Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-5196 V£ r2 ~ F..T D4 'F_7:dlu Ol / (fl IV. ,cp?,r~ 1 ,.{- 4..L_ To l rc y '7. CRAIG MOSS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PETITIONER ' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID HOFFMAN, ETAL., RESPONDENTS : 01-5196 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ~:~ ~-' day of September, 2001, the petition of Craig Moss to proceed in forma pauperis, IS DENIED at this time. The documents are to be returned to petitioner and may be resubmitted in compliance with 42 Pa.C.S. Section 6602(a). By the Court, Edg~ Craig Moss, DE-8414, Pro se SCI Dallas 1000 Follies Road Dallas, PA 18612 :saa BI:I ~c] 01~3510 Xi:I¥£ONOHLC~: ~ ~ '~L 30 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TM JUDICAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISON CRAIG MOSS, : PLAINTIFF : ._ .VS. : DAVID HOFFMAN UNIT MANAGER: PHIL BAKER, COUNSELOR : NOTICE TO DEFEND CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-5196 MARTIN L. DRAGOVICH, SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT S. BITNER, CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER; ORDER ON INFORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND NOW, this ~ day of~ , 2001, upon consideration of the fore going it is ORDERED AND DECREED THAT THE application is granted and, the Plaintiff, Craig Moss, May proceed without proceedlngs~.an~- ,,~ ' ..... · ..... paying the cost of this ' SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-05196 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVkNIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MOSS CP~AIG VS HOFFNLAN DAVID DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HOFFMAN DAVID UNIT MA/qAGER the DEFENDANT , at 0919:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of November , 2001 at SCI CAMP HILL 2520 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to IAN TAGGART ASST SUPERINTENDENT 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 18.00 Service 7.80 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 35.80 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~ ~2~t A.D. P~o~honotary So Answers: 11/06/2001 Thomas Kline By: Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2001-05196 P COMMON-WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COI/NTY OF CUMBERLAND MOSS CRAIG VS HOFFMAN DAVID REGULAR DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BAKER PHIL COUNSELOR the DEFENDkNT , at 0919:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of November., 2001 at SCI CA~4P HILL 2520 LISBUP~N ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to IAN TAGGART ASST SUPERINTENDENT 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 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this [ ? day of ~ ~{ A.D. ~rothonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 11/06/2001 By: Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-05196 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MOSS CRAIG VS HOFFMAN DAVID DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon DRAGOVICH MARTIN L SUPERINTENDENT the DEFENDANT , at 0919:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of November , 2001 at SCI CAMP HILL 2520 LISBURN ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to IAN TAGGART ASST SUPERINTENDENT 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 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~ ~'~.,~ / A.D. ! 15rothonotary ' - So Answers: Ro 11/06/2001 Thomas Kline By: Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - CASE NO: 2001-05196 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MOSS CRAIG VS HOFFMAN DAVID REGULAR DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BITNER ROBERT S the DEFENDANT , at 0906:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of November , 2001 at 55 UTLEY DRIVE C~24P HILL, PA 17011 by handing to TP~ACEY MCCULLOUGH AIDMIN OFFICER a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff'M Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6 00 7 80 00 10 00 00 23 80 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of ~ ~2~3~f A.D. / / Prothonotary ' So Answers: R. Thomas Kl±ne il/06/200i By: Deputy Sheriff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff, V. DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants No. 01-5196 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance as counsel on behalf of the Defendants in the above- captioned matter. PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Respectfully submitted, ~W. Dorian Assis~t ~ounsel Attorney I.D. No. 48148 Dated: November 26, 2001 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRAIG MOSS, : : Plaintiff, : : V. : : DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., No. 01-5196 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below. Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Craig Moss, DE-8414 SCl-Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621 PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: November 26, 2001 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff, V. DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants No. 01-5196 DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, David Hoffman, et al., by and through their attorney, Raymond W. Dorian, Assistant Counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1028, object as follows: 1. The Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat ("SCI-Retreat") and formerly housed at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill ("SCI-Camp Hill"). 2. The Defendants include: David Hoffman, Unit Manager at SCI-Camp Hill, Phillip Baker, Counselor at SCI-Camp Hill, Martin Dragovich, Superintendent of SCI-Camp Hill, and Robert Bitner, Chief Hearing Examiner with the Pa. Department of Corrections. 3. On or about October 31,2001, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the Defendants alleging that he has been denied hid due process rights in connection with a misconduct hearing held on or about April 16, 2001. Complaint at ¶8-12. At the hearing the Plaintiffwas found guilty as charged. Complaint at ¶10. Plaintiffsubsequently appealed the finding of guilt, but in an untimely fashion. His appeal was denied by Superintendent Dragovich and Chief Hearing Examiner Bitner, apparently because of its untimeliness. ¶15-18. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 4. The Complaint was served upon the Defendants by the Sheriff's Office on November 5,2001. DEMURRER The Defendants demur to the Plaintiff's Complaint for the following reasons: The Plaintiff was properly found guilty of the misconduct charges issued against him; (b) misconduct; (c) The Plaintiff received due process, since he received a hearing on his The full panoply of constitutional fights afforded a defendant in a criminal proceeding does not apply to an inmate disciplinary proceeding. For example, an inmate is not entitled to an attorney or the right to confront witnesses. Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974); Mays v. Fulcomer, 552 A.2d 750, 752 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989); (d) The Plaintiffreceived all the due process rights to which he was entitled; (e) Under Deparmaent policy DC-ADM 801, which applies to inmate disciplinary proceedings, inmates have so many days in which to appeal from a finding of guilt; (0 The Defendants properly denied the Plaintiff's misconduct appeals, if they were untimely; (g) Under 37 Pa. Code §93.10(b), in an inmate misconduct proceeding, the inmate must receive written notice of the charges, an impartial hearing, the opportunity to present evidence in his behalf, assistance from an inmate or staff member, a written statement of the decision containing the reasoning of the hearing body, 2 based on the preponderance of the evidence, and an opportunity to appeal the decision. Mays, 552 A.2d at 752 n. 4; (h) The Defendants have complied with the requirements of 37 Pa. Code {}93.10(b); and (i) The Plaintiff has not alleged any constitutional violations by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, the Defendants request that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. LACK OF VERIFICATION 6. Rule 1024(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that a verification shall be made by one or more of the parties filing the pleading unless all of the parties (1) lack sufficient knowledge or information, or (2) are outside the jurisdiction of the court and the verification of none of them can be obtained within the time allowed for filing the pleading. 7. The Plaintiff has failed to attach a verification to his Complaint, in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, Rayed W. Dorian As~stant Counsel Attorney I.D. No. 48148 PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: November 26, 2001 3 -IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA oss, NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF : : .VS. : CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-5196 DAVID HOFFMAN UNIT MANAGER: PHIL BAKER, COUNSELOR : MARTIN L. DRAGOVICH, SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT $. BITNER, CNIEF HEARING EXAMINER; .NOTICE SCI-CAMPHILL 2520 LISBURN RD CAMPI-IILL, PA 1'/001-0200 You have been sued in state court. If you wish to defend against the claims set-forth, in the following pages, you must take action with in twenty (20) days, after this Notice is served. By entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filling, in writing with the court, your defense, or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed against you by the court without further notice, for any money claimed in thc 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 SEIOULD TAKE TillS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU I)O NOT BAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TBIS OFFICE SET-FORTH BELOW, TO FIND OUT WI-~RE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERL~ COUNTY ASSOCL~TION, 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARISLE, PA 17013-3387 (717) 249-3166 TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Tj~timony wh.~r~c.~,: h r..'. unto set my hand an~t~e seal of sai~C~tt at_Carlisle, Pa.' / ,rothonot~'l~' ~r CRAIG MOSS, DE-8414 SCI-RETREAT 660STATE ROUTE 11 HUNLOCK CREEK, PA 18621 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TM JUDICAL DISTRICT-PENNSYLVANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY - CIVIL ACTION CRAIG MOSS PLAINTIFF VS. DAVID HOFFMAN,UNIT MANAGER: PHIL BAKER, COUNSELOR : MARTIN L. DRAGOVICH, SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT S. BITNER, CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER COMPLAINT CML ACTION NO: 01-5196 I. Jurisdiction 1. This is a civil action pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1001, 742 and Pennsylvania constitution article V sec .5 e II. Plaintiff Plaintiff, Craig Moss, was, at all times mentioned herein a prisoner of the State Correctional Institution at SCI-Camphill. HI. Defendants David Hoffman, is the G-block, Unit Manager, at SCI-Camphill, who is responsible for conducting, Informal resolution misconducts for Inmates housed on G-Block Phil Baker, is the Block Counselor on G-Block, at SCI-Camphill, who assist Unit Manger Hoffman on informal resolution misconducts, at SCI-Camphill. 5. Martin L. Dragovich, is the Superintendent, at SCI-Camphill, who is responsible for reviewing misconducts that are appealed. 6.- Robert S. Bitner, is the Chief Hearing Examiner, who reviews all. misconducts for final review. I V. FACTS 7. On, April, 16, 2001, Plaintiff received misconduct, from Lt. Keck. 8. On, or about, April 16, 2001, Plaintiff, had a misconduct hearing in front of, Defendants, Hoffman and Baker. 9. Plaintiff, stated to Defendant Hoffrnan and Baker, "that he documentary evidence to prove his innocence, and that if Defendant Hoffman and Baker would review, said evidence they would see he, Plaintiff, was, innocenced of the charges. 10. DEFENDANT Hoffman then stated," Opening your mouth is what got you this misconduct in the first place. (referring to the grievance that Plaintiff, filed in response to the illegal confiscation and destruction of Plaintiffs personal property, with out due process of law.) and as for your documentary evidence, I reviewing nothing, and your guilty as charge." 11. Said action by Defendants Hoffman and Baker, violated Plaintiffs rights under Title 37, sec. 93.10 subsection(b) 3. 