HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-6519 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Cv COUNTY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DIVISION
Case No.: (4- (D S Lci
c� r
rr7 W W 4
VS. -G T' o Y-)r .
r-�"� -
a p r
IN FORMA PAUPERIS VERIFIED STATEMENT
states under the penalties provided by 18 Pa C.S.A. §
4904(unsworn falsification to authorities)that:
1. I am the in the above action and because of my financial condition am
unable to pay the following fees and costs:
2. My responses to the questions below relating to my ability to pay the required fees and
costs are true and correct.
(a) Are you presently employed? Yes o
(1) If the answer is yes, state the amount of your salary or wages per month and give the
name and address of your employer �j
(2) If the answer is no,state the date of your last employment and the amount of the
salary and wages per month which you received.
(b) Have you received within the past 12 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? Yes No
If the answer is yes, describe each source of income, and state the amount received
from each during the past 12 months.
(c) Do you own any cash or checking or savings accounts? Yes
If the answer is yes, state the total amount of the items owned.
(d) List the persons, if any,who are dependent upon you for support and state your
relationship to those persons. \
a
(e) List all your debts and obligations. '`y\\-
3. I understand that a false statement or answer to any question in this verified statement
will subject me to the penalties provided by 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 (relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities).
Respectfully submitted,
Date: /0-g"1 ,Z .� /"/
6 41.7' 1
(Print name) 6'Z,/VOA) (176e3
(Inmate No.) .0,42.9 09
State Correctional Institution at Forest
P.O.Box 945
• Marienville,PA 16239
0/ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Cou>,tot Common Pleas
y A Jor.Prothonotar Use OnllYety y'
x .^I.T� tiY n
C v N., E f�.. h ,I A ' County Docket No:
R� �i 3 , 1'
s - o519 �lv lTerm
The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not
supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court.
Commencement of Action:
SComplaint 0 Writ of Summons 0 Petition 0 Notice of Appeal
Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 6 Declaration of Taking
E
C Lead Plaintiff's Name:3,4\--0,-_-\r,,v.. c----\p�ti Lead Defendant's Name:\...... \,___,..A. Ns�,A\,_\1_\\, ,
T
I 14—Check here if you are a Self-Represented(Pro Se)Litigant
0 Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: _. t
N - _
Are money damages requested? : 1 -Y 0 No Dollar Amount Requested: within arbitration limits
// (Check one) outside arbitration limits
A
Is this a Class Action Suit? 0 Yes Et- No
Nature of the Case: Place an"X"to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your
PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that
you consider most important.
TORT(do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT(do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS
❑ Intentional 0 Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies
❑ Malicious Prosecution 0 Debt Collection:Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment
❑ Motor Vehicle 0 Debt Collection: Other 0 Board of Elections
❑ Nuisance 0 Dept. of Transportation
❑ Premises Liability 0 Zoning Board
S
0 Product Liability(does not include 0 Statutory Appeal: Other
Emass tort) 0 Employment Dispute: _ --
0 Slander/Libel/Defamation Discrimination
C Other: 0 Employment Dispute: Other
T \9`53 Civ t\ '\c,-\\,,J, Judicial Appeals
0 MDJ-Landlord/Tenant
1 0 Other: 0 MDJ-Money Judgment
MASS TORT 0 Other:
0 Asbestos
N 0 Tobacco _
❑ Toxic Tort-DES
❑ Toxic Tort-Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS
❑ Toxic Waste
0 Ejectment 0 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration
B ❑ Other: 0 Eminent Domain/Condemnation 0 Declaratory Judgment
❑ Ground Rent 0 Mandamus
❑ Landlord/Tenant Dispute 0 Non-Domestic Relations
❑ Mortgage Foreclosure Restraining Order
PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 0 Partition 0 Quo Warranto
❑ Dental 0 Quiet Title 0 Replevin
❑ Legal
❑ Medical 0 Other: 0 Other:
❑ Other Professional:
pa.R.C.P. 205.5 2/2010
ADt1i l�yJA t LE -616 AlT5 6vriCE
4y: btoi_vfs /(ILL
SGT
GAutç SGZ CK106a,
Cokkcizok*L lgock SCZ G41101-1-
f10(oll �rtgo/��e) 5eck��e�. fV�TzL.
xrcl; Srit-C-r4
i �GQN
CIVIL ACTION NO. (1- ( .5Iq FILED:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SITTING IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA, CIVIL DIVISION IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT
JAZOMON STOKE ,
PETITIONER
-VS-
L.,HARRY, SUPERINTENDENT AT, SCI-CAMPHILL,
c-)
-AND- c --
LT. DAVIES, SCI-CAMPHILL, rn r` r
2;
-AND- T
SGT. GAULT, SCI-FOREST �� N r-1-2n
-AND-
= I.
