS. QA,--?ekGrcs 1s mix- Cos T of R.?P???c.?cr,?ur -Zijct?-- ?- 1 1Arc tAwAao oF QA ?, ??ra e,- s i s To eor,. x.Nstl Tr iA ? ki Ti FF Hosi CO1-pt-1-JJA low QA 1"r-l(o Y S Tb T )Acr- P FF- PAC 1 N 't iii Po si 11oN R*F- G)L)C- i HX Two v)? PTs O F7 L-)iLL(-u I Y\-\tScoUovc:-j OCGV>2nA0. pvLji-)ljK- Dn-i-A6e--S AGAWi-F pr- Fu0 ANr. Fo.-. Tl4xifl- LAclc o F G o o o F a-iA APO MlscoNovcF ]-i f.JA W F o f r4 Ny OTIi r12 A D X o V? 1- Rx, 1, r- QV A l (-A w j _rHAT SV-cT iotj Yz- P. c,-SA ?S-,S-o THY t?(0SI-F] o" OF ?1??Q?I?iy op .her 1U?? s Ron rAcTg Tl-Irgf- Cows i 1To 1rz- A ciz1i", r-- nCI VA? Fv.6,jt) fAcTvtA C r'IAIiet dR Lim it IYtiscojovCI. B) -Tl nT S»c Tit ow yz PA, CS,r=1. ?3?3 I?c1?au n?vtir.- AP-cIc- oFW 0 uT-y f 2'(tY-0 Ry Ire DY- FV N0,9 Uis i?AV 1 WIED OM rL,rz- sFosr4 W17-146uT Auf--u 1 Jvsi 1 Fl-r- v,i1otj TO n?tir Ya Dj(\/ TZ)9gUia.1-0 y Lriu SHALL Pr, ltA13(-T iw DA?-n ;yzs To 11? nso?? ??Grt?Zvl?o Ry Svcn FtI,jpx- om RrLF?S?4 L 7) 12"y Xk f OA. (A ?j D K N T- Y? l t?s l wrz- DrzRPbAJ-rS Tb C-OrAWSAM ?jc ? o? cjNFI?,s Rrz-so?A? CIA) OT?FF For, -rHr- Nsrp H /ATrZ, F For- Q/ij ?r..s 1 F R N y n "Q c, os r P R! CMANI C0MfE.NSA1ovty DMAi,A6XS IN -Mr- FoiioW1u(., Ar^oUw-rs P?GAlw&T )F-AC.H DxFTwDAw r 4 500 To $ looo Q) GrZM 1 Ru " 1 1\JX IDA)-,AGY-S o I THY- I o l)ou,PG I-bmo QNTs (AGAINST J.AcH VXf rr- NDAli $ 6-0 C$ TO 3 1000 Rt:sPxc:-,F,)il\/ S\JR3,', T TE: 01 DAT1=„ JuWZ 16 , 1A9-7 S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff, vs. TIN F. HORN, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00cv1149 (JUDGE CONABOY) FILED er PANTON DEC 18 2000 PER MEMORANDUM AND ORDER v DEPUTY CLERK William Curtis, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield ("SCI-Smithfield") initiated the above-captioned civil rights complaint on June 27, 2000, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Currently pending before the Court are motions by both parties. Plaintiff filed two motions, one for appointment of counsel (Doc. 10) on October 4, 2000 and one for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 23) on December 6, 2000. Defendants filed two motions, one to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 16) on November 3, 2000 and one for a protective order under F.R.Civ.P. 26(c) (Doc. 18) on November 16, 2000. For the reasons outlined below this action will be dismissed, and the other pending motions rendered moot. BACKGROUND The Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned 1 :ivil rights action on June 27, 2000. (Doc. 1). On August 30, 2000, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Supplemental Pleadings" (Doc. 6) pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 15(d) relating to Supplemental Pleadings. On October 2, 2000, the Defendants returned the Waiver Df Service of Summons. On November 3, 2000, Defendants filed Lion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Supplemental Pleadings. (Doc. 16). On November 13, 2000, Defendants filed a brief in pport. On December 4, 2000, Plaintiff filed a motion in sition. (Doc. 24). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at SCI-Smithfield. At he time of the events alleged in his complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff as incarcerated at State Correctional Institution in Frackville ("SCI-Frackville"). Plaintiff named twelve defendants. All of the efendants are employed at SCI-Frackville with the exception of artin F. Horn, who is the Secretary of the Department-of . orrections. In addition to Secretary Horn, Plaintiff has named oseph W. Chesney, the Superintendent at SCI-Frackville; John W. .erestes, the Deputy Superintendent for Facility Management; David . White, a dentist; Linda J Nauroth, the Health Care Administrator t SCI-Frackville; Captain Dennis P. Durant; Lieutenant Derfler; ergeant Leonard Poplaski; Donald Betz; Correctional Officer I; ohn S. Sanders, Correctional Officer I; Sean R. Resendes, orrectional Officer I; and James Kane, Institutional Hearing 2 iner. The initial complaint is twenty-seven pages long and ncludes eighty-eight numbered paragraphs, not including ubparagraphs and the Plaintiff's request for relief. The "Supplemental Pleadings" filed by Plaintiff consist of eleven pages twenty paragraphs, not including subparagraphs and the request or relief, wherein Plaintiff alleges four additional causes of ction. (See Docs. 1,6,8). Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) sets forth four causes of ction: The first cause of action claims violations of the Eighth ndment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment llegedly arising out of the refusal to provide dental care and the erall conditions of confinement in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU"); the second cause of action a-lieges violations of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights as a result of denial of Dersonal family information in the RHU; denial of reading J?materials and 8 M x 11 inch clear paper, and delaying delivery nd/or delivering damaged newspapers; the third cause of action laims violations of Plaintiff's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment ights arising out of misconduct reports, misconduct hearings and ishments; and the fourth cause of action alleges violations of laintiff's Fourth Amendment due to unreasonable and excessive avity and strip searches and use of urinalysis testing. Plaintiff 3 requests declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief including $500.00 in compensatory damages and $1000.00 in punitive damages ainst each Defendant. (See Doc. 1). Plaintiff's "Supplemental Pleadings" (Docs. 6,8) filed on t 30, and September 25, 2000, indicate that all Defendants are ing sued in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiff laims that he suffered "irreparable injury" on July 26, 2000 and st 1, 2000 as a result of what Plaintiff terms "two false sconduct reports" which resulted in a misconduct hearing on st 1, 2000 at which Plaintiff was denied his "constitutionally rotected right to have witnesses testify in his behalf." laintiff also complains that on August 21, 2000, an obituary and tograph of his cousin were mailed to him but were confiscated llegedly in violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment right to free - Ilexercise of his religion. Plaintiff also complains that on August 3, 2000, his cell was searched in a disruptive manner by Corrections Officer I Fryer and that he had to spend hours putting A it back together. Plaintiff sets forth the same four causes of ction and demands the same relief as set forth in his initial omplaint. (See Docs. 6,8). DISCUSSION The Defendants argue that they are entitled to entry of summary judgment because: (1) the Plaintiff failed to allege that 4 exhausted all administrative remedies regarding each claim in he complaint; (2) the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which lief can be granted. We are inclined to agree with Defendant's contention that Plaintiff has in fact failed to properly allege exhaustion' ith respect to all administrative remedies regarding each claim in he complaint. Regarding exhaustion, in Plaintiff's initial Complaint (Doc. ), the only reference to administrative remedies is Plaintiff's se of the word "grievance" in paragraphs 12 and 57. In paragraph 2, Plaintiff claims that he submitted a grievance to Defendant 'The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 provides, in relevant part, that: [n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section.1983..of this title-or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies are available are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) The Third Circuit recently issued two significant decisions which strictly enforce the exhaustion requirement. In Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2000), the court held exhaustion applies even though the government's administrative remedies did not provide the relief sought in the lawsuit i.e., there is no futility exception. Until exhaustion is satisfied, the court may not reach the merits of the claim. Id. at 78. In Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000); cert granted, 2000 WL 798208, 68 USLW 3774 (U.S. Oct. 30, 2000) the court held that exhaustion applies to use of force claim even though the DOC grievance procedure did not provide monetary relief. Since Booth did not utilize intermediate and final review, the District Court's dismissal of the complaint without prejudice was affirmed. 5 auroth, the Health Care Administrator at SCI-Frackville, with Irespect to his request for a dental bridge. Plaintiff does not lege that he exhausted the administrative process with regard to Ithis request. In paragraph 57, Plaintiff references a response by fendant Lt. Derfler to grievance number 0315-99 in which fendant Derfler asserted the Plaintiff deliberately made a false ;claim. In his "Supplemental Pleadings" (Doc. 8) wherein Plaintiff tilized, in part, the.form to.be used by prisoners in filing a civil rights complaint in the Middle District, Plaintiff did check the "yes" box with respect to exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, nowhere in the body of the complaint (Doc. 8) aid Plaintiff allege that he in fact exhausted his.administrative Iremedies with respect to each claim. While the Plaintiff does laim to have exhausted, he does not support this claim with any cumentary--evidence.2--In-a-document entitled "Affidavit of illiam Curtis" filed by Plaintiff on December 4, 2000 he declares Ilthat he has "exhausted administrative remedies by filing numerous omplaints." (Doc. 22). The Plaintiff makes this declaration thirteen times with a different claim following each one. (See . 22). These are bare allegations with no supporting 2The DOC utilizes a three-step grievance process set forth in Policy No. DC-ADM 804. See Booth v. Churner, supra, 206 F.3d at 292 (fn.2). 6 tation that are insufficient to show requisite exhaustion of 11 available state remedies.' Therefore, we find that because Plaintiff has failed to dentify with particularity that he has in fact exhausted his nistrative remedies with respect to each claim, his complaint st be dismissed. However, it is not for procedural reasons alone grant the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The standard of review on a motion to dismiss are well stablished: A complaint may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts ii support of his claim which could entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct..99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The court must accept all material allegations in complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Johnsrud v. Carter, 620 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1980); 'The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has dopted a rule requiring inmates who file suit under Section 1983 o "allege and show that they have exhausted all available state emedies." Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir. 1998), ert denied, 119 S.Ct. 88 (1998). The Brown court stated: In light of the plain mandatory language of the statute regarding exhaustion of remedies, the legislative purpose underlying the plain language, and the sound policy on which it is based, this Court will henceforth require that prisoners filing Section 1983 cases involving prison conditions must allege and show that they have exhausted all available state remedies. A prisoner should attach to his Section 1983 complaint the administrative decision, if it is available, showing the administrative disposition of his complaint.. d. (emphasis added). 