12. Defendants Hoffraan and Baker, never afforded, Plaintiff, a written finding of fact based on the preponderance of guilt, in violation of Title 37 sec 93.10 subsection (B)5. 13. Defendant Hoffman and baker never informed, Plaintiff, of his right to appeal. 14. When Plaintiff learned of his right to appeal, he forthwith appealed, said misconduct, to Chief Heating Examiner, Roberts. Bitner, whom then informed, Plaintiffto appeal first to Superintendent Dragovieh. 15. Plaintiff, then promptly appealed this matter NUNC PRO TUN'C, TO superintendent Dragovieh. and informed him of the aforementioned violations. 16. Superintendent Dragovich refused, to entertain, plaintiffs appeal NUNC PRO TUNC 2 17r Plaintiff, then appealed this matter to Chief Hearing Examiner Robert. S. Bitner, and asked him to entertain this matter NUNC PRO TUNC, and laid forth all the aforementioned matter in this complaint to Defendant Bitner 18.Defendant Bitner, declined to review the matter in accordance with, Title 37 sec, 93.10 subsection CO) 6. 19. Said actions of Defendants Dragovich and Bitner, were knowingly done and a deprivation of Plaintiffs Fourteenth ('14th) Amendment rights. V. LEGAL CLAIMS 20. Plaintiff has been denied and deprived of his fourteenth (14th) amendment right of the United States Constitution by way of Defendants Hoffman, Baker, Dragovich and Bitners refusal to grant Plaintiff his fights under the Pennsylvania Legislation, under Title 37 section 93.10. 21. Title 37 section 93.10 subsection b states: A. (3)Opportunity for the Inmate to tell his side of the story and to present relevant evidence. B. (5) Written statement of the decision and reasoning of the hearing body based on the preponderance of the evidence. C. (6) Opportunity to appeal the decision of the hearing body. Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully prays that this Honorable court enter Judgment granting Plaintiff the following: 1. A declatory judgment that the defendants acts and practices described here in, violated Plaintiffs rights under the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment. 2. Require the Department of Correction to remove from Plaintiffs record, any information pertain to this misconduct conviction. 3. Exonerate Plaintiff from the wrong full conviction of this misconduct obtained in this complaint. 4. Grant Plaintiff, compensatory damages in the amount of twenty- five ($25.00)dollars from each every defendant in this complaint 3 5. Grant Plaintiff twenty-five ($25.00) dollars in Punitive Damages. from each defendant in this complaint . 6. Grant reimbursement of any and all cost obtained in the filing of this complaint. 7. Trial by jury. 8. Such other and further relief as this court deems necessary, proper and equitable. DcReSp ect f~submitted by, 660 STATE ROUTE 11 HUNLOCK CREEK PA 18621 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRAIG MOSS, : : Plaintiff, : V. ~ .' DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., : : Defendants : No. 01-5196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a hue and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Preliminary Objections to PlaintiWs Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below. Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Craig Moss, DE-8414 SCI-Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621 PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 ~mle]l~ C. Stapleton {._/Clerk Typist Dated: November 26, 2001 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be tTpeaitten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Pl~e ]i~t the within matter for the next Ar~3%m~nt Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) CRAIG MOSS, DAVID HOFFMAN, et al. (plaintiff) ( Defendant ) NO. 5196 Civil 2001 1. State matter to be arc3ued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's d~rrer to c~,~lmint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff's Complaint 2. Identify cou~elwhow~ll argue case: (a) for plm~ntiff:Craig Moss, DE-8414 (pro se) address: SCI-Retreat 660 State Route 11 HunleckCreek, PA 18621 (b) for defer~mnt: Raymond W. Dorian, Assistant Counsel ~r~ss: 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. I~ll notify ~]1 parties in writingwithin t~odays that this case has been li~ted for ar~ju~mt. 4. Ar~3~nent Court Date: January 2002. Argument on briefs only is requested. Deted: November 28, 2001 Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY- PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW Craig Moss, Plaintiff, VS. David Hoffman, et al., Defendants No: 01-5196 PLAINTIFFS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, comes the plaintiff, Craig Moss at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat ("SCI-Retreat") and formerly housed at the State Correctional Institution at Camphill ("SCI-Camphill"). The plaintiff is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat ("SCI- Retreat") and formerly housed at the State Correctional Institution at Camphill ("SCI-Camphill"). 2. The Defendant's include: David Hoffman, Unit Manager at SCI-Camphill; Phillip Baker, Counselor at SCI-Camphill, Martin Dragovich Superintendent of SCI-Camphill; and Robert Bituer, Chief Hearing Examiner with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. 3. On or about October 31, 2001, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants, for the deprivation of, plaintiff' s Constitutional rights, in connection with a misconduct hearing held on or about April 16, 2001. Complaint no 8-12 at the hearing plaintiff was denied his right to give his version of the incident. Complaint no 9-10, at said hearing plaintiffwas not given a reason of the decision based the finding of guilt. Said appeal was erroneously denied by defendants Dragovich and Bitner. Complaint no. 15-18. 