Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-3509 PAGE 1 L-A-2021 INMATE NAME NUMBER LAST AF8163 BRONSON BATCH DATE # MO DY yEAR 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-11-2004 37 717 05-18-2004 37 866 06-02-2004 38 860 06-02-2004 37 860 06-02-2004 37 860 06-02-2004 37 860 06-02-2004 37 860 06-02-2004 37 INMATE ACCOUNTS SYSTEM MONTHLY ACCOUNT STATEMENT 06-04-2004 1044 FYT FIRST MI OLD BALANCE PURCELL -2,349.27 TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TRANSACTION BALANCE AFTER AMOUNT TRANSACTION POSTAGE POSTAGE 05-04-04 -.37 -2,349.64 POSTAGE POSTAGE 05-04-04 -1.29 -2,350.93 POSTAGE POSTAGE 05-04-04 -2.90 -2,353.83 POSTAGE POSTAGE 05-04-04 -6.26 -2,360.09 POSTAGE 5-05-04 -1.52 -2,361.61 POSTAGE 5-05-04 -.37 -2,361.98 POSTAGE 5-06-04 -.37 -2,362.35 POSTAGE POSTAGE 05-07-04 -.37 -2,362.72 POSTAGE POSTAGE 05-10-04 -.74 -2,363.46 POSTAGE 5-13-04 -.74 -2,364.20 INSIDE PURCHASES PHOTO COPIES -.80 -2,365.00 POSTAGE POSTAGE 06-01-04 -.37 -2,365,37 POSTAGE POSTAGE 06-01-04 -.60 -2,365,97 POSTAGE POSTAGE 06-01-04 -1.06 -2,367.03 POSTAGE POSTAGE 06-01-04 -1.77 -2,368.80 POSTAGE POSTAGE 06-01-04 -1.79 -2,370.59 NEW BALANCE AS OF THIS STATEMENT ................... > -2,370.59 PURCELL BRONSON AND LEON HARRIS, PETITIONERs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY BEARD; SUPERINTENDENT KELCHNER; ROBERT MARSH; JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS : 04-3509 CIVIL TERM (1) Petitioner, Purcell Bronso- 4 IT IS ORDERED: ., may proceed in forma Pauperis (2) A Rule is entered against respondents to show cause why the relief requested by Purcell Bronson, should not be granted. Rule returnable ninety (90) days from this date. (3) The Sheriff of Cumberland County shall serve the pleadings as to Purcell Bronson on respondents. (4) Petitioner, Leon Harris, having not filed a Petition to Proceed in forma pauper/s, or attached documentation in SUpport of same, IT I',~ ORDERED that service of the pleadings as to him on respondents shall only be made by the Sheriff upon the payment of the appropriate fee. Purcell Bronson, #AF-8163 SCI Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 Leon Harris SCI Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 Sheriff- :sal PURCELL BRONSON AND LEON HARRIS, PETITIONERS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY BEARD; SUPERINTENDENT KELCHNER; ROBERT MARSH;JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS AND NOW, this I COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17OI 3-3387 .\ : 04-3509 CIVIL TERM ORDER OFCOURT day of September, 2004, IT IS ORDERED: PURCELL BRONSON AND LEON HARRIS, PETITIONERS · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI, : JEFFREY BEARD; SUPERINTENDENT KELCHNER; ROBERT MARSH;JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS AND NOW, this · 04-3509 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT day of September, 2004, IT IS ORDERED: I COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3387 .\ 0 ~ telease~ Leon Harris SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-03509 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BRONSON PURCELL VS BEARD JEFFREY ET AL RONALD KERR Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, says, the within PETITION Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of who being duly sworn according to law, was served upon BEARD JEFFREY RESPONDB-NT , at 1130:00 HOURS, at 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 KRISTINA LEBO, CLERK, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of PETITION the on the 15th day of September, 2004 by handing to together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 10.36 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.0O .00 38.36 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this -$/~ day of ~~_~ =2~y A.D. _ So Answers: R. Thomas Kline oo/o0/o0o0 By: Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2004-03509 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVA~IA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BRONSON PURCELL VS BEARD JEFFREY ET AL REGULAR RONALD KERR , Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, says, the within PETITION KELCHER DONALD RESPONDANT , at 1113:00 HOURS, at 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 JACKI SONNTAG, SECRETARY, a Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of who being duly sworn according to law, was served upon the on the 15th day of September, 2004 by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE true and attested copy of PETITION together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~/~ day of ~othonotary · ~ So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 00/00/0000 By: Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2004-03509 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVA3¢IA: COI/NTY OF CUMBERLAND BRONSON PURCELL VS BEARD JEFFREY ET AL REGULAR RONALD KERR Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, says, the within PETITION MARSH JOHN RESPONDANT , at 1113:00 HOURS, at 2500 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 JACKI SONNTAG, SECRETARY, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of PETITION Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of who being duly sworn according to law, was served upon the on the 15th day of September, 2004 by handing to together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 .... ~ Service . 00 ~ ~ Affidavit .00 ~ Surcharge 10.,90 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 oo/oo/oooo Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~/~ day of By: Deputy Sheriff -~o: / IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PURCELL BRONSON, Petitioner, Vo Civil Action No. 04-3509 JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Respondents. RESPONDENT BEARD~ KELCItNER AND MARSII'S MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT HEARING Respondents, Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D. ("Secretary Beard"), Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("Department"); Donald Kelchner ("Superintendent Kelchner"), Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill"); and Robert J. Marsh ("Unit Manager Marsh"), Unit Manager of the Special Management Unit at SCI-Camp Hill, by their attorney, Timothy I. Mark, Assistant Counsel, moves this Court to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without hearing for the following reasons: Parties and backgrountd 1. Petitioner, Purcell Bronson ("Bronson"), is an inmate under the Department inmate number AF-8163, who is presently incarcerated in the Special Management Unit ("SMU") at SCI-Camp Hill. 2. Bronson, serving consecutive life sentences for two murders, was described by Judge Novak as a person, who "[a]s long as [he] breathes...will be a danger to the safety and lives of the guards and prisoners within the prison walls." (Ex. A, June 15, 1995 Order, ¶ 7, p. 3). Pa. R.E. 201(a)(d)(judicial notice). 