7 and Truhe v. Rupell, 641 F.Supp. 57, 58 (M.D.Pa. 1985)(Rambo, J.). Although the complaint is to be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff (See F.R.C.P. 8(f)), the court does not have to accept every allegation it contains as true. Conclusory allegations of law, unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences need not be accepted as true. Conley, supra, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. at 102. Pennsylvania House 1991)(McClure, J.) 760 F.Supp. 439, 449 (M.D.Pa. The gravamen of the Plaintiff's complaint is his claim of enial of medical care, namely, not receiving a dental bridge. The laintiff also makes many other various and sundry claims relating o the conditions of his confinement at SCI-Frackville. The ollowing are a summary of Plaintiff's claims as redacted from his laint filed June 27, 2000. (Doc. 1). Paragraph 3-12: That in 1997 and 1998, he went to the f nstitutional dentist (John Doe) complaining of pain in his gums difficulty chewing due to four teeth missing on one side of his th; that the dentist said that Plaintiff needs a "dental idge"; that Defendant White replaced dentist John Doe sometime in 999; that Plaintiff told Defendant white of the pain in his gums difficulty eating food because.of the missing teeth but that fendant White told Plaintiff that a dental bridge "was absolutely t of the question"; and that Plaintiff filed a grievance with fendant Nauroth informing her that he has pain in his gums and fficulty eating food properly. 8 Paragraph 13-19: That in September of 1997, he began to ssist inmates in the religious community at SCI-Frackville in a ivil rights action filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; t Defendant Kane told Plaintiff he could function much better if e worried about himself and was not involved in jailhouse lawyer ctivities; that on June 20, 1997, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the t of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County against six defendants rom the DOC; that each time Plaintiff is confined in the RHU, he s required to wait for long periods before receiving fundamental ygiene items and legal materials; and that cell searches in the are done in a disruptive manner which leave his legal materials n disarray. Paragraph 20-21: That while housed in the RHU in 1998, fendant Sanders held copies of Plaintiff's daily newspaper; and hat in 1999 and 2000, Defendant Betz delivered many newspapers to im which were damaged in that the front page was either missing or peared to have been cut with a razor. Paragraph 22: That Defendants harassed him by requiring him o submit to six urinalysis tests during a twelve-month period in 1998 and 1999. Paragraph 23-25: That he had a misconduct hearing on June 116, 1998, as the result of which he received sixty days sciplinary status and non-contact visits for six months which 9 apparently lasted eleven to fourteen days "before administrative reversal." Paragraph 26: That Defendant Poplaski refused to answer 'I jquestions during a misconduct hearing on April 30, 1999, the jlanswers to which questions apparently "should have stated there was evidence of guilt to some charges." Paragraph 27-31: That on September 14, 1999, he was "assaulted" when Defendant Sanders used extreme force to close the ndcuffs on his wrists that were behind his back resulting in rasions and trauma to his left hand and wrist; that Defendant anders began to pull Plaintiff's hand and wrist; that Defendant nders began to pull Plaintiff's hand and arm through the door lot with excessive force; that Plaintiff received medical reatment; that at no time did Defendant Sanders attempt to loosen handcuffs; and that after this "assault," Defendants' Sanders Henninger searched Plaintiff's cell in a disruptive manner ollowing which Sanders wrote a "fabricated misconduct." Paragraph 32: That "Defendants" will not allow Plaintiff to eceive the publication "Prison Legal News." Paragraph 33-34: That Defendants violate Plaintiff's First t rights by not allowing Plaintiff to receive family ituaries containing photographs in the RHU which serves no egitimate penological interest. 10 Paragraph 35: That Defendants permanently withheld, damaged purposely never delivered copies of Plaintiff's "Philadelphia Inquirer"; however, no dates are provided. Paragraph 36: That he is subjected to "excessive strip earches" going to and coming from the RHU. Paragraph 37: That Defendant Horn fails to provide adequate lothing to inmates in the RHU during the winter months in the form f a "non-legitimate thin material jumpsuit" and that he has suffered colds and flu symptoms because of the inappropriate lothing. Paragraph 38: That Defendant Horn subjects Plaintiff to leep deprivation in the RHU as a result of the count light always ing lit. Paragraph 39: That some of the policies enacted by Defendant rn are an abuse of-discretion and serve a racially discriminatory e. Paragraph 40-43: That in September 1999, Defendant Resendes erved Plaintiff numerous breakfast food trays with missing rtions of food and that on October 4 and 6, 1999, Defendant sendes removed the protective wrapping and touched the food with ontaminated plastic gloves. Paragraph 44-46: That on January 4, 2000, while Plaintiff as utilizing the law library, he was moved to a different cell in 11 the RHU, which was filthy and cold; and that Plaintiff's request or cleaning material was denied. Paragraph 47-48: That on January 31, 2000, Defendant esendes moved Plaintiff into the last cell of the housing unit ich is extremely cold during the winter; and that Defendant sendes moved a mentally ill inmate next to the Plaintiff who "makes incessant noise during the day and night." Paragraph 49-50: That on February 14, 2000, Defendant sendes moved the Plaintiff from cell BC-15 to cell BC-29 which d a leaking wash basin; and that Plaintiff remained in BC-29 for t least five hours until he was moved to cell BC-56. Paragraph 51-56: That on February 23, 2000, Defendant sendes subjected Plaintiff to strip searches before and after the rcise yard as a means to harass him; that on April 12, 2000, sendes moved the Plaintiff into cell BC-43 which was extremely ilthy, even though Resendes knew that cell was filthy and that ther cells were not occupied; and that Resendes denied Plaintiff's equest for cleaning materials which were provided to Plaintiff ring the next shift around 3:20 pm. Paragraph 57-59: That Plaintiff informed Defendant Lt. erfler, the RHU Lieutenant, about the bad faith conduct of efendants Sanders and Resendes, which conduct continued. Paragraph 60-61: That Defendants deny him the use of a 12 inking cup in the RHU in order to take his medication. Paragraph 62: That he has been housed in the RHU since July 1999, and that the ventilation ducts in the unit and in the cell "have not been vacuumed and the level of dust mites has increased using Plaintiff to become ill." Paragraph 63: That the Defendants handcuffing policy is zardous because he is required to place his arms behind his back if he stumbles and falls his "arms will become dislocated from s shoulder." Paragraph 64: That there are no concrete sidewalks at: ertain pathways going to or coming from the RHU annex yard and cause Plaintiff's hands are handcuffed behind his back, if he alls his arms will become dislocated from his shoulders. Paragraph 65: That the cell doors in the RHU annex violate ecified "federal and state safety code" because the handcuff lots are three inches below the door handle which requires him to end down to an angle of more-than 90 degrees in order to put his through the door to be handcuffed, which movement "causes ack and shoulder pain." Paragraph 66: That the Defendants do not provide fingernail r toenail clippers in the RHU and as a result Plaintiff suffers rom foot pain due to protruding toenails. Paragraph 67-68: That Defendant Horn's hygiene policies 13 m equal protection of the law because he is a black man and is t permitted to use an electric razor in the RHU necessitating theI se of a "Bic type razor" which causes skin irritation. Paragraph 69: That Defendant Horn's policy regarding the rchasing of inmate television sets violates the Commerce Clause cause he is forced to purchase inferior products at inflated ices. Paragraph 70: That the food trays in the inmate dining area t SCI-Frackville are unsanitary because they are "put on the line soaking wet and as result contain pathogens." Paragraph 71-72: That inmates are not provided with matches ith cigarette purchases and are therefore coerced into buying a igarette lighter which is "one of the many subtle forms of acketeering that violate Plaintiff's rights under the law"; and t Defendant Horn uses his official capacity to create economic kets through "agency business" which further violate Plaintiff's tate and federal constitutional rights. Paragraph 73-74: That the "acts and omissions of the fendant" are acts of retaliation and harassment because of laintiff's "personal grievance activity and assistance of other isoners"; and that Defendants attempt to frustrate Plaintiff's egitimate right to seek redress. Paragraph 75: That his request to purchase 8 % x 11 paper 14 s denied. Paragraph 76-77:.That Defendants oral warnings about rievance activity and assisting other inmates are acts of etaliation; and that he has been subjected to a grievance striction. Paragraph 78: That his cell was searched on June 6, 2000, disruptive manner by Officer Henninger, who is a co-conspirator f Defendant Sanders in a private criminal complaint. Paragraph 79-80: That his newspapers have been withheld or ged; and that Defendants' acts and omissions in the RHU "are liberate acts to inflict slow torture and psychological ishment." In addition, Plaintiff materially restated many of these ievances in.two separate "supplemental pleadings" filed on August 0 and September 25, 2000. (Docs. 6,8). Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Estelle v. 429 U.S. 97 (1976), an inmate plaintiff must demonstrate t prison officials have breached the standard of medical reatment to which he was entitled. The government has an "obligation to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing incarceration. Id. at 103. However, a constitutional violation es not arise unless there is a "deliberate indifference to erious medical needs of prisoners" which constitutes "unnecessary 15 nd wanton infliction of pain." Id. at 104 (citation omitted). he Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that not every njury or illness enjoys constitutional protection; only serious edical needs are actionable. Colburn v Upper Darby Twp., 946 .2d 1017, 1023 (3d Cir. 1991); West v. Keve, 571 F.2d 158, 161 (3d ir. 1978). A later decision by the Supreme Court addressed the issue of hat standard should be applied in determining deliberate ndifference in Eighth Amendment cases. The Court established that he proper analysis is whether a prison official "acted or failed o act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious arm." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 841 (1994). Furthermore, complaint that a physician or a medical department "has been .egligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not tate a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth ,mendment [as] medical malpractice does not become a constitutional riolation merely because the victim is a prisoner." Estelle, 429 T.S. at 106. Where a prisoner has actually been provided with ledical treatment, one cannot always conclude that, if such :reatment was inadequate, it was no more than mere negligence. See )urmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993). It is true :hat if inadequate treatment results simply from an error in radical judgment, there is no constitutional violation. See id. 16 Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Durmer added that a -physician defendant cannot be considered deliberately indifferent for failing to respond to an inmate's medical complaints when he is already receiving treatment by the prison's medical staff. However, where a failure or delay in providing rescribed treatment is deliberate and motivated by non-medical factors, a constitutional claim may be presented. See id. with regard to Defendants Chesney and Kerestes, although Plaintiff identifies each of these individuals as parties in paragraph 2 of his complaint, none off the paragraphs of Plaintiff's complaint mention these names, nor does Plaintiff allege that they were personally involved in any alleged wrongdoing. Personal involvement is specifically required to state a claim under § 1983. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.