_=
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, BOOR, SCT-CAMPHILL, ^� c,,
-AND-
MICHAEL DAMORE, STAFF ASSISTANT TO SECRETARY WETZEL,
-AND-
JEFFREYE, STAFF ASSISTANT, WESTERN REGION,
DEFENDANT(S)
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the (claims) set forth
in the following page(s), you must take action within twenty (20) days after this
Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a Written Statement of Apperance
personally or by attorney and (filing) in writing with the Court your defense(s) or
objection(s) to the (claims) set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against
you by the Court without further Notice for "any" money (claimed) in the Complaint
or for 'any' other (claim) or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose
money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER,
GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH
INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU
WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICE(S) TO ELIGIBLE
PERSON(S) AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Office of Chief Counsel
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17050
CIVIL, ACTION NO: FILED:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SITTING IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA, CIVIL DIVISION IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT
JAZMON STOKE ,
PLAINTIFF
-VS-
S. HARRY, SUPERINTENDENT AT, SCI-C ANPHTT L,
-AND-
LT. DAVIS, SCI-CAMPB]L_,
-AND-
SGT. GAULT, SCI-CAMPHILL,
-AND-
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, BOOR, SCI-CAMPFIILL,
-AND-
MICHAEL DANDRE, STAFF ASSISTANT TO SECRETARY WFTZEL,
-AND-
JEFFREY WITHERITE, STAFF ASSISTANT, WESTERN REGION,
DEFENDANT(S)
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
TO THE IRABLE(S), JUDGE(S) OF THE SAIDT:
AND NOW, this Trty of OCT: , 2014, the pro se Plaintiff, Jazmon Stoke,
[files the instant Civil Complaint, [rep]resenting; Notices the Court of the
enunciation of [prin]ciples as in, [Haines V. Kerner; 404 U.S. 519, "Where in the
Court has directed that those unschooled in law Complaints and pleadings, shall have
the Court look to the substance, rather than the form", ["therein and after"], the
Plaintiff hereby, [makes] the instant, "Civil Action Complaint", pursuant to,
[42 Pa.C.S. § 761 ], and [rep]resents the following:
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION § § VENUE
The Commonwealth Court sitting in Pennsylvania, inparticular in Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, 'shall' possess lawful jurisdiction, pursuant to, [42 Pa.C.S.
§ 761 ]. Thus, the Commonwealth Court, in the Court of Common Pleas for, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania is an appropriate vehicle driven under, [Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1006]
and, [because] it is in [fact] where the event[s] arose pursuant to the [claims]
["herein after"] stated had occured. Thus, the Plaintiff [rep]resents the following:
-1-
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. PLAINTIFF:
1. [T]he Plaintiff is named, Jazmon Stoke, and contends ("herein after") that
he is the named Party, acting as Plaintiff [against] the aforewith named defendant(s)
herein mentioned. Thus, the Plaintiff is at all [times] mentioned herein and after
a State Prisoner, i.e. [Ward] of the State of Pennsylvania's Department of
Corrections, and currently resides in the Custody of the Department of Correction's
at, SCI-Forest Prison, located at, P.O. Box #945, Marienville, Pennsylvania 16239.
2. [T]he Plaintiff is without Counsel and requests the Court by it's Order to
appoint counsel to [rep]resent him in this instant Civil Complaint.
3. [T]he Plaintiff, is a pro se Party in the instant Civil Complaint, and
[rep]resents that he is indigent, and poor and thus requests the Court to grant him
an Order to [pro]ceed as [same], i.e. [In Forma Pauperis], and thereof, allow him
to pay the [filing] fee on a monthly basis as he currently lives on the inmate
general welfare fund pay at the Correctional Facility at, SCI-Forest.
III P A R TIE ( S ) NAMED DEFENDANT ( S )
B. DEFENDANT(S):
1. Defendant, S. Harry, is the Superintendent at the State Correctional Facility
at, SCI-Camp Hill. Where he is bound by law and responsibility for the Plaintiff's
and other inmate(s) well-being, security and safety, and ["herein after"] is located
at; 2520 Lisburn Rd., Camp-Hill, Pa. 17001 .
-2-
2. Defendant, Lt. Davis, is a lieurenant for the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections who, at "ALL" [times] mentioned in this complaint, [held] the
responsibility and position of compound lieutenant, in which he was assigned and
employed at the State Correctional Facility at, SCI-Camp-Hill ["herein after"]
located at; 2520 Lisburn Rd., Camp-Hill, Pa. 17001 .