5. The complaint was served upon the defendants by the Sheriffs Office on November 5, 2001. The Defendants filed preliminary objections on November 26, 2001, and said objections were served on the plaintiff on November 27, 2001 by way of first class mail. Demurer 7. Plaintiff demur to the defendant preliminary objections, for the following reasons: (a) The plaintiffwas not properly found guilty on the misconduct charge, against him. (b) The plaintiff did not receive due process, as he was denied the right to present his version, either orally or in writing, or to present documentary evidence, that was in plaintiff's possession at the time of the misconduct hearing. (c) The plaintiff is entitled to present documentary evidence at the misconduct hearing WOLF v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566; Mays v. Fulcomer, 552 A.2d 750, 75:1 and DC-ADM 801 VI. D. 3. (d) The plaintiff is entitled to a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied upon and the reason's for the disciplinary action, based on some evidence. WOLFF supra, at U.S. 566 and Superintendent Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S.445,454-55 (1985). (e) The defendants have not denied the fact that plaintiff, was not allowed to present documentary evidence, marshal the facts, allowed to give his version at the misconduct hearing, or the fact that, plaintiff was not giving him, as required per Wolf, Hill, supra, 37 Pa Code 93.10 (B) and DC-ADM 801. (f') The defendants did not properly deny plaintiffs appeal, as plaintiff could not appeal, until after he received his written version, from the heating committee. Ie, Defendant's Hoffman and Baker. (g) Plaintiff is entitled to an appeal per DC-ADM 801 and Title 37 Pa Code 93.10 (b). (h) The defendants have not complied with the requirements of 37 Pa Code 93.10 (B) or DC-ADM 801, WOlf, Hill,; and, .t~L (i) The defendants have denied plaintiffof due process and equal protection of the law and, have violated plaintiff's Fourteenth (14th) Amendment tight under the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that the Defendants preliminary objections be dismissed. LACK OF VERIFICATION 8. Rule 1024(a) and (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that a verification "Every proceeding containing an averment of fact not appearing of record in the action containing a denial of fact shall state the averment or denial is true.., and shall be verified." (a) In page four (4) of defendants brief of preliminary objections to plaintiffs complaint, the defendants aver, that defendants Hoffman and Baker [were not the] hearing examiner. (See plaintiff's appendices Exhibit "A"). (b) In page three (3) of defendants brief of preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint, the defendants deny that plaintiff "was not permitted to speak in his behalf. 9. The defendants have failed to attach a verification too their preliminary objection, denying plaintiffs due process violation and constitutional deprivations, in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedures. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffrequests that the defendant's preliminary objections be dismissed. THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM OF VERIFICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS MOOT 10. Defendants site Rule 1024© in there preliminary objections, and aver that plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for failing to attach verification. 11. The language used for said claim is as follows: 12. "A verification shall be made by one of the parties filing the pleading." 13. Blacks law dictionary defines pleadings as "A formal document in which a party to a legal proceeding responds to allegations, claims or defenses." 14. In the instant case your plaintiff was the moving party, and plaintiffs complaint, would not raise to the level of "pleadings" defined by "Blacks." 15. Rule 1023 (B) states that (in relevant part) "The signature to a document...constitutes a certification that the person signing [the document] has read it, and that to the best of [his] knowledge [,] information and belief... that the [complaint] is submitted in good faith. 15. The language of Rule 1023 (B), is synonymous, with the language, derived in the mandates of verification. 16. Under Black's law Dictionary, there is no difference, between the word's "certify" and "verify." WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Defendant's Preliminary Objections, be dismissed. PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 17. IT is well settled that a complaint filed by a prisoner." however in artfully, Pleaded [ are held ] to less stringent standards than formal Pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. kerner 404 US 519, 520; 92 S.CT 594, 595. 18. Before dismissing a complaint on basis of Defective Verification. Court should allow Petitioner to amend. Lewis v Erie Ins. Exchange, 421 A.2D 1214 281 PA. Super 193 (1980) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend complaint. DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR WILLFUL FRAUD UPON THIS COURT 19. The Defendant's state as fact that, Defendant Hoffman and Baker did not hold the position of Hearing Examiner. ( Defendants Brief in Support of Preliminary Objection's) 20. A fact that Defendant's know to be false.( see Plaintiffs' Appendixes, Exhibit marked as Exhibit "A" 21. On April 16, 2001. Defendants Hoffman And Baker, Did in accordance with DC-ADM 801 VI. D( Exhibit A)conducts Plaintiffs' misconduct hearing, and did play the role of "HEARING EXAMINER" 21. said reasoning for Defendants not filing Verification in accordance with PA. R. CivP. 1024 (a) and (b) was to avoid being charged with crimes code violation Title 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 "relating to unsworn falsification to authorities." WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that Defendants' Preliminary Objections' be dismissed. THE DEFENDANT'S SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR WILLFUL FRAUD UPON THIS HONORABLE COURT 23. rule 1023© states that" the court may impose an appropriate action for a bad faith violation of Sub division (b) of this rule 24. rule 1023 (b) states that "The signature to a document constitutes a certification that the signer has read it, that to the best of his knowledge[p,] information and belief.., that it [the document] is submitted in good faith." 25. Defendants Preliminary Objections Brief, pg. 4 and 5. states that" Defendants Hoffman and Baker did not hold the PPPPPPPPoisition of Hearing Examiner." 26. Said statement was" knowingly made in bad faith violation, by Defendants, in attempted to fraud this Honorable Court. 