--1-988). Even though Chesney and Kerestes are the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent for Facilities Management respectively, respondeat superior is not a bases for liability r § 1983. See Durmer id. at 69, n.14. With regard to Defendant Martin Horn, his name is mentioned n paragraphs 7-39, 67-69, and 72. Plaintiff alleges that Horn is esponsible for policies that allow him to only have a thin umpsuit which is not sufficient for the winter, that the count ight in the RHU is always on, that Plaintiff is not permitted to 17 hase an electric razor and that Plaintiff is forced to purchase) nferior television sets at an inflated price. None of these llegations are sufficient when the aforementioned standard is lied. Furthermore, our constitution "does not mandate ' ortable prisons." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.337, 349, 101 .Ct. 2392, 2400, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). In order to state an ighth Amendment claim, two requirements must be met. First, the rivation "must be, objectively, `sufficiently serious'." Farmer 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Second, because "only the unnecessary and wanton nf.liction of pain implicates the Eighth Amendment", and the state f mind required is one of "deliberate indifference to inmate lth or safety." Id. None of these allegations are sufficiently erious.to constitute a violation of the constitution and therefore 11 be dismissed. -Skin irritation and feeling cold during the nter one-hour exercise period, are simply not of constitutional rtions. To the extent Plaintiff seeks damages for mental or tional injuries against any Defendant ("psychological torture" ue to the constant glow of the count light, see paragraph 82(g)) he claims fail because an inmate may not file a federal cause of ction for same "without a prior showing of physical injury" 42 .S.C. § 1997e(e), and Plaintiff has made no such allegation spite his prolix 27-page initial complaint. 18 With regard to Defendant David White, DDS, the Plaintiff's laims against him are set forth in paragraphs 9-11 of his omplaint wherein he complains that he was denied a dental bridge. medical need is "serious" if it has been diagnosed by a physician s requiring treatment or is one that is so obvious that a lay erson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's ttention. Monmouth County Correctional Institution Inmates v. 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987), cert denied, 486 U.S. 106 (1988). The seriousness of an inmates medical need may also be termined by reference to the effect of.denying treatment. Id. lso, where denial or delay causes an inmate to suffer a lifelong andicap or permanent loss, then the medical need is considered erious. Id. Here, Plaintiff's Complaint itself reveals that he s indeed received medical attention.from a dentist with whom he a differing opinion regarding appropriate treatment. Doctor ite saw Plaintiff after dentist John Doe and indicated that Plaintiff did not need a bridge. Plaintiff's Complaint at best tates a state medical malpractice action, not a claim for liberate indifference to a serious medical need. The only allegation in the complaint (Doc. 1) against efendant Nauroth is in paragraph 12, wherein Plaintiff indicates that he filed a grievance with Nauroth, the Health Care nistrator at SCI-Frackville, and that he was having pain. in his 19 gums and difficulty eating food properly. For the same reasons set forth above with regard to Defendant White, we must dismiss laintiff's complaint. In addition, Nauroth is not a medical rofessional. As such, Nauroth is not required to, and in fact, itl d be inappropriate for her to second-guess the diagnosis and reatment as set forth by Defendant Dr. White. In Durmer, the laintiff alleged that the Warden and the State Commissioner for rrections ignored letters he wrote to each complaining about his dical care. The District Court granted summary judgment to each f these individuals and was affirmed. "Neither of these fendants is a physician, and neither can be considered eliberately indifferent simply because they failed to respond to he medical complaints of a prisoner who was already being treated the prison doctor." Durmer id. at 69. The allegation of the omplaint-establish that Plaintiff is under the care of the prison ntist and that Nauroth is not a physician. As such, she is not quired to counter the judgment of the treating dentist and herefore cannot not be considered deliberately indifferent. In paragraphs 23-25 of the Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff lains that he was sanctioned to sixty days disciplinary custody tatus with on non-contact visits for six months when there was "no vidence to support this sanction, for refusing to give signature uring urinalysis testing." These claims are dismissible on three 20 . First, Plaintiff admits that through the administrative rocess the punishment was reversed. See paragraph 25. Second, he statute of limitations for suits of this type is two years. 42 .C.S.A. § 5524. Since § 1983 actions are a species of tort iability and because Plaintiff's complaint was filed on June 27, 000, more than two years from June 16, 1998, the action is time arred by the statute of limitations. Third, and most importantly, laintiff has failed to state a claim. It is well established that egregation from general population does not implicate a state- reated liberty interest unless it imposes "atypical and significant" hardship on the inmate in "relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 706 (3d Cir. 1997)(15 months in administrative segregation without a hearing did not ive prisoner of-liberty interest). Further, even a -denial of a aring prior to administrative custody placement is not a iolation of due process. Griffin, 112 F.3d at 706. All of Plaintiff's claims wherein he complains about the tions of confinement in the RHU fail as a matter of law. refore, his claims against Defendants Derfler,.Poplaski and ender fail as a matter of law. In paragraph 21, Plaintiff claims that Defendant tz delivered damaged newspapers during 1999 and 2000. In. 21 ragraph 86 of his complaint (Doc. 1) under the third cause of ction Plaintiff seeks damages for "negligent destruction of erty without compensation." This is clearly a state law claim, t a federal claim, and obviously not a constitutional claim., cordingly, it is dismissed. Plaintiff claims in paragraph 20 that at sometime in 1998, fendant Sanders intentionally withheld copies of Plaintiff's ly newspaper, and in paragraphs 27-31 and 78, he claims Sanders assaulted him on September 14, 1999 when he used "extreme force closing the handcuff on Plaintiff's wrist." This newspaper claim against Sanders, like the claim against Betz is not actionable in federal court and is dismissed. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to llege what dates this occurred in 1998, and certainly, to the xtent that those instances occurred two or more years prior to une 27, 2000, those claims will be-time-barred by the statute of imitations. Regarding the handcuff claims, the question of concern.to u,? in a use of force claim is "whether force was applied in a good aith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and adistically to cause harm." Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 7, 12 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 02, 106 (3d Cir. 2000). Handcuffing inmates, particularly those fined to the RHU, is a routine part of prison life. While the 22 laintiff may feel a certain amount of indignity and discomfort hile being handcuffed, Plaintiff's allegations clearly do not rise) a constitutional level. Plaintiff's claims he is victim of unreasonable searches of s person and seizures of his property in his cell. These claims lso fail. In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 Ed.2d 447 (1979), the court held that unannounced searches, alled "shakedowns" and visual body cavity searches, even as lied to pretrial detainees, did not violate the Fourth nt. 441 U.S. at 555-559, 99 S.Ct. at 1882-1886. In light Df Bell, the Plaintiff has no reasonable expectation to be free from the searches of which he complains. Finally, with respect to Plaintiff's numerous allegations that his cell was searched in a disruptive manner and his legal terials-were left in disarray (see Doc. 1, passim), these claims lso fail. Plaintiff has not alleged any "actual injury" as equired to state an access to court claim. In Lewis v. Casey, 518 .S. 343, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Court held hat to pursue a claim of denial of access to the Courts, the to must allege actual injury, as opposed to some alleged ficiency in the prison's legal resources. Because Plaintiff has t alleged any injury this claim fails as well. 23 CONCLUSION In light of the aforementioned Plaintiff's complaint and pplemental pleadings (Docs. 1,6,8) must be dismissed because laintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint and supplemental pleadings (Docs. 1,6,8) and the granting of Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) renders Defendant's motion for a protective order (Doc. 18) moot and also renders Plaintiff's two motions, one for appointment of counsel (Doc. 10) and one for leave to file an nded complaint (Doc. 23) moot.4 Richard P. Conaboy United States District Judge TE: December N2O 4Note: Plaintiff twice amended his complaint (see Docs. 6, 8). 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA aILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff, VS. MARTIN F. HORN, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:00cv1149 (JUDGE CONABOY) __RDER NOW, this Day of December, 2000, it is hereby that: 1. Defendant's motion (Doc. 16) to dismiss Plaintiff's motion and supplemental pleadings is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's complaint and supplemental pleadings (Docs. 1,6,8) are DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 10) and Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint (Doc. 23) as well as Defendant's motion for a protective order (Doc. 18) are MOOT. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. FILED DEC 18 2000 C Richard P. Conaboy United States District Jud PER .? 25 nEPUTY CLERK C/ (5) DPS-134 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 01-1016 F11, r . WILLIAM CURTIS., Appellant, ?_.. _. _._ .. DCPUT CSR} V. MARTIN F. HORN, Commissioner, PA Department of Corrections; JOSEPH W. CHESNEY, Superintendent, SCI-Frackville; JOHN KERESTES, Deputy Superintendent of Facilities Management; DENTIST WHITE; NAUROTH, Administrator, Health Care; DURANT, Captain; DERFLER, Lt.; POPLASKI, Sergeant; BETZ, Correctional Officer; SANDERS, Correctional Officer; RESENDES, Correctional Officer; KEVIN KANE, Hearing Examiner On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 00-cv-01149) District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy Submitted Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) March 21, 2002 Before: NYGAARD, ROTH AND BARRY, CIRCUIT JUDGES JUDGMENT This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On consideration whereof, it is now here ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court that the within appeal is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). All of the above in accordance with the Opinion of the Court. ATTEST: A ? 114w?? Chief Deputy Clerk DATED: August 21, 2002 Certified as a true copy and issued in lieu of a formal mandate on 9/12/02. Teste: A'?•r..