3. Defendant, Gault is a Sergeant for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
who, at "ALL" [times] mentioned in this complaint, [held] the responsibility and
position as Sergeant, which, he was assigned and employed at the State Correctional
Facility at, SCI-Camp-Hill ["herein after"] located at, 2520 Lisburn Rd.,
Camp-Hill, Pa. 17001 .
4. Defendant, Boor, is a Correctional Officer for the Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections who, at "ALL" [times] mentioned in this complaint, [held] the
responsibility and position as a Prison Guard, in which he was assigned and employed
at the State Correctional Facility at, SCI-Camp-Hill ["herein after"] located
at; 2520 Lisburn Rd., Camp-Hill, Pa. 17001 .
Defendant, Michael Damore, is a Staff Assistant to Secretary Wetzel, for
the Department of Corrections who, at "ALL" [times] mentioned in this complaint,
[held] the responsibility and position as Mr. Wetzel's assistant and he is
employed at the Deputy Secretary's Complex ["herein after"] located at; 1920
Technology.Parkway, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17050.
6. Defendant, Jeffrey Witherite, is a Staff Assistant to Secretary Wetzel, for
the Department of Corrections who, at "ALL" [times] mentioned in this complaint,
[held] the responsibility and position as Mr. Westzels assistant and he is employed
at the Deputy Secretary's Complex ["herein after"] located at; 1920 Technology
Parkway, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17050.
-3-
IV. STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM ( S ) § COMPLAINT
1. The Plaintiff, ["herein and after"] avers that each defendant named is
being sued individually and in his/her Official Capacity. Thereof at "ALL"
[times] mentioned in this complaint each individual defendant had erronerously
acted under the Color of State law fraudallently.
2. The event[s] herein after [de]scribed had in [fact] occurred in a serie(s)
of [dates] and [times], inparticular, the initial even had occurred on the [date]
of, August 25, 2012.
(A). COUNT ONE—NEGLIGENCE:
1. The [said] event's herein after that caused a prejudice, bias and purposeful
error as matter of Constitutionality was employed by the aforewith defendant(s),
thus, violated the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to the, ["P]rohibition on
Cruel and Unusual Punishment(s)", notwithstanding a Fourteenth Amendment violation
pursuant to, "Equal (Pro)tections and Ex Post Facto Rights, which [holds] strong
and [rep]resenting:
"[T]he Equal [Pro]tection Clause of (o)ur Fourteenth
Amendment mandates that "ND" State, or State Employee,
shall deny to "ANY" [per]son within it's jurisdiction the
Equal [Pro]tection of the laws of this United States.
Thus, therewith these violation(s) the Plaintiff had endured by these
State Official's herewith named, the Plaintiff has also suffered the denial of
[Pro]cedural Due [Pro]cess, in which is a [Pro]tected Interest Created by the Due
[Pro]cess Clause and, [rep]resenting the following:
(a). Freedom from Disciplinary Sanctions for fraudulent Misconduct(s);
-4-
(b). Impartial Tribunal;
(c). Lack of sufficiency of evidence, and;
(d). Suspect Classification.
And, last, Plaintiff had suffered by these named Official's his First
Amendment [right] to, ["F]reedom of Speech".
V. F A C T U L HISTORY
The Plaintiff, Jazmon Stoke, ["herein and after"] contends that on the [date]
of, August 25, 2012, that he was in the inmate dining-hall eating his meal with
his housing unit. It was a normal day in Correction's as an inmate at, SCI-Camp
Hill for the Plaintiff. Normal in the [con]text that the Plaintiff is a role
model inmate who does "NOT" cause trouble is "NOT" gang affiliated, and abides by
Rules, Regulations and Order's, inasmuch as Plaintiff does "NOT" receive Misconducts.
Subsequently, on this day of, August 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entire being,
mentally and phycologically was about to change in the event(s) that had proceeded.
After, the Plaintiff had finished his meal, he exited the inmate dining-hall
and proceeded in returning to his housing-unit. On his return, Plaintiff was in
[fact] approached by another inmate who had in conversation asked Plaintiff a
question, [con]cerning a legal matter. Consequently, the Plaintiff had only
'stopped' abruptly to answer the fellow inmates question, in which Plaintii's
pause was merely a slow paced shuffle and that is [because] at, SCI-Camp-Hill
Prison, it is facilitated primary as a sort of "BOOT-CAMP".
Therewith, defendant Davis, i.e. [Lt. Davis had observed the Plaintiff`
abrupt stop and Ordered him to; "Keep it moving". The Plaintiff had`in (fact)
complied, with this Order, but, subsequently responded respectfully in saying;
"No doubt Sir".