3. Additionally, Bronson has been described as "the killer king of inmate lawsuits in Pennsylvania." (Ex. B, Patriot News article Aug. 16, 1998). 4. In addition to Secretary Beard, Superintendent Kelchner, and Unit Manager Marsh, Bronson names as Respondents "John Does who are unknown prison official(s) at SCI Camp Hill." (Petition, p. 1). Procedural Background 5. On or about July 21, 2004, Bronson filed a document entitled "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("Petition"). The caption also listed Leon Harris as a Petitioner, but his name was interlineated on the service copy of the document. 6. By an Order dated September 2, 2004, in forma pauperis status was granted. 7. On or about September 15, 2004, the Petition was served on Respondents Beard, Kelchner, and Marsh by the Sheriff. 8. On or about September 27, 2004, Bronson served a document entitled "Supplemental Habeas Petition and Preliminary Injunction" ("injunctive request"). 2 Relief Requested 9. Bronson requests not only the entry of a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition, Relief) but ultimately on Order directing his "release from the [SMU]" based upon a contention that the SMU was "illegally promulga[ted]...under the law" and the Respondents have refused to provide Bronson with "due process of law." (Petition, P. 1). 10. In the injunctive request, Bronson requests the acceptance of the Supplemental Petition and an Order directing not only the release of his legal boxes but also some adjustment to the temperature in his cell. (Injunctive request, relief). Does this Court have Sub,iect Matter Jurisdiction? 11. No one challenges that jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions is conferred to the courts of common pleas and venue is appropriate in this county, if the document Bronson filed is construed as one seeking habeas. Bronson v. Domovich, 628 A.2d 1177, 1179 (Pa. Super. 1993)(,~abeas conditions petitions are filed in county where inmate is housed). 12. Rather, the jurisdictional question (regarding whether action is within the jurisdiction of the common pleas court or within the original, exclusive jurisdiction of Commonwealth Court) is raised for several reasons: a.) To avoid the possibility of forum shopping through the artful styling of claims by the parties, our Supreme Court has recently directed courts to rigorously examine pleadings under a "core of the complaint" analysis. Stackhouse v. Pennsylvania State Police, __ Pa. ___, 832 A.2d 1004, 1008-09 (2003); b.) Bronson is a skilled litigator. (Ex. B);~ c.) Based on the relief requested,2 the Petition may be treated as an action in mandamus or a petition for injunctive relief despite the styling of it as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; d.) "A mandamus action is one where the petitioner seeks to compel the performance of a mandatory duty or a ministerial act by a government unit." Kretchmar, 831 A.2d at 797. Injunctive relief is available where a party establishes that his right to relief is clear, that an injunction is necessary to avoid an injury that cannot be compensated by damages, and that greater harm would result by refusing the injunction than by granting the requested relief. Harding v. Stickman, 823 A.2d 1110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); e.) Pursuant to Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 761(a)(1), petitions seeking mandamus or iinjunctive relief against the Commonwealth government or its officers acting in their official capacity fall with ~ Bronson typically cannot retain informa pauperis status. 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f); Brown v. dames, 822 A.2d 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)("three strikes," whenever accumulated, are in the nature of a jurisdictional lq[urdle for a "prison conditions litigation" IFP inmate). See Bronson v. Edwards, (P'a. Cmwlth., No. 60 C.D. 1998, filed October 29, 1998), Exhibit "C." If this action does not fall within the statutory exception for "habeas corpus proceedings challenging the fact or duration of confinement in prison cases," 42 Pa. C.S. § 6601 ("prison conditions litigation"), Bronson would not be entitled to retain IFP absent a "credible allegation that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury" at the time the complaint was filed. 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f). Cf Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 312 (3d Cir. 2001). "'Imminent' dangers are those dangers which are about to occur at any moment or are impending." Iai, at 315. 2 An examination of the relief requested establishes the nature of the cause of action and, thus, the appropriate legal standards to be applied to any application for relief. Kretchmar v. Department of Corrections, 82; 1 A.2d 793,797 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), petition for allowance of appeal denied, ~Pa.__, 847 A.2d 1289 (2004). 4 the original, exclusive jurisdiction of Commonwealth Court. Kretchmar; Commonwealth v. Snyder, 829 A.2d 783, 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).3 Since Bronson's Petition named Superintendent Kelchner and Secretary Beard as Respondents, Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction is invoked; f.) Without jurisdiction, a court is without authority to act and any order it issues is void. Commonwealth v. Morris, 565 Pa. 1,771 A.2d 721 (2001); and g.) Although typically a matter ma2/be transferred to the proper tribunal under 42 Pa. C.S. § 5103(a), a Court may re. fuse to transfer a matter in the interest of judicial economy, under certain circumstances, where, for example, the transferee Court could not grant the requested relief. Smock v. Commonwealth, 496 Pa. 204, 436 A.2d 615 (1981). Is Bronson's Petition more in the nature of mandamus or injunctive relief, over which Commonwealth Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction, or is it a habeas case, as styled and titled, over which this Court has jurisdiction? 