•• tis,?tw Deputy Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. DPS-134 UNREPORTED-NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT- t : - - NO. 01-1016 WILLIAM CURTIS, Appellant, V. MARTIN F. HORN, Commissioner, PA Department of Corrections; JOSEPH W. CHESNEY, Superintendent, SCI-Frackville; JOHN KERESTES, Deputy Superintendent of Facilities Management; DENTIST WHITE; NAUROTH, Administrator, Health Care; DURANT, Captain; DERFLER, Lt.; POPLASKI, Sergeant; BETZ, Correctional Officer; SANDERS, Correctional Officer; RESENDES, Correctional Officer, KEVIN KANE, Hearing Examiner On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 00-cv-01149) District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy Submitted Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) March 21, 2002 Before: NYGAARD, ROTH AND BARRY, CIRCUIT JUDGES (Filed: August 21, 2002) OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant William Curtis, who is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, filed an in forma ap uperis civil rights complaint with supplements concerning events which took place while he was incarcerated at SCI- Frackville. Curtis named as defendants officials and employees of SCI-Frackville and Secretary of the Department of Corrections Martin F. Hom. He alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment arising out of the refusal to provide him with a dental bridge, the overall conditions in the Restricted Housing Unit, and excessive use of force in handcuffing him. He also alleged a violation of the First Amendment arising out of unconstitutional retaliation, a refusal to let him keep a family picture, denial of reading materials and clear paper, delaying delivery of, or destruction of, his newspapers, and denial of legal materials. He further alleged a violation of due process arising out of a misconduct hearing and the sanction imposed, and a violation of the Fourth Amendment arising out of unnecessary strip searches and urine drug testing. Curtis requested The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as supplemented, and Curtis submitted written opposition. In an order entered on December 18, 2000, the District 2 Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. Curtis appeals. He was granted leave to appeal in forma ay utieris in this Court. We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal of the complaint is proper only if it is clear that no relief may be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Conley v. G Boson, 355 U.S. 41,45-46 (1957). Curtis' complaint as supplemented properly was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) essentially for the reasons given by the District Court.' With respect to defendants Joseph W. Chesney and John Kerestes, the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent respectively, and Commissioner Martin F. Horn, Curtis did not show that these individuals had any personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be imposed on a supervisor on the basis of respondeat superior. Personal involvement can be shown if the supervisor directed the actions of supervisees or actually knew of the actions and acquiesced in them. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988). Curtis' complaint as supplemented made no such allegation against any of these three defendants. ' In an affidavit filed in support of his brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and in an exhibit attached to the brief, Curtis catalogued his frustrating efforts to pursue administrative remedies, including most importantly that his ability to file grievances had been restricted by prison officials. The defendants did not adequately rebut these assertions, and therefore we are not prepared to agree that dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e would be appropriate on this record. The matter need not be resolved, however, because the complaint as supplemented cannot survive Rule 12(b)(6) in any event. 3 We agree with the District Court that Curtis' allegations of inadequate medical care did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is a violation of the Eighth Amendment and actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). To act with deliberate indifference is to recklessly disregard a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer y. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994). Curtis asserted that he has four missing teeth on one side of his mouth. He has pain in his gums, trouble chewing food, and sometimes bites the inside of his cheek. and his lip while chewing. He would like a dental bridge and, he claims, he was once told by a prison dentist that he should have a bridge. Defendant Dr. David White, the prison dentist who has seen Curtis most recently, however, told Curtis that a bridge was "out of the question." Curtis' allegations did not suffice to show reckless disregard with respect to the care he received from Dr. White. His allegations establish nothing more than that he could chew more comfortably if he had a bridge. The allegations against Health Care Administrator Nauroth also did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Moreover, the prison conditions described by Curtis in the Restricted Housing Unit did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, see Wilson 501 • > and the feme used in han&-uffing him was not excessive, see Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-22 (1986). Curtis' First Amendment claim that he was denied legal materials, that his legal 4 materials were left in disarray after his cell was searched, and that all staples were removed from his legal materials fails because he did not allege an actual injury as required by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-352 (1996). As a prisoner, Curtis has a right to be free from interference with his mail and his reading and writing materials where that interference does not serve a valid penological interest, Turner v. Saflev, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), but he failed with his other First Amendment claims, which describe isolated incidents, to allege that he had no other alternative means of expression, id. at 90. The Fourth Amendment did not prevent prison officials from testing Curtis' urine for drugs six times during a twelve-month period nor did it prevent male correctional officers from subjecting him to strip searches under the circumstances described in his complaint. The actions described were not unreasonable. The allegations in the complaint with respect to a disciplinary hearing and the sanction imposed were inadequate to state a due process violation for the reasons given by the District Court. Finally, Curtis has not stated a claim for unconstitutional retaliation, because be failed to make a prima facie showing that constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to discipline him. See Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir. 2001). 5 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, : Plaintiff V. : No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on or about this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss to be served upon the following person(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows: William Curtis, AM8092 SCI-Graterford P.O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 Mary E. Varner, Clerk Typist 2 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dated: January 24, 2011 r Fit.ED-OFFICE OF THE FROTH0N'0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR011 JAN 2S APB 11:20 CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CORRECTIONS DEFENDENTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DISPOSITION OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS NOW comes Debra Sue Rand, counsel for Defendants and, pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 208. 1, files this Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Disposition of Defendants'Motion to Dismiss: 1. Judge Bayley issued an order in this case on September 10, 2008 granting in forma pauperis status. 2. Plaintiff, William Curtis, is currently incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("Department") at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford ("SCI-Graterford") under Inmate No. AM-8092. 3. Plaintiff filed a civil action complaint seeking money damages for certain book he alleges were confiscated and destroyed or damaged by Defendants . a 4. He named as defendants Jeffery A. Beard, Ph.D., former Secretary of the Department, Donald Kelchner, Richard Southers and Adam Huber (collectively, "Defendants"). 5. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. 6. Plaintiff is now seeking to obtain responses from Defendant Huber to numerous discovery requests. 7. A stay of discovery until the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss would obviate the need for reply to discovery unless and until it has been judicially determined that there is actually a necessity for Defendant Huber to do so. WHEREFORE, Corrections Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay discovery pending disposition of their Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel r By Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Attorney ID No. PA41661 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Phone No.: (717) 728-7763 Fax No.: (717) 728-0312 E-mail: drand (state.pa.us Dated: January 24, 2011 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on or about this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Disposition of Motion to Dismiss to be served upon the following person(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows: William Curtis, AM8092 SCI-Graterford P.O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 Mary'E. Verner, Clerk Typist 2 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dated: January 24, 2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAtSIFE)ICOTN OTARY CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYL2Y41 5 AM 11: 20 CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL\IAN1 A No. 08-5279 Civil Term PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please-enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of Defendants PA, Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Donald Kelchner, Richard Southers, and Adam Huber in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel By: ?? v ? Xc? Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Attorney I.D. No. 41661 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 728-7763 Dated: January 24, 2011 V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on or about this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance to be served upon the following person(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows: William Curtis, AM8092 SCI-Graterford P.O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 Mary E. 11 rner, Clerk Typist 2 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dated: January 24, 2011 OF r»??p°c?-??owo?aRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA 2011 JAN 25 AM 11: 20 CIVIL ACTION-LAW CUMBERLAND COUNTY WILLIAM CURTIS, PENNSYLVANIA : Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of the Respondents PA, Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Donald Kelchner, Richard Southers, and Adam Huber in the above-captioned matter. By: Dated: January 24, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Office of,,Genepdl C Robert B. MacIntyre, A istant Counsel PA Attorney I.D. No. 6817 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 728-7763 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am depositing in the U.S. Mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Withdrawal of Appearance to be served upon the following person(s) in the manner indicated below: William Curtis, AM8092 SCI-Graterford P.O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 v1 ?1?.? Iti? Mary E. ?Ijarner Clerk Typist II Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dated: January 24, 2011 (717) 728-7763 a LJ U' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1 ??? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS L! CCU s Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff William Curtis request Defendant to make the following admissions and within 30 days from the service of this request, all in accordance with Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures. 1. The statement in the attached photocopy of the document marked "Exhibit B" Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Request Form DC-135A dated May 3, 2005, are in accord with the facts. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: v/ANVAX-1 Z6 , 2011 EXHIBIT B m2. HL)P-)F-P-; PA-b6r2?y of v /" l l i A ?, C un-tis N) 8092- 5-13105- A /lip ?? l'I 7 l-"' AA-3N r )?3T. /9 J ? wF_FD /%I F_ /?c>aks o/ Lfl w ??.-% - ?.u ^r? %r'r Sc,??.,I !'J Pn. PRAC_TCf_ V3 Al-10 VC1 Ton7'? LIA w ANA Af)VOCy ly LI;rvA?.?r? Gl-nnl(? MC IIU(.N, -)P-. rtiC,C 2Z 2 l?D 11A2n15,C)" PA, /n-/V,.; T'an /Zvlf S or Ityr IA f,AL fitDCr?out f_ 9y /-1two Lr ,w?,i( i> So s,u ^ v' f;c?c /69. 