-5-
Consequently, after the Plaintiff had complied, defendant Lt. Davis than
further Ordered the Plaintiff to come to him and turn over to him directly his
inmate identification card at which [time], the Plaintiff had informed the
Defendant, Lt. Davis that he did not possess his identification card at that
moment in [time].
Subsequently, as a direct result, Defendant, Lt. Davis thereof had erronerously
became very hostile and had in [fact] threatened the Plaintiff with a misconduct
report, inasmuch as to state; "That's another Misconduct".
Plaintiff than had questioned Defendant, Lt. Davis about the nature of the
[said] "FIRST" misconduct he spoke upon at which [time], Defendant, Lt. Davis had
stated; "Shut up and just give me your full name and inmate number". Plaintiff had
complied and therefrom was Ordered to "return" back to his housing unit.
Upon doing so, Plaintiff had in [fact] respectfully informed Defendant, Lt.
Davis that he was really tired of his continuance harrassment and prejudiceness
toward him, wherein the Plaintiff further had informed Lt. Davis that he was going
to [pro]ceed in [filing] a Grievance Complaint [against] him. Consequently,
however, thereafter, where the Plaintiff had returned to his housing unit, he was
there approached by four (4) correctional Officer(s) who had mw ironically told
him that he was now to comply with a, "Cell Search". Clearly, it is well
(est)ablished to be retailiation from the [said] incident between Plaintiff and
Defendant Lt. Davis "PRI(2" to this now .[said] "Cell Search".
The Plaintiff before the cell search began had questioned the basis of the
search, but was simply explained; "You have to talk to, Lt. Davis". The cell
search therewith was NOT" random, routine or invesigatory. Consequently, the
cell sparch had led to the erronerous decision by these Officer(s) to illegally
and unprofessionaly confiscate the Plaintiff's Manuscript(s), notwithstanding the
destruction of his Religious beliefs of a Koran, and Bought Commissary item(s).
-6-
This incident had taken place at my block and cell that I was at the time
housed at, SCI-Camp-Hill, HA-48 cell. When the four Officer(s) entered my the
Plaintiff cell, one of the Officer's asked; "What belongs to you"? Plaintiff had
answered; "The top bunk § inner locker cabinet". Plaintiff then was Ordered with
cell mate to stand outside the cell facing the wall, Plaintiff had complied.
Subsequently, and only moments later, one of the four (4) Officer's exited
Plaintiff's cell stating; "Look what I have here, all these papers with narcotic
activity written on them". Plaintiff had responded, explaining they are pages
for a book that Plaintiff is writing, and where Plaintiff further stated; if you
observe in the first pile of paper(s) you will clearly observe a letter of response
from Plaintiff's Publisher, notwithstanding the [fact] Plaintiff had absolutely
pointed out to the Officer's the handbook for Writer's in a Correctional Institute
from the Pen American Center sitting in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff also had tryed explaining to these Officer(s) that this is what
the total of five stacks of papers are and for, in which Plaintiff is an Urban
Novelist, in which ninety percent of urban books have within their (con)text,
talk of narcotics, sex and criminal activity, and are in (fact) based on Inner
City Street Life. The Officer who confiscated Plaintiff's book stated in return;
"That doesn't concern him", and I was Ordered to stand back from facing the wall.
Plaintiff argues that these Officer(s) at the direct Order's of. Lt. Davis
were retailitory at best and violated Plaintiff right to "Freedom of Expression",
harrassment, prejudice and degradation. And, upon the (con)clusion of this
harrasmental search, the Officer's exited Plaintiff's Cell with "ONLY" his writings
of his book.
-7-
In which, 'if' they would have observed more clearly, these (said) Officer's
would have seen a letter of response from a Publisher. The Plaintiff had also
pointed out his possession of a Handbook for Writer's in Prison from the Pen
American Center sitting in, New York City. Thereafter this harrasment cell search
I had reentered my cell in an utterance of sadness and confusion (because) these
retailitive Officer's had literally ransacked my cell for no other reason to degrade
me and harras me (because) of my interaction between him and Lt. Davis. The
Plaintiff had thereafter relized his Karon was soaked with spilled coffee and now
destroyed by the Officer's search. Subsequently shortly thereafter the Officer's
had left and secured me in my cell, an Officer returned with a Confiscated Slip
at: (DC-154A704288), than had stated; "No doubt and walked off laughing".
Thereof, on the (date) of, August 30, 2012, I had spoke to a Ms. Pawling's a
Social Worker, where I had explained this incident to her in detail, as the
Plaintiff was waiting for Ms. St. Peirre to arrive, who at that time was H-Blocks
Unit Manager, who was to assist Plaintiff with this serious issue. Consequently,
approximately (13) days had passed in waiting for Ms. St. Peirre to assist Plaintiff,
in which her assistance was simply handing Plaintiff an in-house Complaint of a
Grievance. On the (date) of, August 31, 2012, Plaintiff had (filed) the Grievance
at: (426994). SEE: (Attached Grievance marked as Exhibit "A", in Appendix.