27. The Defendants, know that under DC-ADM 801 VI.D. (2) AND (3)( SEE Plaintiff's Exhibit A) that Defendants Hoffman and Baker, Did "hold the position of Hearing Examiner." WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court Impose Sanctions upon the Defendants, for their willful violation of Rules of Civil Procedure 1023 ( c ) THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM THAT PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE ANY VIOLATION OF STATE LAW SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS MOOT 28. in page 4 of there brief the defendants allege that that Plaintiff has failed to state any violations of state law 29. In page 3 of plaintiffs complaint, line 20, plaintiff clearly states that, the Defendants have violated and deprived Plaintiff of his fights under title 37 of the Pennsylvania general assemble act, title 37, section93.10 (b) 30. Which grants prisoners in custody of state of Pennsylvania. the right to tell their side of the story, the right to present relevant{documentary] evidence, the fight to an Impartial Decision Maker and the right to a written statement of the fact's relied upon to find the Inmate Guilty and a fight to appeal the decision WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that the Defendants Preliminary Objections be Dismissed as Moot THE DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED 31. ON November4, 2001. The Defendants where served a tree and correct copy Of Plaintiff's complaint and A Motion for Notice to Defend. 32. The Defendants being fully informed that they had twenty (20) days to respond to Plaintiffs complaint, neglected to do so, Despite being advised of the mandates, byway of being served with a Notice to Defend, Rule 1018.1 33. on November 22, 2001 the Defendants then, in violations, of the rules of civil procedure, decided that they would then respond to Plaintiffs' complaint. 34. Said response was twenty-two (22) days after Notice had been served on Defendants, by way of the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office, and thus said response was in violation of the rules of Civil Procedures. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Defendants Preliminary Objections, be dismissed. esp~bmitted by, Craig Moss, pro se De-8414, S.C.I. Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek, P.A. 18621 VERIFICATION I, THE undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made herein or true and correct to the best of my knowledge information and belief. I understand that statements made herein are made a crime under and subjected to thepenalties of, 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn £alsification to authorities. Dated on: I-Z~91 Respectfully submitted by, Craig Moss, Pro Se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Here by certify that I am, this day depositing in the U.S. Mail a tree and correct copy of the foregoing, upon the person and in the manner indicate below: FIRST CLASS MAIL Raymond W. Doran (Defense Counsel) Pa Department of corrections Office of the chief counsel 55 Utley Drive Camphill, PA, 17011 Dated on: Craig Moss De 8414 SCI Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek Pa, 18621 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY- PENNSYLVANIA~ CIVIL LAW Craig Moss V David Hoffman, et al. NO: 01-5196 INTERROGATORIES The Plaintiff, Craig Moss, Pursuant to P.R. CIV> P> 4005-1, moves and serves, Defendant, Martin L. Dragovich, to respond in writing, to all Interrogatories herein, with in twenty (20)days, after notice has been served on you The Defendant should be forewarned that all responses herein, are subjected to Title 18 "unsworn Falsification to authorities." and are admissible in a court of law. you are to write out each response, and you are to sign your initials at the bottom of every page. 1. From June of 2000 to May of 20001, where you, Martin L. Dragovich, the Superintendent, at the State Correctional Institution at Camphill ? The Department of corrections Administrative Policies (DC-ADM) states that Department of Corrections, and there employee's are to adhere to certain rules and regulations, under your command at SCI Camhill, do you allow your employee's to vacillate from the mandates of Prison Policy? If a, Employee, at SCI Camphill, or any person who works in any capacity, Violated any Prison policy would you make sure, that the proper action was taken, and hold the Employee liable? 4. For Instance DC-ADM 004, chapter VI. A.2 States any employee receiving an Inmate Complaint, that a Staff OR Inmate, has committed a Criminal act( in accordance with Chapter V. of this Policy) Shall notify immedediatley the senior officer in charge of the Facility ...of the complaint." If any Officers or Employee was advised of a criminal complaint, filed by an Inmate, and the Employee did not notify the senior officer of the Institution, would you hold that person Liable for there failure to adhere to prison Policy? 5. what correctional officer, or Employee, is responsible for filing out the name and number form of the Dc 141 Part II (a) Inmate witness form and Inmate Version form? 6. Per Prison Policy the Hearing Examiner is to be Impartial and to have nothing to do with the misconduct, would thus the preclude the Hearing Examiner from assigning the proper Information on the Inmate Version Form And Inmate Witnesses form, Before the Inmate was scene by the Hearing Examiner for the Misconduct Hearing? 7. Is the Hearing Examiner required, to listen in good faith to the Inmates Defense a and to consider in good faith the Inmates version at the misconduct hearing? 8. Do you require that the Hearing Examiner consider and take into account what the Inmate says at the misconduct hearing? 9. DC ADM 801 states that".., within seventy-two (72) hours of placement in prehearing confinement, the Superintendent( in this Case you Martin L. Dragovich) will review the Placement of the Inmate." in Preheating confinement, Due you, yourself practice and adhere to this policy at SCI Camphill? 10. per Prison_Policy are Inmates entitle to a" written statements of the fact's relied upon tom find them guilty."? 11. If the Hearing Examiner did not give a reason for what they believed is based there finding of fact on, would you consider the decision rendered to be invalid? 