601 y) kacTinL LvGic %?ic,r Zo. oo ; /racks Lt? k? (?rCllr?N,al?? IJRtcr 70, 00 (?) co/A?Ge .T/F_ 5Aunu.5 h1y Poust:- .l Z-5.on 7 _} 1rr?CVN,F l0/ /YAWLVAI_O (-At,.: RF v/r: w AACf_, CA1:1 ii C_ /'?Ni_>ll??r E,7 I)Ajcl 7iif ZC/oo. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Request for Admission has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: -& , 2011 ?'y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PIA$i, ?` ??`? !JTP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS P`-"L _ Plaintiff Civil Term No. 09-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff William Curtis requests defendant within 30 days after service of this request, to make the following admissions for the purpose of this action only and subject to all. pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at trial. 1. Attached to this Request to Admissions as Exhibits (N) is a true copy of a letter written by :Attorney Michael D. Rentschler, P.C. to Plaintiff, which letter states, among other things, that "More importantly, thank you for testifying at Shawn's trial." The jury found Shawn not guilty. "Shawn took the stand and detailed the "treatment and harassment" that he received from Officer Huber." "... that the jury believed that "Shawn was defending himself from Officer Huber" and that his actions against Officer Huber were justified based upon "their past issues" as "testified to by our witnesses" and ... ). 2. Attached to this Request for Admissions as exhibit (?V1) is a true copy of a Verdict Sheet Commonwealth vs. Shawn Pressley, (stating, in pertinent part, ... Find Defendant "NOT GUILTY" ... ). Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated : TAwQAA.Ni LCQ , 2011 EXHIBIT N LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. RENTSCHLER, P.C. 28 N. 32"d Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone (717) 975-9129 Facsimile (717) 975-2939 August 28, .2009 William. Curtis. AM 8092 State. Correctional Institute at Graterford Box 246 Graterford, PA 19426 Re: Commonwealth v Shawn Pressley Dear William: Thank you for your fetter. More importantly, thank you for testifying at Shativn's trial. The jury found Shawn not guilty of the charges. I think a lot of it had to do with your testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses. Shawn took the stand and detailed the treatment and harassment that he received from Officer Huber. In the end, I believe that the jury believed that Shawn was defending himself from Officer Huber and that his actions against Officer Huber were justified based upon their past issues as testified to by our witnesses and by Shawn. Finally, my records indicate that Shawn is at SCI-Mahanoy. Thank you again for your persuasive testimony. I know that Shawn appreciated it. Very truly yours, Michael D. Rentschler Cc: client. • EXHIBIT N1 Commonwealth In the Court of Common Pleas Criminal Division of Cumberland County, Pa. CP-21-CR-2370-2008 Criminal VS. Charge: Aggravated Assault Shawn Pressley We, the jury empanelled and sworn to try the issue joined between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Shawn Pressley ,1- >? FindDefendant ' din a r on ..? Date: ? ?' r/'11 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Request for Admission has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford `tail Department upon the following: Robert B. yaclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp U111, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-3092 Box 244 CraterfoH , Pa. 19426 Dated : JANUAI-/ 2 ?a , 2011 1 r•, ?s 7 it ."r0 T ,,A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI40111 [,,` 1 ]: WILLIAM CURTIS 1 1}IA Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. . Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff William Curtis request Defendants to make the following admissions and within 30 days from the service of this request, all in accordance with Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures. 1. The statement in the attached photocopy of the document marked "Exhibit G" Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry's Order No. 701093, File No. 204565, dated August 17, 2005, are in accord with the facts. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated:- ?JnNV?E-?/ 2Ca 2011 EXHIBIT G I fit IRFAI t cif r?( r'lWA 11UNAI. ANP INDUS I RIA1, SAFT-A-V i Ream IMR) I nlxtr& Indu,tr}• l3uiltling ! IAltRltilil If(r i, 1'A 171_'!1 WO , & .? 717-1x7_;xnr, ax: 117-7K 1.5M)j ?? q ti? :It..t;dc i;t u . cnrror?c.t?r o? rcxrstktaru File No. 204565 I D.I. No. 91-4839 8-17-2005 F 1 1 I Secretary James P. Creedon Department of General Services 515 N. Office Building j Harrisburg, Penna. 17125-0001 i i Re: Order # 701093 Camp Hill State Correctional Institution Modular Housing Unit 5 Lisburn Rd. Cumberland Co. (#21) File No. 204565 Type of Construction: Non-Combustible Protected Type 11(222) Type of Occupancy: C-5 restrained Use Condition IV Story Height: 01 Basement: No Dear Secretary Creedon An inspection of the above facility by Field Supervisor John Faust and Board Re- viewer Jerry Seville, on Wednesday August 17, 2005 indicates that violations exist of the Laws and/or regulations administered by the Department of Labor and Indus describing the violations, the identity of the regulations violated try, A list he necessary corrective actions follows: 'and the order describing Fire and Panic Regulations Title 34- Pennsylvania Code FINDING NO. 1: Bureau records indicate that the Occupancy Permit for this build- ing is no longer valid as changes have occurred to the physical layout of the structure. Secretary James P. Creedon File No. 204565 W. No. 91-4839 8-17-2005 F 1 § 49.9(e) The Department will issue an occupancy permit within 30 days of the final inspection. It shall by the owner's responsibility to maintain and operate the building in accordance with the Act, this Chapter and Chapters 50-60. ORDER ITEM NO. 1: Correct. all of the following violations so that an Occupancy Permit may be issued by the Department. FINDING NO. 2: Plans on file with the Department do not reflect the riot slam gate installed mid-way in the entry corridor nor the creation of the Program Review Committee Room on the first floor day- room of `B' pod. § 49.3 Before a building to which Chapters 49 - 60 apply (except for C-3 occupancies covered under Chapter 56) is erected, adapted, remodeled, or altered, detailed architectural plans, wall sections and elevations for new construction, remodeling or alterations work and line drawings to scale for all portions of the existing building showing means of egress shall be, submitted to and approved by the Bureau of Occupational and Industrial Safety, Buildings Section, Department of Labor and Industry, as re- quired under section 8 of the act (35 P.S. section 1228). Draw= • ings shall be submitted in triplicate, in cases where emergency lighting systems, fire alarm systems. or fire extinguishing appa- ratus is required by . this chapter, . these, requirements shall be completely shown on or with the drawings submitted before approval of the building is obtained, ORDER ITEM NO. 2: Submit plans reflecting these changes. FINDING NO. 3: A number of automatic smoke detectors are missing from their mountings, resulting in insufficient coverage of the building. Records on file with the Institution of testing of these devices by Simplex Grinnell reflect the `missing' detectors as well as some to which "access could not be gained". §49.9(e) See Item No. 1 above. ORDER ITEM NO. 3: Replace missing detectors and supply this Department with a report from Simplex Grinnell reflecting that all devices have been tested and are operational. FINDING NO. 4: In a number of instances within the chase ways between cells, the flex duct of the supply and/or return air is either damaged Page 2 of 4 Secretary James P. Creedon File No. 204565 D.I. No. 91-4839 8-17-2005 F 1 or disconnected to the defuser. This condition results in an im- balance in the engineered smoke control system. §49.9(e) See Item No. I above. ORDER ITEM NO. 4: Repair / replace as needed the flex duct lines. N.F.P.A. Life Safety Code 101 1981 edition FINDING NO.5. Cells 31 of `A' Pod, cells 12, 15 and 16 of `B' Pod, as well as, cells 28 and 29 of `D' Pod have been convened to Storage use and do not carry the proper fire separation from the rest of the area. § 14-3.2.1 An area-used for general storage, boiler or furnace rooms, fuel storage, janitor's closets, maintenance shops including wood- working and .painting areas, laundries and kitchens shall be separated from other parts of the building with construction having not less than a.1-hour fire resistance rating and all open- ings shall be protected with self-closing fire doors, or such area shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection. Where the hazard is severe, both the fire resistance separation and automatic sprinklers shall be provided. ORDER ITEM NO. 5: Remove storage from these cells. PETITION PROCEDURE. ANY PERSON INTERESTED OR AFFECTED BY THESE ORDERS MAY APPEAL TO THE PENNSYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL BOARD WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. THE APPEAL MAY BE SENT TO ROOM 1520, LABOR AND INDUSTRY BIIILDING, SEVENTH AND FORSTER STREETS, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120.. THE APPEAL MAY BE A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE FIRE AND PANIC REGU- LATIONS OR A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE FIRE AND PANIC REGULATIONS OR BOTH. THE APPEAL SHALL REFER TO THE ORDER NUMBER FOUND ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THISORDER. THE APPEAL SHALL SET FORTH THE REGULATIONS INVOLVED, AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH A VARIANCE. IF AN EXTENSION OF TIME IS RE- QUESTED, THE APPEAL SHALI, SET FORTH THE REGULATION INVOLVED, THE AMOUNT OF TIME REQUESTED, AND TIIE REASONS FOR AN EXTEN- SION OF TIME. Page 3 of 4 Secretary James P. Creedon File No. 204555 D.I. No. 914839 & l 7-2005 F I i You are hereby directed to correct all violations by the following date: COMPLIANCE DATE November 2P, 2005 Failure to comply with this order may result in legal action, which may include and could jeopardize your continued use and occupancy of this building. Sincerely yours, I?Ik4l-117?Aft-j Mike G. Gensemer, Director Field Operations ELL/JDSrjds Cc: Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary Robert Cable,- Director Charles Rishel, Architectural Desigper II old L. Keldum, Superintendent Howard T. Gouse, CFMM Scott Fair, CISM Insp. File CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Request for Admission has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro-9e- AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: JAjj j6 W ?- ?, 2011 _.I , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, : c a m' Plaintiff n, cr ?? 4 Wi r ' V No. 08-5279 Civil Term C'S . JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., ? , t r Defendants ' ORDER NOW, this Z - ' day of N , 2011, upon consideration of Corrections Defendants' Application to Stay Discovery Pending Disposition of their Motion to Dismiss, it is hereby ORDERED that the discovery in the above- captioned matter is hereby STAYED pending disposition of Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. If the Motion is denied, discovery responses shall be due 60 days after the Court issues its order denying the Motion to Dismiss. BY THE COURT: -,, - J. ? Debra. Sue Pos d EncL . -'s t'tn S' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FO* CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIIV,/ CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants No. 08-5279 Civil Term BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DISPOSITION OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS Procedural Posture Before this Court for disposition is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Disposition of their Motion to Dismiss. History of the Case Plaintiff, William Curtis, a Pennsylvania state inmate, filed this lawsuit challenging the confiscation and loss or destruction of certain of his books. Although preliminary objections were filed by former counsel in November 2008, they were not praeciped to the list. On or about December 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend, which was never ruled on. Nonetheless, Plaintiff filed a "Supplemental Complaint General and Specific Averments and Appendix of Exhibits" on December 13, 2010. He has since also served interrogatories on Defendant Huber. Defendants have now filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on the basis the Plaintiff is an abusive inmate litigant under Section 6602(f) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f), along with a Motion to Stay Discovery pending disposition of their Motion to Dismiss. This brief is submitted in support of the Motion to Stay Discovery. SHOULD THIS COURT DISCOVERY PENDING DISMISS? Suggested Answer: Yes. THIS COURT SHOULD DISCOVERY PENDING OBJECTIONS. Question Presented GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISPOSITION OF 'T'HEIR MOTION TO Argument GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY DISPOSITION OF THE PRELIMINARY Courts are afforded broad discretion when ruling on discovery-related motions. Luckett v. Blaine, 850 a.