On the (date) of, October 4, 2012, Plaintiff received the intial response to
the Grievance, stating; "That it was FRIVOLOUS AND DENIED". SEE: (Attached Exhibit
"B"). Subsequently, Plaintiff had appealed the grievance denial, but, before so,
on the (date) of, August 21, 2012, while Plaintiff was in the noon yard on the
(2-10) Shift had arrived an Officer Mull had personally came to me in the yard and
had inquired about what had happened, (rea)son being, (because) he was the Officer
in the bubble on the (said) day of the incident on, August 25, 2012, after .Plaintiff
gave his version to Officer Mull, his response was, "that's not how I was told".
Therein after, Plaintiff proceed upon a grievance appeal on the (date) of,
-_8 -
October 9,2012, subsequently, ever (since) the (date) of, August 25, 2012, where
word had spread like wild fire in regards to Plaintiff (filing) proper paperwork
on H-Block's (2-10), nothing good proceeded from this truth and where Plaintiff
suffered retaliation of, dirty looks by Staff and Officers, in which consequently,
frivolous misconducts had came where Staff had lied involving Plaintiff in things
and situations that were nothing but fabrication(s) and lie(s) by the named
defendant's...in which Plaintiff suffered "NOT" only these abuses, but had also
erronerously received cell-restriction(s) of, three, fiveand seven days as
punishnient(s) 'for things that were not true. SEE: (Exhibit "C", grievance appeal).
Consequently, on the (date) of, October 13, 2012, the Plaintiff becoming
exhausted by the harrasment and cruel and unusual punishment--and, also on the
(same) dat had been once again falsely accused of something, in which was all
based on lies and. retailiation, so thereof Plaintiff had went to Sgt. Gault, in
which was the Sgt. who was always lieing and falsely accusing Plaintiff of
g prejudicial,. . . .
frivolous things that were so racist and bias to say the least.
Subsequently, while Plaintiff was talking with her about these harrassments,
she responded stating; "SHUT UP AND STOP WINNING! !! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T
COME TO PRISON... The Plaintiff had simply walked away in tears and fear for
his life, liberty and safety stating; "This is bull". Consequently. Sgt. Gault
yelled out; "I'll show you bull, now just lock-in your cell".
Approximately (35) minutes had passed by and therewith I was erronerously
being escorted to the Restricted Housing. Unit. The Plaintiff avers that he was
"NOT" served with a Misconduct and hadno true tier of fact or reason to why he
was in the R.H.U. until the (day) of his hearing. And, that's where Plaintiff
found out Sgt. Gault had lied stating I said; "F-ing 'Bitch", Plaintiff was in
an utterance of confusion pained by rasicism, lies, fabrications and erronerous
State Official's. In which in the "Bold-Face" of justice was a miscarriage of
Justice that "NO" Civilized Society can tolerate.
-9.
•
Consequently, the Plaintiff was erronerously punished and sanctioned with
(60) days in the Restricted Housing Unit; while in the RHU, the continuance of
the retailiation and harrasment had continued and was getting worse by the day.
But, still, I kept my head together and (filed) a Grievance on Sgt. Gault at:
(433236), SEE: (Exhibitn Dn).
Subsequently, thereafter, the Plaintiff was released from the RHU on the
(date) of, November 12, 2012, but, (because) of the 'alleged' Holiday of Vetran's
Day, I was unable to retrieve m
y personal property from the RHU, in which therein
and after I was given nothing but the runaround up until that Saturday on the
(year) of, (2012), which was not until five days later from. Plaintiff's actual
relieve from the RHU. Subsequently, when Plaintidd finally was given his personal
property, he was told by the RHU Property officer that my property was ready for
me since the (date) of, November 13, 2012. Thus, it is well (est)ablished that
the H-Block Officer's and Staff alike were once again inflicting upon Plaintiff
Cruel and unusual punishment, where Plaintiff was left wearing one set of under
clothes and uniform, let alone Plaintiff could not shower, nor brush his teeth
do to his property being illegally and unconstitutionally withheld from him for
no other apparent reason except to cause a prejudice error as matter of
Constitutionality at it's best by these State Official's.
Ironically, the Plaintiff Mr. Stokes did "NOT" proceed long on his return
back to H-Block, where Plaintiffwas returned back to the RHU just (17) days later
on the (date) of, November 30, 2012, in which was subsequently caused by the exact
(same) Sgt., Sgt. Gault and her partner Officer Boor---Mr. Stokes was now with
a misconduct for yet another "Bold-Face" lie in the (name) of justice where the
misconduct had read the following: "Mr. Stokes said he was going to F-you up and
................ . ... .
kill his kids" SEE: (Exhibit "E", Misconduct witness list and punishment imposed.