13. The Petition alleges that Respondents have confined him in segregated housing under a policy that should have been published as a regulation and the conditions of his confinement and discipline violate the Eighth Amendment. To remedy this, Bronson requests that this court order (1) Respondents to remove him from the SMU antd place him elsewhere and/or (2) Respondents to refrain from placing him in a Restricted Housing Unit. Thus, 3 Secretary Beard is an official with state-wide policymaking authority. See, Fawber v Cohen, 516 Pa. 352, 361, 532 A.2d 429, 434 (1987)(suit against an official with state-wide policymaking authority, Secretary of Welfare, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to direct his official acts is within Commonwealth Court's jurisdiction under Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code, and not that of County Common Pleas under the Section 761 (a)(1)(v) exception). despite the styling of it, Bronson's Petition is, in fact, one seeking mandamus or injunctive relief. Accordingly, it should be treated as such. Kretchmar. 14. If transferred, Commonwealth Court would likely conclude that Bronson has failed to state cognizable claims entitling him to the sought-after relief, for example: a.) Bronson claims (Petition, p. 2) that being held in segregated housing for eleven (11) years without possible release to the general prison population subjects him to "atypical and significant hardship.., in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). In a non-precedential decision, the Court of Appeals for' the Third Circuit ruled that a thirty-one year stay in solitary confinement, even if based solely on the inmate's past crimes, was permissible, so as long as the Department continued periodic assessments under its policy that was construed as constitutional in Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2000)(eight years in administrative custody). See Delker v. McCullough, (3d Cir., No. 03-2145, filed July 12, 2004), appended as Exhibit ,,D,,4; b.) Bronson claims (Id.) entitlement to a hearing before placement in the SMU. No hearing was required before Bronson was placed in the SMU. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976); Wilder v. Department of Corrections, 673 A.2d 30 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Decisions regarding inmate classification, placement and conditions of confinement are matters of administrative discretion. Johnson v. Horn, 782 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). Moreover, the Department's regulations specify in relevant part that "lain inmate does not have a right to be housed in a particular facility or in a particular area within a facility." 37 Pa. Code 93.1 l(a). Likewise, there is no requirement that the Department publish its policy; c.) Bronson also attacks the Department's prison misconduct policy. (Id.). The hearing procedures or evidentiary standard utilized by prison officials to sustain a finding that an inmate violated prison rules, or even a claim 4 Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 78 F.3d 859, 864 n. 12 (3d Cir. 1996)("Although ... an unpublished opinion[] is not binding authority, [a court] may look at it as a 'paradigm of the legal analysis [it] should here follow.'" that the procedures were not followed, is a matter of internal prison management and does not state a viable constitutional claim. Luckett v. Blaine, 850 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004); Edmunson v. Horn, 694 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997); Sandin (no due process violation because discipline in segregated confinement did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation that creates a liberty interest); see also Wilder; d.) Bronson claims that he has "severely limited access to emergency treatment" and it is not as confidential as he would like it to be. (Petition, p. 3). He claims that due to his housing status he is "generally denied medical and mental health treatment" (Id.) but provides no specifics. He has not alleged deliberate indifference to an identifiable serious medical need. In essence, he merely objects to placement in restrictive housing and contends that he does not get the level of medical attention he desires, a matter that fails to state a claim. Kretchmar; e.) To the extent that conditions of confinement (Id.) are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. Rhodes v. Chapman, 45:2 U.S. 337 (1981). Extreme deprivations are required to make out a condition of confinement claim under the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). Rivera v. Pennsylvania Dep't. of Corrections, 837 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2003)(Conditions in Long Term Segregation Unit restrictive and harsh, but not violative of Eighth Amendment); f.) Restrictions on property, even to legal material, have been upheld. See, e.g., Iseley v. Beard, 841 A.2d 168, 174 n. 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)(the Department's excess property limitation even as !it relates to legal materials is reasonably related to legitimate penological goals of safety, security, and fire); Griffin v. Young, 1992 WL 72995, at *3 (E.D.Pa.. March 31, 1992)(placement and housing within a SMU thereby restricting an inmate to the Mini Law Library are alone insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Restricted access is not a per se denial of access to the courts; regulations may be imposed limiting the time, places, and manner in which inmates may engage in research); g.) As have been restriction on contact visits and visitation. Garber v. Department of Corrections, 851 A.2d 222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004); and h.) Bronson has no right to use a phone. Chimenti v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 720 A.2d 205, 213 (P'a. Cmwlth. 1998)(stating that petitioner have no constitutional right to use the phone). Accordingly, transfer should be refused in the interest of judicial economy. Smock v. Commonwealth, 496 Pa. 204, 436 A.2d 615 (1981). Habeas 15. Should the Court, nevertheless, determine that Bronson's Petition should be construed as it is styled, it is respectfully submitted that it be dismissed without a hearing. 16. "[I]t is a general rule that the [habeas] petition may be denied summarily and without a hearing where it fails to allege facts making out a prima facie case for the issuance of the writ." Balsamo v. Mazurkiewicz, 611 A.2d 1250, 1253 (Pa. Super. 1992)(citation omitted). Thus, it was incumbent upon Bronson to have alleged facts making out a prima facie basis for habeas conditions relief, something he has not done.5 Medical Treatment and Disciplinary / Administrative Confinement 17. "Medical treatment of prisoners is a matter of penal administration, concerning which problem the courts will not take [habeas] jurisdiction." 