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Further, it is not unusual for a court to issue . a stay of discovery pending a preliminary determination. See, e.g., Morris v. Meyers, (No. 79 C.D. 2009 filed 10-21-2009); Devlin v. Wolf, 17 Pa. D. & CAth 148 (1992). In Morris the Commonwealth Court explained that the trial court had granted Defendants' motion for stay of discovery pending disposition of defendants' preliminary objections on bases that "relevancy of discovery could not be resolved until resolution of the outstanding preliminary objections and that there were reasonable grounds to assert certain discovery was protected from disclosure." Id. at p. 3. 2 V t Similarly, in the case sub judice, the discovery requests are numerous seeking to inquire into such factors as storage of property for modular unit housing and inmate inventorying processes in 2005. Further, Defendants assert that certain other information sought is protected, such as personal information regarding Defendant Huber. Accordingly a stay of discovery is appropriate. Conclusion Based on the foregoing argument, Defendants respectfully request that the Court exercise its discretion and grant the Motion to Stay Discovery. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel By: t_ Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Attorney I.D. No. 41661 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 728-7763 Dated: January 24, 2011 3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on or about this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery to be served upon the following person(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows: William Curtis, AM8092 SCI-Graterford P.O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 All( Mary E. W rner, Clerk Typist 2 ` Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dated: January 24, 2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Civil Term No. 08-5279 C • rn m a =-n r Lo , A r-- ? -t ca < ri Jury Trial De ?'Qedi a PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff William Curtis requests Defendants within 30 days after service of this request, to make the following admissions for the purpose of this action only and subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility which may be interposed at trial. 1. Attached to the Request for Admission as Exhibit (E) and is a true copy of a letter written by Matthew P. Smith, Senior Assistant District Attorney, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Office of the District Attorney to Plaintiff, which letter states, among other things, that "We have, however, forwarded a copy of your complaint to the Department of Corrections, SCI, Camp Hill" dated July 18, 2005. EXHIBIT E CUMBERLAND COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY A L. EBERT, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY July 18, 2005 William Curtis AM 8092 P. O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-200 William Curtis: We have received your Private Criminal Complaint and reviewed the allegations therein. We appreciate the concise manner in which you have presented your claim, but in our discretion, we feel this matter is best handled by the prison complaint process or by Federal civil means. Therefore, we are denying your request for criminal prosecution. We have, however, forwarded a copy of your complaint to the Department of Corrections, SCI, Camp Hill. Matthew P. Smith Senior Assistant District Attorney MPS/cgf cc: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Camp Hill CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE, CARLISLE, PA 17013 PHONE: (717) 240-6210 (717) 697-0371 x6210 (717) 532-7286 x6210 FAX: (717) 240-6164 e-mail: districtattomey@ccpa.net Respectfully Submitted, WJZ41A" au William Curtis, Pro Se Dated:- JAW?'JAL,: 2 -1 , 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Request for Admission has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Robert B. Maclntyre Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated • `)A I-jAk-/ 2 2 2011 HFILE' -C FICE^ CT 7F P z`-1 T: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIi 1 I FH -3 PEE 1: 1 WILLIAM CURTIS',aPISY' t? I=, Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5:279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants PLAINTIFF'S PRAECIPE FOR MOT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSi Jury Trial Demanded RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PA.R.CIV.P. 1026 AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, William Curtis, proceeding Pro Se, in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P and informs this Honorable Court that Plaintiff shall file a Response In Opposition of Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. Rule 1026. Rule 1026. (stating, in pertinent part, "... every pleading subsequent to the complaint shall be filed within twenty days after service of the proceeding pleading ..."). 1. Plaintiff received Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Brief on January 26, 2011. 2. Plaintiff shall filed a Motion to Quash Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P 1026, with in a twenty days time interval. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: ,Ak?Ati? ?/ 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Praecipe for Motion Response In Opposition of Motion to Dismiss has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: 411ZC - ajWilliam Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: ?)AW-A?d 91 , 2011 3 F iLED-OF t i =P'(?;l,?i" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLiS TH' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAhE _3 Phi I WILLIAM CURTIS CUM8ERLA 0 C L, "A, aENNSYLVAIWA Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S PRAECIPE FOR RECONSIDERATION AND STAY OF DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA.R.CIV.P. 1026 AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, William Curtis, proceeding Pro Se, in accordance with Pa.R.Civ.P 208.1(c) and ask this Honorable Court for Reconsideration of an Order to Stay Discovery and Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. Rule 1026. Rule 1026. (stating, in pertinent part, "... every pleading subsequent to the complaint shall be filed within twenty days after service of the proceeding pleading ..."). 1. Defendants filed an Application to Stay Discovery pending Motion to Dismiss on January 249 2011. Plaintiff did not received a copy of this document until January 26, 2011. On January 27, 2011, the Court granted Defendants Stay Motion in only "3 days" after said motions were filed. 2. Defendants filed said motions pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 208.1(c). Rule 208.1(c). (stating, in pertinent part, " ... rules of this chapter shall not modify the provisions of any other general rule ..."). 3. Plaintiff should be permitted to file a response in oppositions to Defendants Motion to Stay for Discovery and for the reasons stated above Plaintiff's reasonable request should be granted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court grant this Reconsideration. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: ,Ar,r?r?? f 3 I , 2011 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Praecipe for Reconsideration and Stay of Discovery has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated:_ J/aJ?+.i??I? 3 1 , 2011 3 f FILED-OFFICE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS M! FEo_ i CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 7 P? 1': 3 WILLIAM CURTIS "Eyti't t!??? Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH STAY FOR DISCOVERY AND NOW, come Plaintiff William Curtis proceeding Pro Se and pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1026 files this Motion to Quash Stay for Discovery and pending Defendants Motion to Dismiss. 1. Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint General and Specific Averments with Appendix and Exhibits on December 13, 2010. 2. Defendants are Jeffrey Beard former Secretary of Corrections, Donald Relchner former Superintendent SCI-Camp Hill, Richard Southers and Adam Huber. 3. Plaintiff William Curtis has been a ward of the State for more than 27 years and presently incarcerated at SCI-Graterford. 4. Plaintiff filed this civil complaint seeking compensation and money damages for the destruction and/or theft of his pristine hardback books, among other things, for the reason that, supervisory defendants being an affirmative link to their subordinate's acts of impunity and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury. Discovered by Plaintiff on September 4, 2006. 5. Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss 43 days after Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint General and Specific Averments with Appendix and Exhibits. 6. Plaintiff has filed Discovery Requests for each Defendant with the exception of Defendant Relchner at this time. 7. Plaintiff has filed Request for Admissions seeking information and responses from each Defendant pertaining to the relevant time periods during these events. 8. Defendants have made an attempt to circumvent Pa.R.C.P. 1026 20 days time interval by simultaneously filing their Motion to Dismiss and Stay for Discovery on January 24, 2011. 9. Defendants Motion to Dismiss is untimely and contrary to Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1026 and should be QUASHED. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Honorable Court QUASH Defendants pending Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: F"A-VAJ -f 2 , 2011 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Stay for Discovery has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: 44&-al William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: / e-44-11AAN1 , 2011 3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. ' Defendants Jury Trial Demanded BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF STAY FOR DISCOVERY PRII 'S MOT ISITI01 SH 0 DI Introduction Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Defendants Stay for Discovery and pending Motion to Dismiss. Statement of the Facts Defendants are Department of Corrections employees responsible for the destruction of Plaintiff's expensive hardback law books and other expensive hardback books while having complete care, custody and control of Plaintiff's property with explicit documentation of book titles and prices. On September 4, 2008 Plaintiff filed Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 240. On December 13, 2010 Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint General and Specific Averments and Appendix of Exhibits. Plaintiff has served Defendants with discovery request. Plaintiff now files a Motion to Quash Stay for Discovery based on their acts contrary to Pa.R.C.P. 1026 and Pa.R.C.P. 240. I . Question Presented SHOULD THIS COURT GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH STAY FOR DISCOVERY AND PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS Suggested Answer: Yes. Argument THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH STAY FOR DISCOVERY AND PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS The trial court is responsible for "overseeing discovery between the parties and therefore it is within the court's discretion to determine the appropriate and prompt discovering of matters allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure." Hutchinson v Luddy 414 Pa. Super, 138, 606 A.2d 905, 908 (1992)(citation and internal quotations omitted). Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1 (a)(b), See also Lloyd v Cat Fund 537 Pa. 114, 821 A.2d 12309 1236 (2003), Generally discovery "is liberally allowed with respect to any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the cause being tried." George v Schirra, 814 A.2d 2029 205 (Pa.Super. 2002)(citations omitted). Timeliness Defendants were served Plaintiff's initial Complaint September 15, 2008. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Praecipe for Failure to Plead on November 14, 2008. See Exhibit 1. Defendants filed their Preliminary Objections on November 18, 2008. On December 11, 2008 Plaintiff filed a Amended Complaint, pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(c)(1) (stating, in pertinent part, "if a party has filed an Amended Pleading ... the original 2 I ' pleading should be deem moot.") Now, 2 years later Defendants substituted the words "Preliminary Objections" to be synonymous with "Motion to Dismiss in their Argument Question. Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint General and Specific Averments with Appendix of Exhibits on December 13, 2010. Defendants file a Motion to Stay Discovery and Motion to Dismiss simultaneously 43 days later with an intent to circumvent Pa.R.Civ.P. Rule 1026 (stating, in pertinent part "... every pleading subsequent to the complaint shall be filed within twenty days after service ..."). Said Motions are therefore untimely and should be quashed. Pa. Const. Art. V 10(c) The Pennsylvania Constitution grants the judiciary and the judiciary alone - power over rule making. PLRA Section 6602 is directly in conflict with Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(f) and (j). CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request this Honorable Court to Quash Defendants Motion to Stay Discovery and pending Motion to Dismiss. 3 i Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: k/3iC..,AA j 2 92011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Stay for Discovery Pending Disposition of Defendants Motion to Dismiss has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: 2 , 2011 5 EXHIBIT Docket Report for Cumberland County Civil Term No. 05279 - 2008 William Curtis v. Jeffrey Beard et. al pYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1 Civil Case Print 2008-05279 CURTIS WILLIAM (vs) BEARD JEFFREY A ET AL Reference No..: Filed........: 9/04/2008 Case Type...... COMPLAINT Time. .... . . 11.42 Judgment..... .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ------------ Higher Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2.: General Index Attorney Info CURTIS WILLIAM SCI CAMP HILL P 0 BOX 8837 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL PA 17001 8837 BEARD JEFFREY A KELCHNER DONALD SOUTHERS RICHARD HUBER PLAINTIFF PRO SE DEFENDANT DEFENDANT DEFENDANT DEFENDANT ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries ******************************************************************************** FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9/04/2008 COMPLAINT - BY WILLIAM CURTIS PLFF PRO SE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/04/2008 PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - BY WILLIAM CURTIS PLFF POR SE -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/04/2008 MOTION RCP SERVICE OF COMPLAINT - BY WILLIAM CURTIS PLFF PRO SE -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/10/2008 ORDER OF COURT - DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 - THE PETITION OF PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED PLAINTIFF MAY PROCEED WITHOUT PAYING THE FILING COSTS OR THE COSTS OF SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/15/2008 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. Case Type: COMPLAINT & NOTICE Ret Type.: Regular Litigant.: BEARD JEFFREY A Address..: 55 UTLEY DRIVE Ctyy/St/Z • CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Hnd To: STACY SENTZ. OFFICE MANAGER. ADULT IN CHARGE Shf/D ty.: STEVE BENDER Date/ Time: 09/15/2008 0930:00 Costs....: $43.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/15/2008 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. Case Type: COMPLAINT & NOTICE Ret Type.: Not Found Litigant.: KELCHNER DONALD Address..: 2500 LISBURN ROAD Cty/St/Zp: CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Costs....: $16.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 Service Attempts: 1st: 0/00/0000 2nd: 0/00/0000 DEFENDANT IS RETIRED. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/15/2008 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. Case Type: COMPLAINT & NOTICE Ret Type.: Regular Litigant.: SOUTHERS RICHARD UNIT MANAGER Address..: 2500 LISBURN ROAD Cty/St/Z • CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Hnd To: ROBERT VOLCIAK ADMIN OFFICER, ADULT IN CHARGE Shf/D ty.: STEVE BENDEk Date/ Time: 09/15/2008 0950:00 Costs....: $31.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/15/2008 SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED. Case Type: COMPLAINT & NOTICE Ret Type.: Regular 7PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Print 2008-05279 CURTIS WILLIAM (vs) BEARD JEFFREY A ET AL Page 2 Reference No..: Filed........: 9/04/2008 Case Type ..... : COMPLAINT Time.........: 11:42 Judgment......: .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000 Judge Assigned: Jury Trial.... Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000 ------------ Case Comments ----- - - - - - - - - Higher Crt 1.: Litigant.: HUBER CORRECTIONS OFFICER Higher Crt 2.: Address..: 2500 LISBURN ROAD Cty/St/Z • CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Hni To: ROBERT VOLCIAK, ADMIN OFFICER, ADULT IN CHARGE Shf/D ty.: STEVE BENDER Date/ Time: 09/15/2008 0950:00 Costs....: $16.00 Pd By: 00/00/0000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/18/2008 DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECETIONS TO PLFFS COMPLAINT - BY ROBERT B MACINTYRE ATTY FOR DEFTS -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12/11/2008 MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND CIVIL COMPLAINT - BY PLFF --------------------------------------------------------------_----- 12/13/2010 PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT GENERAL AND SPECIFIC AVERMENTS - BY PLFF -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12/13/2010 APPENDIX OF PLFFS SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT AND GENTERAL AND SPECIFIC AVERMENTS - BY PLFF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------ ------------- .00 .00 .00 * End of Case Information ******************************************************************************** Respectfully Submitted, &-e- j William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: Ic:BA-JAX l Z , 2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v M r Ti -- r- vZ, r JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. -E --f Defendants Jury Trial Der de3c APPLICATION FOR RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AND NOW, comes William Curtis, Plaintiff proceeding Pro Se and files this Application for Relief in the Nature of a Motion to Quash Defendants Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 240(f) and (j) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 240. 1. The Defendants are former and current employees and/or officials of the Pa. Department of Corrections. 2• Plaintiff is William Curtis and a ward of the State of Pennsylvaina. Plaintiff has been a ward for more than 27 years and is currently incarcerated at SCI-Graterford. 3. On September 10, 2008, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 240. 4. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's power to establish rules of procedure for Pennsylvania's State Court is exclusive. 5. Plaintiff's Supplement Complaint General and Specific Averments and Appendix of Exhibits, explains how the Dept. of Corrections' narrow view pertaining to Plaintiff's legal property, denial of RHU legal materials and denial of sensible transport of legal property policies which are deliberately promulgated too narrow margins to eradicate "self-help" serving no compelling state interest or penological purpose. 6. Plaintiff's complaints concerns acts of impunity in bad faith by state employees, deliberate indifference and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injury and where supervisors know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, and condone it. See Appendix Exhibits (B), (C)pgs.6 and 7, (D)pg.5 and (E). Consequently, wanton and willful misconduct. 7. Rule 240 (f) of Pa.R.Civ.P. states: A party permitted to proceed in forma pauperis shall not be required to (1) pay any costs or fee imposed or authorized by Act of Assembly or general rule which is payable to any court or prothonotary or any public office or employee, or (2) post bond or other security for costs as condition for commencing action or taking appeal. 8. Section 6602(f) is unconstitutional because Pa.R.Civ.P. 240 does not permit a court to dismiss a case based on a party's prior litigation. 9. The dispositive precedent in the Third Circuit is Shane v. Fauver 213 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2000)(the Third Circuit noted that it was "not aware of any specific support in the legislative history for the proposition that Congress also wanted the courts to dismiss claims that may have substantial merit but were inartfully pled." Id. 2 i 10. Plaintiff is not a skillful attorney and lacks legal knowledge and in the past has filed inartfully pled claims to seek redress against state employees. Plaintiff's previous cases are irrelevant and of no consequence. Moreover, Pa. Const. Art. V. 10(c) grants exclusive rulemaking power to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff repspectfully request based on the foregoing reasons this Honorable Court grant the Motion to Quash Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Respectfully Submitted, v_ William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: - , 2011 3 1 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Application for Relief in the Nature of a Motion to Quash Defendants Motion to Dismiss has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated : A-,IAA-- / 3 , 2011 4 1 . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Civil Term No. 08-5279 7) w (7) maj -n r -? -70 r--.: BCD Jury Trial Dekwnd e 4 T , C7 M PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION T' STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS Plaintiff William Curtis request Defendants to make the following admissions and within 30 days from the service of this request, all in accordance with Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures. 1. The statements in the attached photocopy of the document marked "Exhibit G1" by Labor and Industry "Variance Request" for the Dept. of Corrections to correct hazardous living conditions at Modular Housing Unit 5 (E-Block) SCI-Camp Hill dated November 23, 2005, is a direct result of Plaintiff's Formal Complaints filed with Labor and Industry pursuant to 1. Pa. Code 35.9 et. seq. during July 2005, are in accord with the facts. NOV.23'2005 10:05 7177033623 #2079 P.002/002 EXHIBIT G1 VARIANCE REQUEST L&i Fite No. QOL45(05 K-1 Ma'?A05 PLEASE COMPLETE ONE FORM FOR EACH REQUEST PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Building Name: Tenant Name: Modular Housing Unit. 5 ('E' Block) Date: November 23. 2005 SCI - Camp Hill Building Address: P. O. Box 8837, Lisburn Road Political Subdivision (Township, Boro): Lower Allen Township City: Camp Hill County: Cumberland Contact Person: Charles Rishel -Architectural Designer 2 Company. Bureau of Operations, PA Department of Corrections Address: P.O. Box 598 City: Camp Hill State: Pa. Zip Code: 17001-0598 Telephone; (717) 975 - 4884 FAX: 717 - 703 - 3623 Variance request from Section regarding Extension of time request until March 31, 2006 to comply with Labor and Industry Order No. 70109.3 Reasons for request and/or compensatory features:- (additfonal. 