Plaintiff Mr. Stokes had received (90) days in the RHU for this bold face
lie by these said State Official's. Once Plaintiff was secured in the RHU, he
-10-
(filed) a Grievance at: (439613), stating the charge(s) and sanctions were based
on an unreasonable determination on pure speculation and lies and that an abuse
of authority, power and position to oppress, dehumanize, abuse and degrade with
discrimination had here arose. ..in which (o)ur United States Constitution hold
(strong) that these are the character traits in direct violation to racism.
SEE: (Exhibit "F"), attached. Subsequently, "BOTH". of Plaintiff's grievances
were erronerously "DENIED" stating "Grievances can not be made pursuant to
disciplinary sanction". Thus, it is well (est)ablished that`the=Plaintiff was
hindered and blocked by these'named State Official's to (make) and (raise) a claim
of racism and abuse he so suffered. SEE: (Attached Exhibit "G"), responses.
The Plaintiff Mr. Stokes avers, that when it came to his hearing for the
erronerous third (issue) that he had advertinetly completed the DC-ADM-DC-141
Part 1 & 2, of the version of event's and witnesses' form. Subsequently, and
Consequently a few days thereafter two other inmates (White) had gotton their
misconduct charge(s) thrown out (because) of witnesses' and a thorough
investigation. But, consequently not your Plaintiff and (because) he is in (fact)
African American. Thereof, Plaintiff had appealed the Hearing Examineesdecision
and also proceeded upon a Grievance at: (439620). SEE: (Attached Exhibit "H").
On the (date) of, November 30, 2012, the second time spent in the RHU, where
Plaintiff happened to receive his personal property, he had happened to see that
his legal folder looked as if it had been torn apart. And, Plaintiff after going
through his folder had realized that a copy he made of the complaint he had on
Lt. Davies was now consequently gone. Thereof, immediately, Mr. Stokes sent
an inmate request to staff slip to, Grievance Coordinator Mr. Skip Bell, requesting
for an update of his a . .
p appeal that was (filed). on the (date) of, October 9, 2012,
in which was completed and (filed) by Mr. Stokes on the (date) of, December 3�
2012, SEE: (Attached Exhibit marked "I"), and Mr. Bell's response was that he.
had not received any appeal at grievance No. (426994).
-11-
•
Therein and after the Plaintiff proceeded in (filing) another complaint on
Sgt. Gault for her corrupt motives and racisim in the rooting through Mr. Stokes
legal papers, and taking the appeal out of my property to cover. her Lt. Davies
violations. SEE: (Attached Exhibit "J").
Also, Sgt. Gault had threw out approximately(70) rolled up cigeretts, a
full bag of Coffee, broke Mr. Stokes razor and destroyed personal pictures, in
which Sgt.. Gault had wrote on a confiscated receipt; in which Plaintiff was
suppose to6 receive a pink copy, but consequently was given "ALL" three copies,
staff's copy too, as to prove Sgt. Gault's wrong doingsand unconstitutional acts
of harrasment and rasism at: (440251) for the appeal at: (441580) for Commissary
items. SEE; (Exhibit(s) marked, "K" & "L").
The Plaintiff Mr. Stokes contends and avers that fellow inmate(s) were in
(fact) protesting what was done to- me while I was in the RHU. Subsequently,
the hearing examiner Ms. Burnner did "NOT" do an investigation, where'she had
made her determination and decision on an unreasonable determination in favor
of these fabricated charge(s) by unethical State Official's at their best.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff was released from the RHU do to an
investigation, as Mr. Stokes had (filed) a Complaint against her at: (339620),
SEE: (Exhibit "M"), also, the Plaintiff had appealed, but consequently had never
been acknowledge pursuant to that :appeal. And, the Plaintiff is here in the
instant case at (B)ar, under a State Civil Complaint against the aforewith named
(de)fendant(s) ("herein after").
In (clo)sing on the Statement of the case of (facts), the Plaintiff Mr. Stokes
avers that once he had arrived at SCI—Forest Correctional Facility, he was
immediately (held) in the RHU for an additional (12) days do to the unlawfull
abuse, sanctions and suffering that stemmed from SCICampHill, subsequently, there
in after, Mr. Stokes was released from the RHU at Forest and erronerously placed
on (30) days of cell restriction, in which erronerously totaled (105) days
-:12.—
in restriction for a charge, offense an act that was falsified by SCI-Camphill
State Official's.
Consequently, Mr. Stokes sinificant other while he was in the RHU had double
surgery, in which she was hospitilized for nearly three<month(s), in which
Plaintiff did 1PNOT" find this sad news out until a female Chaplain from SCI
Camphill had told him in. the RHU...and,' this is believed due to the Plaintiff
"NOT" receiving his Mail from these (Same) State Official's while he was
incarcerated in the RHU....
Therein after, once Mr. Stokes was able to get settled in at SCI-Forest,
and get himself together, he had mailed the Confiscation Slip for the confiscated
pages for his book at SCI-Camphill, the book that Mr. Stokes has verification
that he was wri'ttin in which-these
g page(s) were unconstitutionally confiscated
on the (date) of, August 25, 2012, and marked clear to be (held), in which Mr.
Stokes was absolutely suppose to be given those
pp g pages back in his possession once
he had left SCI-Camphill that .was being (held) in their Security Department with
a letter (dated), January 27, 2013_ Subsequently. Mr. Stokes waited (30) days
giving Camphill (some) reasonable time to mail those page)s) to him, or respond.
Consequently, nothing had ever been m. .... Plaintiff
q y, g mailed to Mr. Stokes to
(pre)sent. Thereof, Mr. Stokes had (filed) a Grievance on the (date) of, March
1, 2013 at: (450538) in regards to this situation of getting his page(s) returned
to him for his book, thereafter, and many weeks later Plaintiff had received a
response to the Grievance in which was denied. SEE: (Attached Exhibit(s) marked,
"N" & "0"). Thereafter on the (date) of, April 1, 2013, Mr. Stokes had sent
Central Office a letter, and subsequently thereafter on the (date) 'of, April 4,
2013, Plaintiff had received a rejection (dated), March 5, 2013, stating the
following and, (rep)resenting: "You did not submit within (15) business days";
the argument Mr. Stokes raises in light of this is, "How can there be in place
a (time-line) on this when he did as he was Ordered to do...In which Plaintiff
-13-
afforded them (30) days to find and mail his his personal property, thus, that
is where Plaintiff had (filed) the meritable grievance. Consequently, SCI-Camphill
had erronerously waited (29) days to send Plaintiff their rejection. SEE: (Attached
exhinit(s), "P" & "Q"), in which was (dated) on, March 5, 2013, and Plaintiff
had received it on the (date) of, April 4, 2014.
It is well (est)ablished that Plaintiff Mr. Stokes had brought forth these
retailatory and unethical acts of unprofessinalism conduct to the attention of
"BOTH" defendants, Sgt. Gault and, Defendant Officer Boor who had explained to
Plaintiff; "Stop filing grievances, and you won'te have to worry about being
harressed". Thereof, in support of this Complaint Plaintiff still had proceeded
accordingly to the Grievance process, in which mr. Stokes had brought forth these
(issues) in Complaint about the erronerouse action(s) of retailatory cell search
and confiscated and purposeful destruction of his private property.
However, the (said) filings of these Grievances had led to further
and continuance of harrassment(s) and falsification of misconduct(s), that were
based on fraudalent action(s) by State Official's in their entire capacity--at
SCI-CampHill. Thus, the Plaintiff has (est)ablished "beyond a reasonable doubt"
that, this entire incident had arose (because) of the first named defendant Lt.
Davies---in which trickled in the course the course of events that led to Defendants,
Sgt. Gault, Officer Boor, Superintendent S. Harry, Michael Damore Staff Assistant
to Secretary Wetzel and, Jeffery Whithrite, Staff Assistant, in the Western
Region being retalitory against the Plaintiff. In which "HAS" violated Plaintiff's
well (est)ablished Constitutional rights to (o)ur Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments being deprived, in which caused a prejudice, and bias degradation.
-14-
WHEREFORE , the Plaintiff, Jazmon Stokes, ("herein and after")
avers that the Statement of the case and (facts) are true and correct to the best
of his knowledge, information and belief, and avers that are valid under penalty
of perjury pursuant to, SEE: (18 Pa.C.S.A. B 4904), relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
VI. NEGLIGENCE
1. The events hereinafter described had occurred on the (dates) of, August 25,
2012 through April 4, 2014, in which had originated at the State Correctional
Facility at SCI-CampHill, inparticular Defendant(s), and (rep)resenting:
(a). S. Harry, Superintendent at SCI-Camphill;
(b). Lt. Davies, SCI-Camphill;
(c). Sgt. Gault, SCI-Camphill;
(d). Officer Boor, SCI-Camphill;
(e). Michael Damore, Staff Assistant to Secretary Wetzel, and;
(f). Jeffrey Witherite, Staff Assistant, Western Region
2. The above-mentioned Defendant's caused a purposeful and prejudice error
on the Plaintiff Jazmon Stokes, in direct violation of the United States
Constitution in the following (re)spect:
(1). The right to be secure and safe;
(2). The right to freedom of Speech;
(3). The Equal Protection Right;
(4). The right to be free from harrassment, discrimination and racisim;
(5). Impartial tribunal;
(6). Suspect classification;
-15-
(7). The right to be free from the seizure of personal property, and;
(8). And, the right to adequate, proper and fair Procedural Due Process
as matter of Constitutionality.