5 When considering a petition, the trial court must construe allegations in the petition in a light most favorable to the petitioner, but bald assertions and conclusory allegations do not provide sufficient grounds for an evidentiary hearing. See Com. ex tel. West v. Myers, 423 Pa. 1, 3,222 A.2d 918, 920 (1966). Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Banmiller, 194 Pa. Super. 566, 568, 168 A.2d 793, 794 (1961). 18. Bronson's request to be released from the SMU does not assert a cognizable basis for habeas corpus relief. Commonwealth ex tel. Fortune v. Dragovich, 792 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. Super.), appeal denied, 569 Pa. 690, 803 A.2d 732 (2002)(claim that decision of prison officials to hold inmate in administrative custody was inconsistent with Depm~ment policy does not provide cognizable basis for issuance of habeas corpus writ).6 19. Although Bronson claims he is exposed to "atypical and significant hardship...in relationship to the routine prison life in general population" (Petition, p. 2), the baseline to determine "atypical and significant" in relation to administrative confinement is not the condition in the general prison population; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the inmate"s conditions in administrative custody are more restrictive than those imposed upon other inmates [similarly situated] in solitary confinement. Johnston v. Vaughn, 2000 WL 1694029 at * 2, n. 6 It is not cognizable because "the failure or refusal of prison authorities to exercise discretion in a particular way may not be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding." Commonwealth ex tel. Tancemore v. Myers, 150 A.2d 180, 181-82 (Pa. Super. 1959). See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 214-226, 96 S. Ct. 2532, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451(1976) (prisoner's occupancy of particular prison or housing unit not subject to constitutional protection). 7 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 13, 2000). Bronson has not alleged any conditions more restrictive than other similarly situated administratively confined prisoners. 20. With regard to Bronson's claim that no date has been set for his release from administrative custody (Petition, p. 2), prison officials are best able to determine when, or even if, he will be release. See Delker, Ex. D. The Department is best able to make judgments about where Bronson should be housed based upon Bronson's past crimes, Judge Novak's Order (Ex. A), and Bronson's adjustment, while confined. Delker. Where safety, welfare, and security of inmates, staff, and the facility in general are concerned, judicial deference to prison officials' decisions is generally accorded. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974). 21. None of Bronson's remaining claims (Petition, p. 3) rise to the level that would otherwise require a hearing. Com. ex tel. Bryant v. Hendrick, 444 Pa. 83,280 A.2d 110, 113-14 (1971). 22. While there can be no doubt but that Bronson's predominate and overriding desire in filing the Petition is an effort to have this Court remove him from his assigned facility and housing in the SMU and have him placed somewhere else, habeas corpus relief is not available to avoid more stringent conditions of confinement, whether they occur in administrative custody, disciplinary confinement, Special Management Units, or the LTSU. Fortune. 10 23. Even were it determined, however, that a hearing is required, a petitioner has no absolute right to be present at the hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding, and such right ordinarily depends upon whether the petitioner's presence is necessary. Commonwealth ex rel. O'Niel .v Ashe, 337 Pa. 230, 10 A.2d 404 (1940). The issues raised in the particular case determine whether a prisoner should be produced for a hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding. Com. ex rel. Johnson v. Maroney, 191 A.2d 704, 705-706 (Pa. Super. 1963). 24. "[T]emporary relief from prison confinement is always an alluring prospect, and to the hardened criminal the possibility of escape lurks in every excursion beyond prison walls." Price v. Johnsort, 159 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir. 1947). In this case, there is no need to provide Bronson with a "holiday in court." See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 596, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 1595-96, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998)(claims may be "plainly frivolous and some may be more motivated more by a desire to obtain a 'holiday in court,' than by a realistic expectation of tangible relief.")(footnote omitted).7 ? The omitted footnote from Crawford-El v. Britton appears at 523 U.S. at 596, n.17 and reads: "In his dissent in Harris v. Pate, 440 F.2d 315 (CA7 1971), Judge Hastings wrote in reference to the 'ever increasing volume of frivolous civil actions filed by state custodial prisoners' that '(o)f course, most prisoners would enjoy a holiday in court.' Id., at 320." 1l WHEREFORE, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DISMISSED without hearing. By: Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel IAis~li~ tt ~hr~ olo~ tnr ske 1 Attorney I.D. No. 27758 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: October 1, 2004 12 1~/237~888 13:81 814-949-7922 SCI ndN/INGDOh- PAGE RECEIVED JUN 2"8 995 IN THE COURT OF. COMMON PLEAS OF. ALLEGHE]~ COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PURCELL BRONSON, Defendant. CRIMINAL DIVISION CC No. charge: Verdict= Pena~Lty: 9308963 Criminal Homicide 1st Degree Murder Life ORDER OF COURT AND NOW,.. to=wit, this 13th clay of June, 1995, the jury in the 'above~captione~ matter having found the defendant guilty of Murder in th~ First Degree for the killing of Lance Jollyand after :Eurther hearing and due deliberation, the j~ry being hopeless!y"~eadlocked in its effort to reach -a unanimous verdict as.z'to the appropriate sentence; WHEREFORe, the court enters the following or~e'r: · LIFE. SENTENCE .AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 1995, in'ope.n 'Court, defendant' appearing With counsel, the slentence of the l~w. is that you, Pur¢6i! BrO~son, pay 'a 'fine of 6 1/4 cents" ~o'the C~onweaith 6f .Pennsylvania, pay the costs of prosecution an~. .for the 'period of your natural life and undergo an' ~r~soD~e_~t EXHIBITA · lo72~12~00 13:81 814-849-7922 SCI HUNTINGDON stand .co~mit'ted,.. and be~ sent to Diagnostic' ..and" .'Classification the Westesn Correctional Center at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, robe.