834' x 11- paper may be used) The Department of Corrections requests additional time in order to complete the work show on drawings approved by the Buildings Division on 11/22/05 (file-#457705 /Index #05-03155). The maintenance department at SCI-Camp Hill is understaffed, and needs this additional time to. complete the work. This request faxed 11/23/'05 with-hard copy to follow' Requirements for Variance Review: Areas, 1Idinas and Tenant One (1) set of drawings Including floor plans Exceptions: Pre-1927 buildings AND C-3 occupancy buildings One (1) set of sketches and photographs Mailing Address: Industrial Board Telephone: 717-787-6114 Department of Labor and Industry Room 1622, Labor and Industry Building 75' and Forster Streafs Harrisburg, PA 17130 IM113 REV 341 pOMMONYJg,6 r 1 of PEWHB'YLVAW DEPARTMENT OF L"OR AND WDUSTM WDUSTRW. P LRO RECEIVED TIME NOV. 2^1 10:27AM PRINT TIME NOV. 23, 10:28AM Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated : AI-JA &y 1 , 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Plaintiff's Request for Admission Statement in Documents has been mailed by way of the SCI-Graterford Mail Department upon the following: Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Dept. of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: r/34VAX-1 -'Z , 2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants 3 C -M" , F -a m 08-5279 Civil Terr??;Z No - . - n ;tz C'3 PROPOSED ORDER NOW, this q" day of ftiG.a , 20111 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, based on the abusive litigator provision the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f), is hereby granted and the case is dismissed. 00es `z9/IOYB WILLIAM CURTIS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANU rn VS. CO m CIVIL ACTION -LAW --0 rn NO. 08-5279 CIVIL X;2' r- C,) ~° .,.,r-- rn JEFFREY A. BEARD, ET AL., - <n C7 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ° ' {? IN RE: PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN APPEAL NUNC PIRrU `I k - rri _..? Tn ORDER AND NOW, this L r day of April, 2011, a rule is issued on the defendants to show cause why the plaintiff should not be granted leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc. This rule returnable twenty (20) days after service. BY THE COURT, Kevin A? William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 Debra Sue Rand, Esquire Pa. Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Owes f?0?? 4414qfl( Hess, P. J. Am r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN APPEAL NUNC PRO TUNC AND NOW, comes Petitioner, William Curtis, proceeding Pro Se, request either declare the appeal timely or permission to file an Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc, for the following reasons: 1. On March 7, 2011, Petitioner mailed his Pro Se, Notice of Appeal and Rule 551. Continuation of In Form Pauper Status for Purposes of Appeal to Cumberland County Courthouse's, Prothonotary to be processed and time stamped. A trial court may grant such an appeal only if the delay in filing is caused by "extraordinary circumstances involving 'fraud or some breakdown in the court's operation through a default of its officer.'" Id., quoting Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 Pa. 381, 383-384, 671 A.2d 1130, 1131 (1996). 2. Around "larch 13, 2011, Petitioner Notice of Appeal and 551. Continuation of In Forma Pauper Status for Purpose of Appeal was returned not processed and time stamped by Prothonotary David D. Buell, with his letter. "Allowance of an appeal nuns pro tunc lies at the sound discretion of the Trial Judge." McKeown v. Bailey, 731 A.2d 628, 630 (Pa.Super. 1999). Exhibit No. 1. 3. On "larch 15, 2011, for the second time Petitioner mailed a Notice of Appeal, 551. Continuation of In Forma Pauperis Status for Purposes of Appeal and a 561. Form UP Verified Statement to Cumberland County Courthouse. Prisoner Mailbox Rule Houston v. Lack 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct 2379, 101 L.Ed. 2d 245 (1988). See Commonwealth v. Cooper 710 A.24 76 (Pa.Super 1998) which applied the rule to allow a direct appeal in a private criminal complaint filed by the prisoner. 4. On March 20, 2011, for the second time Petitioner received his Notice of Appeal, 551. Continuation of In Forma Pauperis Status for Purposes of Appeal and 561 Form UP Verified Statement returned for erroneous reasons by way of U.S. Mail, with a letter from Prothonotary David D. Buell. See Exhibit No. 2. 5. In this case the Prothonotary returned Petitioner's Notice of Appeal, 551. Continuation of In Forma Pauperis Status for Purposes of Appeal and 561 Form UP Verified Statement by mail without time-stamping or entering the documents on the docket, even though documents arrived at the Prothonotary's office within the 30-day appeal period. See Exhibit No. 3. WHEREFORE, Petitioner request for the reasons stated above this Honorable Court grant this Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se 2 VERIFICATION I, William Curtis, hereby certifies that the statements in the foregoing Petition for Leave of Court to File a Appeal Nunc. Pro Tunc are within my personal knowledge are true and correct. I understand that if I make false statements in the foregoing pleading that I am subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated : 1111A -C-0 2 , 2011 3 a EXHIBIT NO. 1 & 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA y?IT?LIA I CURTI Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that William Curtis, Plaintiff above named, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the order entered in this matter on the February 9, 2011. This order has been entered in the as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry. William Curtis, Pro Se r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants PROPOSED ORDER NOW, this . q4h_ day of re?Ua-y , 2011, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, based on the abusive litigator provision the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f), is hereby granted and the case is dismissed. A. A.ast J. 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Notice of Appeal has been mailed by the way mail Department at SCI- Graterford upon the following: David D. Buell Prothonotary One Courthouse Square Suite 100 Carlisle, Pa. 17013 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: ??f1,<< ?? ? , 201 1 EXHIBIT NO. 1 & 2 & 3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff Civil Term No. 08-5279 V. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Demanded Rule 561. Form of IFP Verified Statement William Curtis, states under the penalties provided by 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909 that: 1. I am William Curtis, Plaintiff in the above action and because of my financial condition I am unable to pay the following fees and costs: 2. My responses to the questions below-relating to my ability to pay the fees and cost of prosecuting an appeal are true and correct. (a) Are you presently employed? Answer: No. "I've been incarcerated since the year 1982." (b) Have you received within the past twelve months any income from a business, profession or other form of self-employment, or in the form of rent payments, interest, dividends, pensions, annuities, social security benefits, support payments or other source? Answer: No. (c) Do you own any cash or checking or saving accounts? Answer: No. (d) Do you own any real estate, stock, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishing and clothing)? Answer: No. "I've been incarcerated since 1982." (e) List the persons, if any, who are dependent upon you for support and state your relationship to those persons. None. (f) List all' your debts and obligations. None. 3. I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in the verified statement will subject me to the penalties provided by law (misdemeanor in the second degree). William Curtis, Pro Se i EXHIBIT NO. 1(a)& 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM CURTIS Plaintiff Civil Term No. 03-5279 v. JEFFREY A. 1EARD, et al. Defendants Jury Trial Deinande#' Rule 551. Continuation of In Forma Pauperis Status for Purposes Appeal William Curtis, states under the penalties provided by 18 Pa.C.S. y 4909 that: (1) I am William Curtis, Plaintiff in the above action and because of my financial condition I am unable to pay the following fees and costs: (2) The date on which the lower court entered the order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis was "September 4, 200%3." (3) That there has been no substantial charge in the financial condition of the party since such date. (4) That Plaintiff is a ward of the State of Pennsylvania and has be incarcerated for more than "27 years" and is unable to pay the fees and costs on appeal. Respectfully Submitted, William Curtis, Pro Se Dated: "/n,C.ci•1 -7 , 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the within Continuation of In Forma Pauperis Status for Purpose Appeal has been maile3 by the way Mail.. Department at SCIGraterford upon the following: David D. Buell Prothonotary One Courthouse Square Suite 100 Carlisle, Pa. 17013 By: William Curtis, Pro Se AM-8092 Box 244 Graterford, Pa. 19426 Dated: /11?^- xc.N "7 , 2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW cry WILLIAM CURTIS ?' Plaintiff . V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL NUNC PRO TUNC NOW comes Debra Sue Rand, Assistant Counsel for Defendants, and files this Answer to Rule to Show Cause Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Granted Leave to File an Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc. 1. According to Plaintiff's request to file an appeal nunc pro tunc, he timely mailed his notice of appeal on the thirtieth day, but it was returned by the Prothonotary with an accompanying letter. 2. Plaintiff further alleges that he re-sent the notice and it was again returned by the Prothonotary with an accompanying letter. 3. Defendants did not receive a copy of any such letters and they are not exhibits to Plaintiff s request to appeal nunc pro tunc. 4. Under the inmate mailbox rule, Plaintiff is entitled to have his filing considered as mailed when he gave it to prison authorities. Commonwealth v. Jones, 549 Pa. 58, 64, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (1997). 5. To prevail on this burden to show a timely filing, Plaintiff must present "reasonably verifiable evidence of the date that [he] deposit[ed] the appeal with the prison authorities." Id. 6. Plaintiff has not done so. 7. Further, this Court can grant an appeal nunc pro tunc "when it is shown that extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or its equivalent, duress, or coercion, have caused delay in the filing of an appeal." Kaminski v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals, 657 A.2d 1028, 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 542 Pa. 652, 666 A.2d 1060 (1995) (citing references omitted). He can also prevail by showing an administrative breakdown. Bass v. Commonwealth, 485 Pa. 256, 401 A.2d 1133, 1135 (Pa. 1979). 8. Accordingly, unless this Court's Prothonotary has independent knowledge and/or copies of the letters he allegedly sent to Plaintiff, which would appear to be sufficient under Bass, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not met the standard for an appeal nunc pro tunc, as set forth in Kaminski. 2 WHEREFORE, this Court should deny Plaintiff's' request to appeal nunc pro tunc. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel By: v ?ys_ cL 1C? Debra Sue Rand Assistant Counsel Attorney I. D. No. PA41661 PA Dept. of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 728-7763 Dated: May 4, 2011 3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY-PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW WILLIAM CURTIS, Plaintiff V. No. 08-5279 Civil Term JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Rule to Show Cause upon the following person(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows: William Curtis, AM8092 SCI-Graterford P.O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426 Mary E.',, arner, Clerk Typist 2 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dated: May 4, 2011