3. The defendant(s) herewith named have failed to uphold their State Duties,
and ethical standards as State Official's. Therefore, this Plaintiff, Mr.
Jazmon Stokes, pray's this Honorable Court of Common Pleas sitting in the County
of, Cumberland, Pennsylvania, Civil Division in the Middle District will grant
the request relief and sanction(s) against the above-mentioned Defendant(s).
4. And, thereafter, if the Court deems it necessary required by the Court's
Order allow the Plaintiff to make an Amendment to the Complaint at (B)ar, in the
(form) of a Memorandum of Law in Support. So prayed.
I. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE , Plaintiff respectfully "DEMANDS" judgment against the named
Defendant(s) for the following:
/boa OO
(a). Punitive damages for the psychological suffering in the amount of: 41111111111
(b). Compensatory damages in for the loss of property in the amount of: 41111111111
(c). All. Court's cost(s) that are related to pursuing the instant action paid
for by the aforewith-named Defendant(s); and/or,
(d). Any other relief that the Court deems appropriate in this instant case.
In which, the total award demanded by the Plaintiff by "ALL" the defendants
is in the amount of: and it is so prayed! ! !
c0o.Oa
I, Jazmon Stokes, pro se, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Respectfully bmitted,
DATED: V17' DAY OF: (1 )0 , 2014 AIALE
/J/mon Stokes, 1,AKS•. 7
-16-
•
• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the Plaintiff, undersigned, hereby certify that I am this 0 day of 00
2014 am serving the foregoing documents upon the persons in the manner indicated
below, which service satisfies the requirements of, (R.Civ.P. Rule 576(B)):
TYPE OF SERVICE: (X) FIRST CLASS MAIL
Clerk of Court/Prothonotarys Office President Judge, Sitting in the Court
at, Cumberland County Courthouse of Common Pleas, Civil Division for
2500 Lisburn Rd. , P.O. Box 8837 Cumberland County Courthouse
Camp Hill, Pa. 17001-8837 2500 Lisburn County CourtHouse
P.O. Box 8837, Camp Hill, Pa. 17001-8837
Attorney General's Office of Pennsylvania Defendant(s); t.. Harry Superintendent
at, SCI-CampHill;
at, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Lt. Davies, SCI-Camp Hill;
Sgt. Gault, SCI-Camp Hill;
Correctional Officer, Boor,
SCI-Camp Hill;
Michael Damore, Staff
Assistant to Secretary
Wetzel, and; Jeffrey Withrite,
Staff Assistant, Western
Region: (All Served at;
Plaintiff, Jazmoon�Stokes, Office of Chief Counsel, 1920 Technology
I.D. No. / 9 Parkway, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17050
SCI-Forest Correctional Facility
A-Blk. , P.O. Box 945, Marienville,
Pa. 16239
-17-
•
VIII. APPENDIX
APPENDIX
-18-
APPENDIX
A. EXHIBIT(S) A-Q;
B. MISCONDUCT REPORT(S);
C. GRIEVANCES AND APPEAL(S);
D. LETTER(S) IN SUPPORT.
-19-
J
2i1NOV 17 Ai I I : ? 1
JAZMON STOKES CUMBERLAND COUN1 Y
PENNSYLVANIA :ilt�=in
Plaintiff, i "
, inhtV ;
v.
it(map of Cumber(onb
SUPERINTENDANT LAUREL HARRY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LIEUTENANT DAVIES, SERGEANT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GAULT, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
BOOR, MICHAEL DAMORE, and 2014-6519 CIVIL TERM
JEFFREY WITHERITE
Defendants
IN RE: PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 17th day of November 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and it appearing that the Plaintiff has complied
with the requirements of Pa R.C.P. 240, the Petition is GRANTED. Plaintiff may
proceed In Forma Pauperis to the termination of proceedings without payment of filing
fees or costs.
•
Thomas A. Placey C.P.J.
Distribution List:
✓ Jazmon Stokes CppP
Supt. Laurel Harry hte�
Lt. DavieskA
Sgt. Gault `/ tee ailed
C.O. Boor 111111 0,Michael Damore NP165 It ,/�,
Jeffrey Witherite