· transferred to such institution as may be deemed aPpr6priate.'' 'This sentence to ]begin and take effect at the expirati0n of'the'.sentence the defendant is now serving. 'Mor'~over~ in an effort to prevent further harm to other persons,.~he.cO'Urt makes the following findkngs of fact: .(i).. On .December 8, 196!, the defendant was sentenced · .to three to %eh .years'~or the rape of Lolly Mae Douglas. (2)"... '.OnL:October 6, .1972, while in prison, the defendant :was 'sentenced to two to four years in prison for the stabbing of 'Curt..Rutan. f(3) Oh':November 26, 1979, the defendant was sentenced' to' llfei~prisonment 'for the murder .and robbery of . (.4). .On'" june 13, 1995, while serving that life senten=e,, the'de~endant was found guilty of First Degree Murder for the _kil,ling.'.o~ Lance Jolly. The ..4efe~dant was 46 years of age at the t~.~e of the murder;, the .~e¢~ase~"was 20 years of age. .~.) "~he · record in this case indi=ates T_hat defendant," bY .~irtue'. of his intel!igen=e, his ruthlessness, his' · 13:81 814-949-7922 SCI HUNTINGDON PAGE 0S incessant stream. 0f lawsuits, and his s~stantial, b~nk account, is a power .within the walls of the prison. (7.) ' AS long as the defendant brea~hes, he danger .tO .the sa~etM and lives of ths~ guards and within the prison.walls. WHEREfoRE, the Court strenuously urges the governor and the commaissioner of corrections to take whatever lawful will he a prisoners measures.are..~possible to confine"~he defendant for the dura=ion of his natural lire'in such a manner that he is unable to harm or kill. -another human being. The court further, directs that · these'fi~ding~':'and'reco~mendation .b~ aPPended .to 'the above- ' captioned order'~enever it is copied or reproduced. . BY THE. CO,iT: ( · - 3 - ! .L,.awsuit kilng f'des 'average of 10 a'year His 21.year total of 200 is top.s for a state inmate BY ADAM BELL . .. \, OF THE PATRtOT:NE~/S Purcell Brons0n is the killer king of inmate lawsuits in Pennsylvania. He has ['Red mere suits than'any other prisoner in state history, offi- cials say. The best estimate is more than 200 in 21 years. Just mention his name to court clerks across the state, and hear them groan. ~ ~ Pennsylvania in- -~2~ carcarates/35,920 '~1 people. Bronson ac- ~ counts for 3 percent ~.[.[.[.[.[.[.~1 of the '/09 prisoner ~ lawsuits this year. ~...[ Consecutiva life ~'~] Sentences for two vg~g,~g~q murders provide '~:!;:[ plenty of time for '"':w' '-"'q Bronson to fashion 3aoss0s cases in solitary confinement. Most get bounced out ! of court as frivolous, although this hasn't deterred him. Brensan, tries to craft a case a month. Prison officisls hope. a. state law that is effective tomorrow just might ~low him down. Mirroring a 1996 federal law, the Prison Litiga- tion Reform Act is meant to reduce [ flivolous suits from inmates. 1 There's a lot of taxpayer money :at stake. Dealing with Frivolous ~ suit~ in federal court has cost more than $80 million a year, according to the National Association of State Attorneys General. Th.e~'s no tell- iNMATE LAWSUITS ' A 1996 federal law curbing frivo ous awsuits by prisoners has resulted in fewer lawsuits in federal court.. · U.5. ~lstrlct Cou~ Middle ~lst~ct *As of 7Z3~J98 ' ~i'he'law IL, nits aa Lnmnt'e's ebilttqj to [`Re' bogus civil suits and makes it' easier -for the.cou~rts to dismiss the ones that.that get flied. A key provi' sion orders inmates who have hi/d three cases dismissed as frivolous to pay all court c:osts before, filing another complaint. This reflects a national trend 'of forcing inmates to be more account: able for their actions. Pennsylva- nia, for instance, now charges pris- oners for routine medical visits and limits the amount of free postage Authorities hope the new law will save money and free up court re- 'sources to deal with.legitimate claims. Courts may dismiss an in- mate case dealimg with prison con. ditions at any time if the suit is IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CERTIFIED FROM THE RECORD AND ORDER EXIT PURCELL BRONSON, T. EDWARDS et al. Appellant 1998 No. 60 C.D. 1998 PER CURIAM MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Inmate Purcell Bronson has filed a motion, to reinstate. in this.case. The basis for the court'S dismissal was that BronsOn did'not file a status report as directe'd. He asserts in his motion to reinstate that he was unexpectedly temporarily transferred for another court hearing and that he was nc, t returned until after the time .for filing the report. NOrmally,. such an excuse would be accepted by this court and we would grant the motion to reinstate. Bronson, however, is clearly the exception to. the rule. Since 1990 alone, when this court beg~l computerized docking, Mr. Bronson has filed 77 lawsuits here. While this total does not include lawsuits filed, in previous dec~des, it is clear to this court that his litigious nature has not diminished one whit. To date he has never paid a filing ~ee for a single civil ac~on ~il~d here; he has never paid for a c0urt reporter; and, he has never paid any costs as a losing party. In recent years he has had One success on a default failed to resgond,. motion when the Department of Corrections His lawsuits in this court ,uniformly concern prison condition and prison, management i~sues. None challenges the legality of his sentence. His repetitive filings have caused untold administrative probiems because, inter alia, he does not always' serVe documents on the~ parties, he files documents with different docket numbers at the same time and in the same envelope, and h~ does not always file certificates of serVice. Further, he seeks routinely to be excused from the rules of appellate procedure including the rule dictating the number of briefs to be filed and rules concerning time deadlines. A recent act passed by our state legislature has sent a message that the public is fed up with this type of abusive litigation. See Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §66~1- 6608. Accordingly, this court will decline to reinstate the appeal. Quite frankly, if Bronson exercised some discretion in his filings he would be able to keep track of his litigation and to follow the rules. This is not a case where he lacks the intelligence to comply, but rather a case where he has a level of intelligence that allows him to systematically use this cQ~rt as a vehicle to provide him with recreational activity and to ~nt his spleen at ~ociety. A mere glance at his inmate account statement will show that he is in debt over $1300.00 for.mailings on court related matters, money in fact paid ib¥ the taxpayers of this Commonwealth.. Further, a' Lexis® search rev~als..that he is a named party in 67 cases including actions heroine the Supreme Court of the United States. This of Course is nowhere near a complete list of actions he has actually filed. ~ In summary, this court has had enough and absen~ an · order fro~ our state supreme court informing us that docket control means nothing, we will no longer exercise our discretion to grant Bro~son's motions for favorable treatment in cases where we would grant.such motions to other inmates who do not abuse the legal process~to such an extreme degree. Accordingly, we enter the following ORDER NOW, October 29, 1998, upon consideration of. Bronson's motion for reconsideration/reinstatement of appeal, the motion is denied.' NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 03-2145 DANIEL DELKER, Appellant JOHN MCCULLOUGH, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale; J. F. MAZURKIEWlCZ, in his official capacity as a member of the Program Review Committee of the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale; D. A. KYLER, in his official capacity as a member of the Program Review Committee of the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale; VARIOUS JOHN DOES, in their official capacity as members of the Program Review Committee of the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale; THOMAS FuLCOMER, in his official capacity as a Regional Deputy Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-00312J) District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti Argued February 12, 2004 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ROTH and MCKEE, Circuit Judges (Filed July 12, 2004 ) Jere Krakoff, Esquire (Argued) Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project 429 Forbes Avenue 1705 Allegheny Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel fo Appellant D. Michael Fisher Attorney General Kemal A. Mericli (Argued) Senior Deputy Attorney General John G. Knorr, III Chief Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania 6th Floor 564 Forbes Avenue Manor Complex Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Appellees OPINION ROTH, Circuit Judge: Daniel Delker appeals the District Court's order granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. The procedural history of this case and the details of Delker's claims are well-known to the parties, set forth in the District Court's thorough opinion, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Delker alleged that he was confined in administrative 2 segregation without meaningful review and that this violated his right to due process. Delker has been kept in segregation since December 1973 after killing a Department of Corrections captain. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation and concluded that, while Delker had a liberty interest in being: released from administrative segregation, the procedures used to determine whether or not he would be released comported with procedural due process. The District Comet adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granted the motion for summary judgment. Delker filed a timely notice of appeal and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's order granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217,221 (3d Cir. 1998). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if our review reveals that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review the :Facts in a light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. See Cools~rin~ Stone Supply, Inc. v. American States Life Ins. Co., 10 F.3d 144, 146 (3d Cir. 1993). Appellees conceded in the District Court that Delker's continuing placement in administrative confinement triggers due process protections. Thus, the question is whether Delker received procedural due process in relation to his confinement. In Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2000), we examined the case of a prisoner who had been held in administrative confinement for eight years. We held that based on the periodic reviews of his status, Shoats had received the due process to which he was entitled. We further noted that even if Shoats's confinement was based only on his past crimes, the process would be constitutional. Delker argues that, while he has been given the required periodic reviews, these reviews were "no more than rote exercises" and this denial of meaningful review violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court did a thorough review of the relevant caselaw and set forth a concise summary of the appellees' deposition testimony. We agree with the District Court that the appellees gave Delker meaningful periodic reviews, and thus procedural due process, and were entitled to summary judgment. However, we note that it would be helpful for judicial review if a brief written rationalization for keeping Delker confined in solitary was made when his status was reviewed, although not necessarily every ninety days. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will affirm the District Court's April 1, 2003, judgment. 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PURCELL BRONSON, Petitioner, V. Civil Action No. 04-3509 JEFFREY BEARD, et al., Respondents. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without a Hearing upon the person(s) in the above-captioned matter. Service by first-class Addressed as follows: Dated: October 1, 2004 Purcell Bronson, AF-8163 SCI-Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001 Cheron L. Hallman Clerk Typist II Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PURCELL BRONSON, : Petitioner, : V. : .' JEFFREY BEARD, et al., : Civil Action No. 04-3509 Respondents. : PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APP. ;ARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance in the above-captioned matter as counsel only on behalf of the following Respondents: Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Donald Kelchner, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill"); and Robert J. Marsh, Unit Manager of the Special Management Unit at SCI-Camp Hill. Respectfully submitted, Office of General Counsel Dated: October 1, 2004 By: Timothy I[ Mark ~ Assistant ~ounsel Attorney I.D. No. 27'758 Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 IN THE COURT OF COMM,ON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PURCELL BRONSON, Petitioner, V. JEFFREy BEARD, et a[., Respondents. Civil Action No. 04-3509 ~CERTIFICATE OF SER~VIC_.~E I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the £oregoing Praecipe for Entry o£Appearance upon the person(s) in the above-captioned matter. Service by first-class Addressed as follows: Purcell Bronson, AF-8163 SCI-Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001 Dated: October 1, 2004 Clerk Typist II Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 t~o, 0~- 5~0 ~ SUBJEG~.~ronson, Purcell AF-8163 % ._.___._.__-.--..-~'~ TO: FROM: Philip Johnson Superintendent IDn~eP/ntaY I ~UeP=rli~endent for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections S.C.I.-Pittsburgh Operations 412-761-1955 March 6, 2001 Sir, Inmate Purcell Bronson AF-8163 has requested an exception to the Department of Corrections and SCI-Pittsburgh's property limitations for legal materials. This request has been made in writing. Mr. Bronson has provided me with a list of 29 separate court actions he states are pending cases. I have communicated with Deputy Chie~f Counsel Ran~ regarding the extensive list provided by Mr. Bronson. Mr. ~ was able to verify that 13 of the cases are indeed pending before various courts. Mr. Sears is awaiting notification of the status of three additional cases. Nonetheless, it appears as though an exception is in order. As you are aware, Mr. Bronson is a Long Term Segregation Unit inmate, who will require additional monitoring, so as to ensure compliance with the policy 6.3.1 Facility Security - Section 20 Inmate Property. At your direction, I will instru,ct the Restricted Housing Lieutenant(s) to allow an exception and we will develop a method to control the legal materials. information, p~s~ feel free to contact me. Should you require any other Deputy Kwsevig ¢' ' SUBJI~ TO: FROM: Joel Dickson Deputy Superintendent for Internal Sec~ C¢~'j~(o~er R. Montenaro ~ajor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections S.C.I.-Pittsburgh Operations 412-761-1955 March 25, 2001 Sir, The plan of action regarding inmate Bronson's exemption from Property Limits has been carried out successfully. For review, Inmate Bronson was informed that he was granted a one (1) box in cell ¢ strictly for le,qal material. Sgt. Stafford and Officer Orpen went through ail of Inmate Bronson's eight (8) boxes (~f property in A-300. Sgt. Stafford and Officer Orpen searched the eight (8) boxes of property to ensure no contraband entered the pods or his cell. Inmate Bronson was present during the entire search. / After the property was thoroughly searched, it was placed in Inmate Bronson's cell and he was directed to catalog what was in each box and to prioritize it as his legal work dictated. Inmate Bronson voluntarily destroyed several boxes of what he described as obsolete materials, bringing the total boxes of legal materials down to five (5). At the conclusion of this process, inmate Bronson had the boxes marked "A-B-C-D-E". nmate Bronson was permitted to k,,eep one (1) additiona. I box in his cell and the rest were sealed, inventory as "legal Material on a DC-I~'~ and placed in a locked room in the Property Room. Inmate Bronson has been instructed that he is permitted a one (1)-box rotation every thirty (30) days barring any circumstanCe that may arise as compelled by the Court. The need to rotate box for box will be communicated to Sgt. S~bafford, who while complete the rotation and notify Lt. Mohing and myself. ¢' Cc: Deputy Stickman Deputy Krysevig Major McFetridge Lt. Bovo Lt. Morhing file C L~ ~l ~J~r PURCELL BRONSON, PETITIONER : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY BEARD; SUPERINTENDENT KELCHNER; ROBERT MARSH;JOHN DOES, RESPONDENTS : 04-3509 CIVIL TERM ~,Purcell Bronson, #AF-8163 SCI Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~/,~ day of October, 2004, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Petitioner's supplemental habeas corpus petition seeking a preliminary injunction, IS DISMISSED. The remedy is not available. (2) Petitioner's allegations in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus do not raise sufficient claims of conditions of confinement that constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Fortune v. Dragovich, 792 A.2d 1257 (Pa. Super. 2002). The petition is dismissed without a hearing. ~imothy I. Mark, Esquire For Defendants :sal Cs. ~.e.v. TO: Philip Johnson Superintendent /f / Deputy Superintendent for v Internal Security Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections S.C.l.-Pittsburgh Operations 412-761-1955 March 6, 2001 Thr ~/J- ough: ~ajoS~O~her R. Montenaro Sir, Inmate Purcell Bronson AF-8163 has requested an exception to the Department of Corrections and SCI-Pittsburgh's property limitations for legal materials. This request has been made in writing. Mr. Bronson has provided me with a list of 29 separate court actions he states are pending cases. I have communicated with Deputy Chief Counsel Randall Sears regarding the extensive list provided by Mr. Bronson. Mr. S~ars was able t(~ ~,erify that 13 of the cases are indeed pending before various courts. Mr. Sears is awaiting notification of the status of three additional cases. Nonetheless, it appears as though an exception is in order. As you are aware, Mr. Bronson is a Long Term Segregation Unit inmate, who will require additional monitoring, so as to ensure compliance with the policy 6.3.1 Facility Security - Section 20 Inmate Property. At your direction, I will instruct the Restricted Housing Lieutenant(s) to allow an exception and we will develop a method to control the legal materials. Should you require any other information, p~,e~s~ feel free to contact me. c: Deputy Stickman . ,) ~ . ? UBJ~II AF-8163 .,~ TO: FROM: Joel Dickson Deputy Superintendent for Internal Sec~ ~r~trO~her R. Montenaro Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections S.C.l.-Pittsburgh Operations 412-761-1955 March 25, 2001 Sir, The plan of action regarding Inmate Bronson's exemption from Property Limits has been carried out successfully. For review, Inmate Bronson was informed that he was granted a one (1) box in cell ~ strictly for le~ m_aterial. Sgt. Stafford and Officer Orpen went through all of Inmate Bronson's eight (8) boxes of property in A-300. Sgt. Stafford and Officer Orpen searched the eight (8) boxes of property to ensure no contraband entered the pods or his cell. Inmate Bronson was present during the entire search. After the property was thoroughly searched, it was placed in Inmate Bronson's cell and he / was directed to catalog what was in each box and to prioritize it as his legal work dictated. Inmate Bronson voluntarily destroyed several boxes of what he described as obsolete materials, bringing the total boxes of legal materials down to five (5). At the conclusion of this process, Inmate Bronson had the boxes marked "A-B-C-D-E". Inmate Bronson was,,perm fted to keep one (1) additional b ' ' sealed, inventory as legal Materia" o ox.~n hl,s cell and the rest were n a DC-l~ced ~n a locked room in the Property Room. Inmate Bronson has been instructed that he is permitted a one (1)-box rotation every thirty (30) days barring any circumstance that may arise as compelled by the Court. The need to rotate box for box will be communicated to Sgt. Stafford, who while complete the rotation and notify Lt. Mohing and myself, c' Cc: Deputy Stickman Deputy Krysevig Major McFetridge Lt. Bovo Lt. Morhing file SUBJECT: Appeal to Superintendent Grievance No. 88659 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Department of Corrections State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill Superintendem's Office August 3, 2004 TO: FROM: Purcell Bronson - AF-8163 Donald L. Kelchner Superintendent Receipt of your Appeal to Superintendent of Cu'ievance No. 88659 is acknowledged. In preparihg this response I have reviewed your original grievance, the Grievance-Officer's response, and your appeal to this office. I find Mr. Marsh's initial response concerning your altered dictionary, your prayer rog, and your envelopes appropriate. As for your dictionary, in your initial grievance you stated your dictionary was broken iht6 four pieces. When you purchased or received your dictionary it was originally in one piece. Overtime your dictionary broke apart and became four parts. In its current condition it is different or altered from its original condition; therefore yOu are no longer allowed to posses it. As for your prayer rug, Department policy 6.5.1, Administration of Security Level 5 Housing Units, states that SMU inmates' access to religious material and articles shall be in accordance with DC-ADM-819 and that additional religious material and articles may be given to an SMU inmate based on review and approval by the Unit Manager. However, in this situation the mg in question did not fit the criteria of a prayer rog, and it was in excess of the amount of rugs you are permitted to have. As for your "legal" envelopes, the 6.5.1 is specific in terms of what property an inmate can possess. It is also specific in terms of what constitutes excess legal material and what types of legal material can be stored. As envelopes do not fit the criteria of excess legal ._~material established by this po'l_icy, y~)u will have to make a choic~ as to the legal material _ you want to keep. In addition, I will note your request for storage of excess legal material and for an additional box of legal material in your cell is currently under evaluation. Therefore, I will direct the S¥~officers not to destroy the so-called legal envelopes till a clear decision has been ] . cc: Deputy Brannigan 'Deputy Patton Deputy Ditty Mr. Marsh Mr. Sotuhers Mr. Taggart Central File Grievance File - 88659 IFORM DC-141 PART 1 ~ev ~I°SCO N DUCT RE PO RT [~OTHER COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS A [] DC-ADM 801 INFORMAL RESOLUTION I j~Di~ ,~ ~J~0b~er ~ Name,-, ,~ _~[pFla~ility incident Time 24 Hr. Base Incident Date ~ace a~ ~n¢ident DC Number OTHER INMATES OR STAFF INVOLVED OR WITNESSES (CHECK I OR W) ( Name DC Nur~ Name MISCONDUCT CHARGE OR OTHER ACTION IMMEDIATE ACTION TAKEN AND REASON [] YES ~] NO PRE-HEARING CONFINEMENT IF YES TIME DATE REPORTING STAFF MEi~r , ~ SIG NA"~,,RE AND TITLE ~ YOUR HEARING MAY BE SCHEDULED ANY TIME A DATE TIME [~REQUEST FORMS GIVEN TO INMATE FOR WITNESSES AND REPRESENTATION E~INMATE'S VERSION ACTION REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY DATE AND TIME INMATE GIVEN COPY IKING C.O. ON SIGNATURE AND TITLE MISCOND'UCT CATEGORY ISi! CLASS I © c,_ ss I DATE I TIME 24 HOUR BASE Hure o.f P~p'.,~,i...oti~e NOTICE TO iNMATE You are scheduled for a hearing on the allegation on the date and time indicated or as soon thereafter as possible. You,~y remain silent if you wish. Anything you say will be used against you both at the misconduct hearing and in a court of law, if this matter is referred for criminal J~osecution. If you choose to remain silent, the hearing committee/examiner may use your silence as evidence against you. If you indicate that you wish to remain silent, you will be asked no further questions. If you are found guilty of a Class 1 misconduct, any pre-release status you have will be removed. WHITE -- DC-15 YELLOW -- Inmate PINK -- Reporting Staff Member GOLDENROD -- Deputy Superintendent Facility Management DC-ADM 80~ Inmate Discipline Policy, Attachment B IDC-141 PARTIII COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [] Misconduct Appeal ~eriodic Review O Other t~F ~-~'~ ~ ~)~DC Number ~/'/'~ rD/~J-~ ~ i~ Na(l~.~j~ ~(~lnstituti°n ~- ~ ' ~ ~Date of Review No from PART I PROGRAM REVIEW COMMI~EE'S DECISION AND ITS RATIONALE ~ ~ p~ DECISION RELATIVE TO HEARING COMMI~EE'S VERDICT ~ Not Applicable ~ Sustain ~ Sustain-Amend ~ Refer Back For Further Study ~ Exonerate Inmate Names of Program Review Committee Members ~'~ ..~. ,~.~ Signatures Date WHITE-DC-1 5 YELLOW--inmate Cited PINK--Staff Member Reporting Misconduct GOLDENROD--Deputy Superintendent Form DC-135A JUL INMATE'S REQUEST TO STAFF MEMBER 1. To: (Name and Title of Officer) 3. By: (Print inmate Name and Number) Inmate Signature 6 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2004 i Depadment of Corrections ~ ~ INSTRUCTIONS Compl.et.e i__t__ems number 1-8. If you follow instructions in prepanng your request, it can be responded to more promptly and intelligently. 2. Date: 4. Counselor's Name 6. Work Assignment 5. Unit Manager's Name 7. Housing Assignment ~- ,%a_3 8. Subiect: Stateyourrequestcompletelybutbriefly. Givedetails. If the DOC now will abide by Codified Law 37 Pa. by DC-ADM 801, as to the criteria "Preponderance Code §93.10 and not of Evidence' at DC- Hearings, then it should also abide by 37 Pa. Code §93.11(b) not DC- ADM 802!? Therefore, I am requesting that my conditions of confinement be changed to that of non-disciplinary conditions of confinement, and my personal property be released to me, and all privileqes restored, without need for cou~t action. See Nisro, et al. v. Auxer et al., No. 94-0106 Misc. Term (cumb. County Pa.)(precludinq the presence of a pun% tire element in administrative custody). To DC-14 CAR C Staff Member Name Revised July 2000 I To DC-14 CAR and DC-15 IRS [] Sign