12. In accordance with DC-ADM 802 what is the lowest ranking officer that has the authority to place an Inmate in "Administrative custody"? 13. the bottom Portion of the Dc 141 form, states that the Deputy Superintendents, receive copies of the report, is this true that the deputy Superintendents receive copies of all Dcl41? and if so Who else would receive a copy? 14. On the bottom portion of the DC 141 IT STATES THAT THE ACTION WAS REVIEW AND APPROVED BY RANKING C.O on duty. is this mandatory to be filed out and signed in every instance that a Dc 141 report is written and what is the significance for that reason? I, , hereby declare that I have read the foregoing and that all print your name here marks written herein are of my hand, and that said answers are made of the best of my knowledge information and belief Dated on: place your signature here. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9T~ JUDICIAL BRANCH, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff VS. DAVID HOFFMAN, et al. CIVIL ACTION: 01-5196 MOTION FOR DISCOVERY A ~ AND NOW, comes the plaintiff, Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. Pro. 400 ~-?}~ an~ ', ~';,. avers as follows: ~._- '~ 1. Petitioner is the Plaintiff, in the above captioned matt~.¢) "~ ~:: 2. petitioner needs, Discovery on the following items to p e '~- his claims. 3. A copy of PlaintifFs DC-153 "Inmate Personal Property Inventory" from Plaintiff's transfere from S.C.I.-Huningdon to S.C.I. - GREENE 4. plaintiff also needs to copy and expect his entire DC 14 and DC-15, prison file, from April 10, 2001 to Date, as the deprivation listed, herein or not a isolated incident and is critical to Plaintiff's case in chief. 19'herefore, Petitioner prays this Honorable Court will order the Defendant's to hand over the requested material. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Here by certify that I am, this day depositing in the U.S. Mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing, upon the person and in the manner indicate below: FIRST CLASS MAIL Raymond W. Doran (Defense Counsel) Pa Department of corrections Office of the chief counsel 55 Utley Drive Camphill, PA, 17011 Dated on: Craig Moss De 8414 SCI Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek Pa, 18621 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TM JUDICAL DISTRICT OF CUMMBERLAND COUNTY CRAIG MOSS Plaintiff VS. DAVID HOFFMAN et al, Defendants Civil Action No: 01-5196 APPENDIXES Exhibits A through CRAIG MOSS, DE-8414 SCI-RETREAT 660 STATE ROUTE 11 HUNLOCK CREEK, PA 18621 DC-ADM 801, Inmate Di~c~n!ine Page 6 D. Informal Resolution of Rule Violations The rule violation charges eligible for informal resolution are: a. all Class I charges #'s 35 through 46; and b. all Class II charges. The Shift Commander will review all eligible misconduct reports for informal resolution. The staff member issuing the DC-141 Part I may recommend informal resolution for eligible charges, but the decision shall be made by the Shift Commander, who will base his/her choice on the relative seriousness of the misconduct and the inmate's previous misconduct history. The Shift Commander must justify under the immediate action section of the DC-141 the reason why an eligible charge was not referred for informal resolution. _All misconducts selected for informal resolution will be Iog~led on the informal resolut~'i°-~ log and forwarded tot.he Unit Manageme. nt Team fQr disposition. Misconducts that are }ecommended for informal resolution are not to be entered into the automated misconduct tracking system. The DC-141's selected for a hearing will be forwarded to the Hearing Examiner after being logged into the automated misconduct tracking system. ~r/designee, and at least one (1.) other member of the Unit Management Tem wdl meet w"~'th the inma-teto~-d'spos't'on of the charges within 'Seven (7) ~rking days. The~eporting~sta11' member ~-n-coura~ed, bu{ not required, to attend the meeting. No assistance or witnesses are permitted at these meetings. The inmate wi.Il not submit a DC-141 Part II(C), but will b.._e permitted !o_ give his?her _v.ersion of the ev, ents a.t ,the meeting. The Unit Manager may take one of the following actions and note the action taken on the DC-141 Part-II (B). a. no action; b. reprimand and warning; c. refer back to the Hearing Examiner for a formal misconduct hearing if additional information indicates the situation is more serious than the Shift Commander thought. In this case, the DC-141 will be returned to the Shift Commander, logged into the automated misconduct tracking system, and forwarded to the DC-163. ,, ~.= ~ . OF. PENNSYLVANIA __R_.O_.~.. , ,~ .... DEPARTMENT*O~= CORRECTIONS ,INMATE PES N,~":=,EROPERTY INVENTORY COMMONWEALTH ....... , ' -'~ ' Meth~ of Dispositlo~ DC Number Name r 4' '~ r ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ CLOTH NG & "~ ' "- :: ~ a~ H ~', , S Hat Guitar Ca~ Guitar Strings ~'t L.' - The prope~ descried above was inve~Or~'*~t~ ~' :~: ' , The propem a~v, was received and processed WHITE--DC-15 AFTER ALL PROCESSING COMPLETED CANARY--INMATE COP~=AFTER ALL PROCESSING COMPLETED PINK--SENDING INSTITUTION COPY OR MAIL ROOM IF APPLICABLE GOLDENROD--INMATE COPY WHEN ITEMS ARE INVENTORIED ~__~1~L zoo IqF. CEIyED Rdermd~_ DATE: August 2, 2001 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill SUBJECT: Appeal to Superintendent Misconduct No. A245969 TO: Craig Moss DE-8414 SCI-Dallas FROM: artin L. Dragovich Superintendent Receipt of your Appeal to Superintendent of Misconduct No. A245969 is acknowl.edged. Please be advised that it is being returned to you as untimely, as the incident in question occurred Apd110, 2001, and you did not file an appeal until July 27, 2001, approximately three and one- half months later. You acknowledged receipt of your informal resolution on April 16, 2001, and had more than ample time to file an appeal. Incidentally, Mr. Bitner's response does not give his consent to your filing an appeal. He specifically states, "This response does not grant you a right to an appeal if it would otherwise be untimely to pursue that appeal." In my estimation, you had more than enough time to file this appeal. Based on the foregoing, your appeal is returned as untimely. MLD/Ip cc: File IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF TIlE 9T~t JUDICAL DISTRICT OF CUMMBERLAND COUNTY CRAIG MOSS : Plaintiff : VS. : DAVID ItOFFMAN et al, : Defendants Civil Action No: 01-5196 AFFIDAVIT OF: THOMAS LONG ,~o}-~{o~ ~°9,herebydeclare that: 1. On June 28, Iqq~ · I was an inmate at SCI-Huntingdon. 2. On June 28,1ttqg I, Thomas Long, sold, Craig Moss apair of coco brown sweat shorts, that had pockets sewed in them. i,~ob~~ ~.¢0~ , hereby declare that the foregoing is true and correct, under the penalt,~og perjury,title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec 4902. ~by, ,,~_ Th~//l~ng. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TM JUDICAL DISTRICT OF CUMMBERLAND COUNTY CRAIG MOSS : Plaintiff : : VS. : DAVID HOFFMAN et al, : Defendants Civil Action No: 01-5196 AFFIDAVIT OF: CRAIG MOSS 1. Onor ab'6ut April 1, 2001, affiant, was seenby Lieutenant Keck 2. At which time, Affiant apprised Lt. Keck, that he had purchased said shorts at SCI-Huntingdon, and had brought these shorts with him from there, via SCI- Greene. 3. At, no point in time did Affiant ever state that he had bought these shorts at the SCI- Huntingdon commissary, only that he had purchased, said shorts at SCI- Huntingdon. 4. Wherefore, Affiant cannot be found guilty for lying to an employee, when he never lied. (see supporting affidavit and Exhibit A ) i,///~r&~ ~7~ , hereby declare that the foregoing is true and corre~nder ~ penalty of perjury, title 18 Pa.C.S. S~/f02.. . //Affidavit submitted by, CRAIG MOSS. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Here by certify that I am, this day depositing in the U.S. Mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing, upon the person and in the manner indicate below: FIRST CLASS MAIL Raymond W. Doran (Defense Counsel) Pa Department of corrections Office of the chief counsel 55 Utley Drive Camphill, PA, 17011 Dated on:_ lT -q-ol Cr~ g Moss De 8414 SCI Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek Pa, 18621 VS. CRAIG EUGENE MOSS CHRISTOPHffR E, SHEFFIELn Atty. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA8 OF THE $gTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH Commonweeflh of Pennsylvania 1~19 99 ¢~m~a! -- ,VA ED' '~S~ULT ...... ,,;narge ...................................................................................... o,,,, ........ ......................................................... m.t. ............. [Guilty Plea] [J~II~M,M~MI] [CoitNl~4MIdM~ ORDER OF COURT ......................................................................................... 19 .... , the Court sentences the defendant to pay the costs of prosecution, pay a fine of $ ............ and undergo Imprisonment In the FRANKLIN COUNTY PRISON for a period of not lees than .................................. nor more than ............................................... to be computed from .............................. and etand committed until sentence ie complied with. By the Court ........................................................................... j. ................................................................................... 19 .... , the Court sentences the defendant to pay the costs of prosecution and pay a fine of $ ............ By the Court ............................................................................................... j. ................ · _..~;: :.~....,..,. .......... :.....~.:.L:~: ....................... ..._~...~.., the Court sentences the defendant to pay the costs of prosecution, pa~y a fine of $ .....r...:: ... and undqfgo im~isonment n a STATE CORR~TIONAL INST TUT ON for a per od of n~t Jess.~tar~ .. a ........................... .{~.l:XC~ore than ..... ".-; ........ :.: :: :.' ......... to be computed from ...... , ,~nedwSlt~nd sCeOn~em~icttee, d ,o the appropriate STATE CORRECTIONAL DIAG,~,,~ ~AN~? CLASSIFICATION C~ ~y the uourt .............. '.~;; .......... '.'../~L.:....,.. .......... ...i......~'...........Z~..-~...~..... J. 1 · ......................................................................................... 9 ..... the Imposition of [sentenco] [sentenCe of Imprisonment] is SUSPENDED and the defendant is placed on Probation for a period of ............................................ iL ........ upon the conditions that the defendant sha pay the costs of prosecution, pay the sum of $ ............. to the use of [the CountY oTl~.~klln] ]Franklin County Law Library]. [ ] The defendant is placed under the supervision of the State Board of Probation and Parole and subject to the Con- ditions Governing Special Probation established by the Board of Probation and Parole, and any special condition of probation imposed by the supervision staff of the Board. [ ] [ l [ ] The defendant is placed under the supervision of the Franklin County Probation Department and subject to the Rules and Special Conditions for Probation-Parole approved by the Court and authorized to be completed by the Probation Department, and any special condition of probation Imposed by the supervision staff of the Department. The Court recommends [Nominal] [Regular] [Close] [Intense] supervision. The defendant shall participate in and suce~sfully complete [Drug] [AJcohol] [ Mental HealthTherapy] Programs directed by the probation authority. [ ] The defendant shall not consume alcoholic beverages· [ ] [ ] The defendant shall submit to random urinalysis testing. By the Court ............................................................................................... j. ' DEFEND4NT PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT .TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: CRAIG MOSS, (PLAINTIFF) VS. DAVID HOFFMAN, et al. (Defendants) CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-5196 2001 1. THE MATTERS TO BE ARGUED ARE, PLAINTIFFS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 2. COUNSELS, WHO WILL ARGUE THE CASE: (A) For the Plaintiff CRAIG MOSS, DE-8414 SCI-Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek, Pa, 18621 (Pro Se) (B) For the Defendants Raymond W. Dorian, Assistant Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camphill, P.A. 17011 3. ARGUMENT DATE: JANUARY, 2002, ARGUMENTS TO BE DECIDE ON BRIEFS ARGUMENTS DATED December 5, 2001 CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff VS. DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-5196 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: "MOTION FOR DISCOVERY" ORDER AND NOW, this ,' ~" day of December, 2001, it appearing that the procedure employed by the plaintiff is not in keeping with Pa.R.C.P. 4009.1 et seq., the within motion is DENIED. BY THECOURT, Craig Moss Pro Se Raymond W. Doran, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff, V. DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants No. 01-5196 DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND NOW, come the Defendants, David Hoffman, et al., by and through their attorney, Raymond W. Dorian, Assistant Counsel, and answer as follows: 1. ADMITTED. 2. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to the troth or accuracy of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at time of hearing. By way of further answer, the PlaintiWs motion for discovery is premature, since to date, the Plaintiffhas not served the Defendants with a request for production of documents. 3. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to the truth or accuracy of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at time of hearing. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff's motion for discovery is premature, since to date, the Plaintiff has not served the Defendants with a request for production of documents. 4. DENIED that the Plaintiff needs his entire DC-15 and DC-14 files in order to prepare for this case. By way of further answer, his files may contain sensitive and confidential information which should not be disclosed to the Plaintiff for safety and security reasons. Finally, the Plaintiff's motion for discovery is premature, since to date, he has not served the Defendants with a request for production of documents. WI-IEREFORE, the Defendants request that Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery be dismissed as premature. PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 Dated: December 17, 2001 Respectfully submitted, Assis~nt Counsel Att6rney I.D. No. 48148 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff, V. DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants No. 01-5196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day depositing in the U.S. mail a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below. Service by first-class mail addressed as follows: Craig Moss, DE-8414 SCl-Retreat 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621 PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-0444 ' Ja~elle C.~tapleton- Jerk Typist Dated: December 17, 2001 CRAIG MOSS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO. 01-5196 IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Before HOFFER, P.J, HESS~ J. and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT Defendants' Preliminary Objections, it is hereby ordered that the Motion is granted and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. By the Court, Raymond W. Dorian, PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendants Craig Moss DE-8914 SCI-RETREAT 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621 Pro Se CRAIG MOSS, Plaintiff DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW · NO. 01-5196 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION?, Before HOFFER, P.J., HESS, J. and OLER, J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: This matter was initiated by Craig Moss, who is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat and who was formerly housed at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. The defendants include: David Hoffman, Unit Manager at SCl-Camp Hill; Philip Baker, Counselor at SCI-Camp Hill; Martin Dragovich, Superintendent of SCl-Camp Hill; and Robert Bitner, Chief Hearing Examiner with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. The defendants are presently employed by the Department of Corrections in various capacities at SCl-Camp Hill, except for Robert Bitner, who is currently employed at a different location· Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the defendants alleging that he has been denied his due process rights in connection with a misconduct hearing held on or about April 16, 2001. At the hearing, the plaintiff was found guilty. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the finding of guilt to the Chief Hearing Examiner, but in an untimely fashion. Thus, ultimately this civil action ensued. Plaintiff alleged that at the hearing, he was not permitted to give his version of the facts or present documentary evidence that supported his position. The defendants subsequently filed preliminary objections to this suit seeking to dismiss the lawsuit by asserting that the plaintiff has failed to allege a due process violation and has failed to allege any violation of state law for which relief may be granted. However, at this stage in the litigation, dismissing the lawsuit based upon the defendants' rationale would be inappropriate. As such, this Court must raise the following issue sua sponte. In general, a decision by the Department of Corrections finding that a prisoner has committed misconduct is not subject to appellate review because the court does not become involved in internal prison matters. Ricketts v. Central Office Review Committee, 125 Pa.Cmwlth. 573, 557 A.2d 1180 (1989). Nevertheless, there exists a narrow exception where an inmate can identify a personal or property interest not limited by regulation. Lawson v. Department of Corrections, 114 Pa. Cmwlth. 573, 539 A.2d 69 (1988)fi Additionally, the court has also held that internal prison operations are more properly left to the legislative and executive branches, and that 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. See Bronson v. Central Office Review Committcc, 554 Pa. 317, ~ Plaintiff has failed to identify a personal or property interest as to which may trigger the exception to the rule allowing review of prisoner misconduct hearing. 2 721 A.2d 357 (1998). As such, it is the decision of this Court that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed.