HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-0085JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 85 CIVIL 1987
IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BEFORE SHEELYw p.j. AND BAYL~Ryw j.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~-/ ~ day of January, 1988, upon
consideration of defendants, preliminary objections, we order the
preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to be
sustained. Plaintiff will be given twenty (20) days from this
order to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff does not file
an amended complaint within this twenty (20) day period, an order
will be entered dismissing this action.
By the Court,
~ rold E:
James Boyce Singleton C~r~t I/aa~,
114 East Cottage Place ~.F-
York, Pennsylvania 17403
David L. Horwitz, Esquire
For the Defendants ~ ~ I/aa;~.
:pbf
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 85 CIVIL 1987
IN RE: DEFENDARYS' PRELIMINARy OBJECYION~
?O PLAI~I'IFF'S CO~PLAIIF~
BEFORE SHEELY~ p.J. AND BAYLRy~ j.
MEMORANDUM OPINION A~]~ ORDER OF COURT.
This action was initiated by the plaintiff while he was
an inmate in the State Correctional Institution in Cresson,
Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges the defendants deprived
plaintiff of due process and equal protection rights based on an
intra-prison hearing to determine plaintiff's program level
classification. Since the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff
has been released from the correctional institution.
The matter presently before us is defendants'
preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff,
who is representing himself, has not appeared or responded to the
objections raised by defendants. These objections are in the
nature of a demurrer, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to strike
off the complaint due to impertinent and scandalous matter. We
have reviewed the complaint and find the defendants' objections
well-founded.
The complaint contains general statements of purported
acts of misconduct by particular prison officials. The
NOJ85 CIVIL 1987
allegations lack specific reference to dates, times and
occurrences as they pertain to the plaintiff. Allegations that
"inmates receive different and separate punishments for the same
offenses" (See Complaint, 9(B)) and that an official has
"willfully initiated an erroneous report, because of personal
feelings" (See Complaint, 9) are simply insufficient to support
a cause of action. Consequently, we will sustain defendants'
demurrer, but will allow plaintiff twenty days from this order in
which to amend his complaint in conformance with the Rules of
Civil Procedure. If the plaintiff fails to amend his complaint
within the twenty day time period, this action will be dismissed.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~.~/~- day of January, 1988, upon
consideration of defendants' preliminary objections, we order the
preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to be
sustained. Plaintiff will be given twenty (20) days from this
order to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff does not file
an amended complaint within this twenty (20) day period, an order
will be entered dismissing this action.
By the Court,
James Boyce Singleton
114 East Cottage Place
York, Pennsylvania 17403
David L. Horwitz, Esquire
For the Defendants
:pbf
/s/ Harold E. Sheely
PoJ,
-2-
DAVID S. OWEN~, JR.
Commissioner
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
P. O. BOX 598
CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011
(717) 975-4860
October 6, 1987
Deputy Commissioners
Administration
LEE T. BERNARD II
Correctional Services
LOWELL D. HEWITT
Programs
ERSKIND DERAMUS
Mr. Gary L. Hollinger
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Court of Commons Pleas
Cumberland County Courthouse
Hanover and High Streets
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: 3ames Boyce Singleton v. Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections, et al.
85-Civi1-~85 I q
Dear Mr. Hollinger:
This is to confirm our telephone conversation of Monday, October 5, 1987, wherein
I advised you that the Plaintiff, in the above-referenced case, is no longer residing at
the address endorsed upon his pleadings. He was released from the custody of the
Department of Corrections at the expiration of the maximum term of his sentence on
August 2t~, 1987. At that time, Mr. Singleton advised the mailroom at the State
Correctional Institution at Cresson that the following would be his forwarding address:
11# East Cottage Place
York, PA 17#03
Please find attached hereto a true and correct copy of the addressed face of the
envelope which contained, interalia Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's
Complaint. As you will note, although the mail went unclaimed, service was made in
accordance with Pa.R.C.P. ~#0 by mailing said pleading both to the address endorsed
upon Plaintiff's most recent motion to the Court and his last known address.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
(717) 975-#86#
DLH:sd
Attachment
FORM BC-266A
CLh'n
u ~,. ? ! ~/i PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU 'OF' COR'
P.O. BOX 598.
?! , ',-~, ., ,
THIS PARCEL MAY BE OPENED FOR POSTAL INSPECTION NECESSARY
IF
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Petitioner
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.,
Respondents
: IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
2202 C.D. 1985
PER CURIAM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 13, 1985, petitioner filed a document
entitled "writ of mandamus." Said "writ" did not state the basis of
this Court's jurisidiction over the action and sought restoration of
a 4-R classification and job, damages in the amount of $50,000 and
punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 citing 42 U.S.C. $1983,
and costs. Subsequently, this Court issued a notice to the
respondents directing that the record of the governmental unit be
lodged in this matter. More than a year later, this Court sua
sponte issued a rule to show cause why the action should not be
dismissed for want of prosecution. In response, petitioner filed a
motion for summary judgment.
Upon further review of the "writ of mandamus", and it
now appearing that to the extent that the "writ" may be read to
state an appeal from the disciplinary action taken by the prison
administration and there is no allegation of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, said "writ" is dismissed. To the extent
that this action may be construed as one addressed to this Court's
original jurisdiction, and it appearing that petitioner seeks relief
in the form of damages of $100,000, this Court lacks jurisdiction,
42 Pa. C.S. ~761(a) (1) (v). See Balshy v. Rank, 507 Pa. 384, 490
A.2d 415 (1985); Fawber v. Cohen, 91 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 559, 497
A.2d 697 (1985). Accordingly, we enter the following
ORDER
NOW, December 8, 1986, this action is hereby
transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
The Chief Clerk shall certify to the prothonotary of
said court a photocopy of the docket entries and transmit to him the
record thereof.
DEC t o i956
James Boyce Singleton,
Petitioner
V.
Department of Justice, Bureau of
Corrections and Robert M. Freeman,
Souglas Shaffer, David Hoffman,
Respondents
2202 C,D. 1985
IN ITIE~THC~TO~ pI~ISYLVANIA
CERTIFICATE OF CONTENTS OF TRANSFERRED RECORD
AND NOTICE OF TRANSFERUFI3ER
PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 751 AND 752
THE UNDERSIGNED, Prothonotary or Deputy Prothonotary of the
Conmonwealth Court o! Pennsylvania, the said court being a court of
record, does hereby certify that annexed to the original hereof is
the whole and entire record as transferred from the Com~)nwealth
Court, in compliance with Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure
751 and 752.
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed with the
original hereof and the clerk or prothonotary of the lower court or
the head, chairman, deputy or secretary of the government unit is
hereby directed to acknowledge receipt of the remanded record by
executing such copy at the place indicated and by forthwith
returning the same to:
Office of the Chief Clerk
C~,,,,onwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Room 610, Sixth Floor
South Office Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 783-3215 or 783-7058
(Seal of Court)
Record Received: I/,'-//~'7
t~ ignature;
Pro Protl~)notary
Chief Clerk
Date record
transferred
Jan. 12, 1.987
(ccp CU.~iBERLAND County)
cc: Parties or counsel of record.
Form 751/752. Rev. 5/22/84
· JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON
Petitioner
VS.
DEPART~NT OF JUSTICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, BURFAU OF
COP3ECTIONS:
and
ROBERT M. FREEMAN
DOUGLAS SHAFFER
DAVID HOFFMAN
Respondents
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, HARRISBURG
DISTRICT
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Jurisdiction over this matter is conferred upon this Honorable Court by The Penn-
sylvania Judicial Code; providing that the Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive
Jurisdiction of actions inwhich the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a party.
1. The petitioner is a Jailed person who now and in the past have been incarcerated
at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, located in the township of Lo-
wer Allen, County of Cumberland.
2. The respondents', The Department of Justice byand through it's agent, The Bureau
of Corrections, is an cabinet level department, authorized by law to promulgate stan-
dards regarding Health, Safety, and Welfare of prison environments 61 P.S. A60, 3. U.S.
CiviI Rights Act of Institutionalized Person_s, 42 U.S.C. 1997.
Said respondents are governed and controlled by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
Leroy S. Zimmerman, Esq., who is an elected public official and acting as such under
color of law.
3. Respondent, Robert M. Freeman, is the Superintendent of the State Correctional Inst-
itution at Camp Hill, and as such has been directed and appointed to govern all inmates
accordin~ to law. Said Superin*.endent in his official capacity is acting and failing to
act under co~or of law.
4. Respondent, Douglas Shaffer, is a Counselor at the State Correctional Institution
at Camp Hill, and as such has been directed and appointed to govern Ail Inmates acc-
ording to law. Said Counselor in his official capacity is acting and failing to act
under color of law.
5. Respondent, David Hoffman, is also a Counselor at the State Correctional ~nstitut-
ion Camp Hill, and as such has been directed and appointed to govern all inmates acco-
rding to law. Said Counselor in his official capacity is acting and fail~n~ to act under
color of law.
6. ~ or about May 23, 1980 The T'n~ted States of America by the Senate and House of Re-
presentatives enacted an act that is cited as the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Pe-
rson Act A2 U.S.C. 1997. said in part:
(a) "Whenever the Attorney General has ressonable cause to believe that ~ny State or Po-
litic~l Subdivision of a State, official or agent thereof; or other .... is subjecting pe-
rsons residing or confined to an institution ss defined, in section (2) to egregious or
flagrant conditions which deprive such persons of any rights, privileges, or immunities,
secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the United States causing such per-
sons' to suffer grievious harm, and that such deprivation is pursuant to pattern or pra-
ctices of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities,
the Attornsy General for in th~ name of the United States may insti+ute a Civil Action".
7. Furthermore, the afforementioned act provides for attorney fees for the prewilin~
party and Rrohibits retaliation against psrsons reporting conditions that may be ~ vio-
lation under this act.
.~8. By statutory requirement 61 P.S. 460.3 The Department of Justice by and through it's
agent the Bureau of Corrections prom,~]gated standars for Health~ Safety, and Welfare
for all imprisoned persons. Said standards were published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin
Volume IX No, Twenty. Ma~ 19. 19~9 as amended,
continued:
"K" block being designated a honor block. At that point Douglas Shaffer wes no longer
petitioner's counselor. (Douglas Shaffer is "~" blocks counselor only~)
Respondent, Douglas $haffer, intentionally, knowingly, and willfully initiated ~ err-
oneous report, because of personal fee!~ngs bav~ no bearing on issues raiseJ,with
malicious intent, displaying immaturity as a correct~o~ counselor.
A. Many inmates in the past have had A-R status and was afforded ~isconduct #1 ,nd
have been punished by hearing examiner, which resolved in restrictions as did nlstn~iff
and continued on their A-R status, without incident or involvement of counselor. ~s the
hearing examiner's decision is conclusiv~.
B. Inmates recieve different and seperate punishment for the same offenses.
C. The objective of jail discipline are as follows:
"To provide personel with guidelines for Ju~ging the behavior of prisoners. To acb-
~~_!irness in the adr..~int tration of_~i~iPlin~'~
D. Inmates have been given an ',Inmate Handbook" which contains the rules of the prison.
The administration reconizes these rules and guidelines on~ when they can be used for
issuing punishment.
E. Due process at all levels of the disciplinary proceedings are denied because of the
Drison's failure to adopt the administrative agency law. 2 Pa. C.S. 501-508 as req~i~d
by law.
F. The aforementi°med violations have exsisted in the past snd continue to exs~st not
withstanding attempts by petitioner to effectuate chan~es through administrative reme-
dies. The petitioner has filed requests which the administration refused to 2nswer thr-
ough subterfuge.
G. Petitioner has the right to be free of invidious discrimination under the EGual
Protection Clause of the ~o~rteenth Amendment. Lee v. Washington. ~90 U.S. 33~z.~
Said standards provide in ~art:
Section ~5.2Z0 ...................... ~iscipline and Punsihment;
"In a jail having an average daily inmate population of more than ten, the adminis-
trat$~'~shall appoint a board consisting of a minimum of three persons to hear ~nd dis-
pose of disciplinary cases".
(A) 95.2Z0
"The objective of jail discipline are as follows:
(iii) To provide personel with guidelines for judging the behavior of prisoners. (iv)
To achieve fairness in the administation of discipline.
The above-mentioned standards have been and continues to be arbitrarily violated thereby
effectively causing excessive administrative discrection, whimsical decision and ~njust-
ices to the petit~oner~;~
9. Respondent, Douglas Shaffer, acting in ~ captious nature with little or no re~ard for
the well being of his charge, invoking such discriminatory practices, 6isplaMing s dire-
ct exhibit of bigotry, in direct violation of The Civil Rights of Imprisoned ~ersons,
Liability under 1~8~ is predicated on personal involvement in the a~le~ed constitutions~
violations and respondents' Douglas Sbaffer, David Hoffman, snd Rob,rt ~. Freeman, was
and at all times revelant, had forehand knowledge of incident and conspired to bring
personal grievance to plaintif~ by purposely evading issuses.
Respondent, Robert M. Freeman, is and at all times revelant, Superintendent of the
State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, and is personally involved by condoning the
actions of correctional officers, without reviewing Ail revelant facts, denying petitio-
ner right of a~peal as stated in BC ADM 80~ section ?. page ~0.
Therefore, causing irreparable anguish and grief to plaintiff and family members.
Petitioner had already been disciplined by he~ring examiner for misconduct: assau2~s/
fighting. With recommended sanctions: "Class #~, SO dsys cell restrictions (confined to
cell except for meals, showers, am excercise, church, and commisary) remove from K bIock
S. Ct. 99A (1965). And finally, they ~etain some right to due process before being
deprived of life, liberty, or property. Hewitt v~_~e -U.S. -, 103 S. Ct. 86Z (1983)
All of these retained rights are enforceable by an action brought against appropriate
parties under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, A2 U.S.C. 1983.
H. In order ~o~'be liable fo~' ~mages under 1983, respondents must have directly par-
ticipated in the actionable wrongdoing. H_aldeman v, Pennhurs~, AA6 F. Supp. 1295 (lo??),
Aff'd in par~, R~eversed and Remanded in part, 612 F. 2d 8A (3d Cir. 1~79).
I. Wherefore, your petitioner request that this Honorable Court force the Bureau of
Corrections to take any and all appropriate steps available to enforce it's standard
requirements upon the Superintendent of the State Correc+ional Institution at Ca~p Hill.
j. Wherefore, your petitioner respectfully request that this complaint in mandamus be
considered as notice to the Attorney General of reasonable cause to invoke the Civil
~tional ze~ Persons Act
K. Wherefore, your petitioner respectfully request this Honorable Court to hold hearings
on any and all allegations stated herein.
· ~ ~.~ Honorable Court to appoint
L. Wherefore, your petitioner respectfully request~,n~
counsel to represent the petitioner in *.he above captioned matter.
M. Wherefore, your petitioner respectfully request this Honorable Court to waive filin~
fees if any, in regards to the above captioned matter.
N. Because of the foregoing, petitioner has no adecuate remedy at law and is sufferin
and will continue to suffer, grest, and irreparable loss, damage, and injury therefore
compelled to seek equitable relief in this Court.
O. Wherefore, Petitioner demand judgement:
1. Replace A-R classification and Job.
2. Award petitioner the reasonable cost and exspenses of this sction.
3. Award petitioner damages in the amount of 50,000,00. (fifty thousand dollars)
4. Award petitioner punitive damages in the amount of 50,000,00. (fifty thousand dollars)
5. Grant such other and further relief as may be Just.
Wherefore, your petitioner request that all msilings concerning the aboved captioned
matter be addressed to: James Boyce Singleton, K 2973 P.O. Box 200 Camp Hil, Pa. 17011
AFFIDAVIT
I,James Boyce Singleton, hereby state that the information contained in this WRIT OF
~ is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief and does state
this under the penalties provided by law.
James Boyce Singleton
Sworn and s~ lbscribed before me
No~ ~ary Public
Steven G. Wetzler Not~ry Public
~Lower Al~en Tw?. ~,~' ........
Ex~,~:,~., ~,.,,:','.:..:. !,3, !:.39
August 13, 1985
JAMEs BOYcE SINCLEToN,
2202 C.D. 1985 PetitiOner
~9~o~WEA
or -~ o~ o~
DAV~ ~, SOU~. . aad
'~iv, ~, ·
August Reap°aden ts
WAIVED 19, 1985 FILINc FEE
B°Y~e Sin
,-~zJ. 1, Penna.
/ Phoi
I~o h
I ~e~o ~
agletOn,
~na. 17
%~RIT ~~f-e to proceed in
auperis filed, filed.
ii-2973 Aug 13, ~v service
f. orm~a~P 1985 Prodf of .
ider atz~on. _° '
AUg ~ ,
ORDER On order, upon c°~Sproceed ~n
Aug 19, 19~5'motion for leave to
petitioner ~. nd waiver o{ t~.~ court'.s
=~a pauper,S _~j~ is ~rant~. ~' CuKIAM'
~.~=~ fee, k ~_~ {~ed.
AA 21, ~o~ -~RDER
above action
--- On order, the_.tended per~
~ct 31, 19~ --ant ~or an =~. said act~o~,
~-,~n~ been ~?~mqhow Cau~e w?~..~ o~
n~ o_ Rule ~o ~2~.=ed [or wo
timez-~_~t be dism~% ~ssued aga~t the
-.,~40n is here~ ~s retUrnS~%~titioner
prose~u~t- said Rux~ ~.~lure o~ F~
Decem = to saio .~.~ cler~ o~
to respOn~ ~q86, the °n~=~ as
December ~' ~- the above action .
dismiSS
directed to cURIAM)Nov' ~' 1986 order exit
course. (pER
See order ~iled.
· for
. .=~ner'S M°t~°~,,.;ce ~iled.
Nov ~ · ~,,d~enL ~-- .-
summary ~ = oRDER .... a order f~leu.
Me. Or annum
- - 8 1986 .-- is hereby
~%~k C6RI~ ~_ order, thi~ ~%~ plem~
~ _ ~ 19~o ~" _ ~ourt ot ~_~ -,. shall
De~i.~%rred to the ~e chief q~e~ court a
certitY ~. he docket ~ n~c 10, 198~
~o im th= ~ n~Am exit.
Memor ano u-,
Or d'er filed.
AFFIDAVIT
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND NOW comes petitioner, James Boyce Singleton, and states that he has no bsnk
accounts, no stocks, bonds, resl estate, automobile and no assets over the amount of
fifty dollars (250.00) and a~ks this Honorable Court to proceed in forma p~uperis.
Respectfully,
James Boyce Singleton
Sworn and subscribed before me this%
day of
Notary ~lic
T. Thomas Sheaffer, NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission E~pires January 27, 1986
L~we~*Alien Twp., PA Cumberland County
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON
Petitioner
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS:
and
ROBERT M. FREEMAN
DOUGLAS SHAFFER
DAVID HOFF~N
Respondents
IN THE CO~.~ONWEALTH COURT
PENNSYLVANIA, HARRISBURG
DISTRICT
NO. qh
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Petitioner, in the above-captioned matter, hereby certify that I this day serve the
foregoing ~WRIT OF MANDAMUS on all parties in question, by depositing a copy of the
same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pemnsylvania, add-
ressed to the parties of record and counsel as follows:
Robert M. Freeman
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA.
(Hand Delivered)
Douglas Shaffer
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA.
(Hand Delivered)
David Hoffman
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill,PA.
(Hand Delivered)
My [×pir~tion [×pires ~,pr. 10, 19B9
(Petitioner)
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Respondents
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 2202 C.D. 1985
PER CURIAM
ORDER
NOW, August 19, 1985, upon consideration of petitioner's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, leave is granted.
This Court's filing fee is waived and petitioner shall proceed in
conformity with Pa. R.A.P. 2151(b) and 2187(c).
FROM THE R .CQRD
AUG 2 0 1985
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Petitioner
V®
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.,
Respondents
NO. 2202 C. D. 1985
PER CURIAM
ORDER
NOW, October 31, 1986, the above action having been
dormant for an extended period of time, a Rule to Show Cause why
said action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution is
hereby issued against the petitioner. Said Rule is returnable
December 1, 1986. In responding to said Rule, petitioner shall
serve a copy thereof on respondent and shall so certify in the
response.
Upon failure of petitioner to respond to said Rule on or
before December 1, 1986, the Chief Clerk is directed to dismiss the
above action as of course.
IN Ai'~D !~OR THE COMMON;~JSALTH COURT
OF DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLYANIA
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON
VS.
GLENN JEFi?,.]S £tal
~I~IL NO. ~8~
MOTION FOM SU!~.'iA~Y JUDGM£NT
Petitioner, dames bo¥ce Singleton, Conferes on this honorable Court
who has Jurisdiction under State Laws Governing ~ppellate Procedures
and any action brought against a State Agency, or any Subdivision
Thereto;
This Action is being brought pursuant to Rule 1035 Penna. Rules
Of Court, 1986 ...
Now comes, ~ames i~oyce Singleton, Plaintiff' in the above captioned matter
Petitioning this Honorable Court For Summary Judgment against respondents
Glen~: ~effes etal.
(1) Petitioner avers that there has been no responsive Pleading
or Preliminary objections by ,~espondents.
(A) Responsive [:leading sh:~.ll admit or deny each averment of fact
in the preceding pleading or any part thereof to which it is responsive.
O~ or About August,19~_ , This Honorable ~]ourt Issued A ~ule Upon
Mespondents ~ule lO18]l" Motion To Defend 'f In That ~Ne~'~ Matter" The
Court Ord~red said respondents to forward all records, affidavits, and
documents concerning This Ma~ter, and respondents failed to comply with
this Order. To ?~it~
Rule 1035 (C) If on Motion of this Rule, Judgement is not
rendered upon. The whole case or for all the relief asked and a trial
is ne~scessary,
The Court At The Hearing Of The Motion, Dy ~xamining The
Pleadings ~:~nd The Evidence before It and by Interrogating Sounsel,
Shall If PracticaRle Ascertain what material facts exsist without sub-
stantial controversy :~nd what material are actually and in good faith
Controverted. It Shall Thereupon make a Order specifying the facts that
appear without substantial controversy, Including i~he Excent :~o ~'Jhich
The Amount of d~mages or other relief i$ not in Controversy and directing
such Further Proceedings in the Action as are just upon ~he £rial Of
The ~ction ~he Facts so specified Shall be deem Established,
And The £rm~ Shall be Con:~ucted Accordingly,
Adopted April t~th.1966, £ff~ctive May 9th. 1966 Amended
an~ Effectiw~ April l~th. 1975, Oct. 16th. 1:~1
Rule 1037.(C) In all cases, The Court, On Motion of a Party
may enter an appropiate judgement ::~gainst a party upon default or
Admission, Adopted June 2~th 1:)46, Effective oan. 1, 1947 Amended Jan.
23r~. 1975, Eff:ctive J~ly 1, 1)75; Dec. l$th 1985 Effective July
1st. 19~4////
±n Conclusion, Petitioner Prays That ~his Honorable ~ourt Gr~nt said
Relief Against ~espondents ~nd For Plaintiff.
swORN AND SUBSCRIBED ~O
T. T~ SH~FFE~, NOT~Y P~IC
t~ER ALLEN TWP., CUMBERLAND COU~
MY ~MMISSION EXPIRES &AN. 27,
M~ber, Pennsylvania Association of
Respectf~ll~ Submitted
......... '' ~m~i SOUR OF P~NNSYLV~NIA
IN THE ~OmmO~'~ ..... '
~'~mo ~OY~ SINGLETON,
'~ I
PETIT O~q .~[{
V®
C OMMON.ifEALTH OF PEN~.SYLVANIA,
DEPART~'~NP OF 7JSiI~m et ..1,
NO. 2202 S.D. 1985
AFFIfd4ATION AND PROOF OF o~2~IC~
I, James ~oyce Sing1 ton, Oeinu first duly s?forn to the charge of perjury,
~o~ose and say that all of the for,~ioin~ facts
and the p,:nalty thereof, -~ ~
'~r true an~ corr~:~ct to ti~e best of my knowl.~Ige, and Seli,~f; .furtermore,
I hav..~ a~e s'::rvice on the inter~a~t:.d partias whose na:~es ~: a'J]r.esses
.~p?~.ar below?. Said service w.s ~-~ade by hand ~elivery an'~ first class mail.
G1 :nh Jeff es
B,~reau Building
Sump Hill, Pa. 17Oll
[~ob srt Freeman
Administration Bldg.
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
Douglas Shaffer
P.O. Box 200
Camp, Hill Pa. 17011
David Hoffman
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
FO~?~. A PA~PdRIS
I, dames Boyce Sin{~'leton, a~" ;,~'ithout funds, and at this time own no
puDptries, and have no monies in the ~.nk. ~herefore; Plantiff reZuest
Signe
OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY
COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1 7 1 2 0
TELEPHONE:
(717) 787'5884-787'8836
October 20, 1956
3ames Singleton, K-2973
P. O. Box 200,
Camp Hill , Pa. 17011
Re: Singleton v. Glenn 3eiles, et al
No. 2202 C. D. 1955
Dear Mr. Singleton:
I am in receipt of your letter of October 12~ 1956.
This is to advise you that to date the defendants in the above
captioned matter have not filed an answer to your action in
mandamus. I suggest that you do whatever you deem appropriate
in order to move this matter along. It is up to you to proceed
with the prosecution o[ your case.
Very truly yours~
C. R. Hostutler
Deputy Prothonotary-Chief Clerk
CPd-I :w I d
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Petitioner
Vo
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.,
Respondents
NO. 2202 C. D. 1985
PER CURIAM
ORDER
NOW, October 31, 1986, the above action having been
dormant for an extended period of time, a Rule to Show Cause why
said action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution is
hereby issued against the petitioner. Said Rule is returnable
December 1, 1986. In responding to said Rule, petitioner shall
serve a copy thereof on respondent and shall so certify in the
response.
Upon failure of petitioner to respond to said Rule on or
before December 1, 1986, the Chief Clerk is directed to dismiss the
above action as of course.
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Ve
Petitioner
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS et al.,
Respondents
IN THE' COMMONWEALTH COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 2202 C.D. 1985
PER CURIAM
ORDER
NOW, August 19, 1985, upon consideration of petitioner's
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, leave is granted.
This Court's filing fee is waived and petitioner shall proceed in
conformity with Pa. R.A.P. 2151(b) and 2187(c).
; TIFIED FROM THE R CORD
AUG 2 0 i~85
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Petitioner
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al.,
Respondents
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 2202 C.D. 1985
PER CURIAM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 13, 1985, petitioner filed a document
entitled "writ of mandamus." Said "writ" did not state the basis of
this Court's jurisidiction over the action and sought restoration of
a 4-R classification and job, damages in the amount of $50,000 and
punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 citing 42 U.S.C. $1983,
and costs. Subsequently, this Court issued a notice to the.
respondents directing that the record of the governmental unit be
lodged in this matter. More than a year later, this Court sua
sponte issued a rule to show cause why the action should not be
dismissed for want of prosecution. In response, petitioner filed a
motion for summary judgment.
Upon further review of the "writ of mandamus", and it
now appearing that to the extent that the "writ" may be read to
state an appeal from the disciplinary action taken by the prison
administration and there is no allegation of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, said "writ" is dismissed. To the extent
that this action may be construed as one addressed to this Court's
original jurisdiction, and it appearing that petitioner seeks relief
in the form of damages of $100,000, this Court lacks jurisdiction,
42 Pa. C.S. ~761(a) (1) (v). See Balshy v. Rank, 507 Pa. 384, 490
A.2d 415 (1985); Fawber v. Cohen, 91 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 559, 497
A.2d 697 (1985). Accordingly, we enter the following
ORDER
NOW, December 8, 1986, this action is
transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
hereby
The Chief Clerk shall certify to the prothonotary of
said court a photocopy of the docket entries and transmit to him the
record thereof.
DEC ! 9 1986
Chief C1 ~ .-.k
August 7th 1987
James Boyce Singleton
K 2973
Drawer A
Old Route 22
Cresson, Pennsylvania
16630-0018
Mr. Larwrence E. Welker,
Clerk of Courts
CourtHouse, Public Square
Carlise, Pennsylvania
17013
In Re: JA~4ES BOYCE SINGLETON
VS.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, Et al.
Dear Mr. Welker:
I am forwarding this correspondence concerning the request for obtaining
a certified copy of complete dockecting statement, along with verification that
my MOTION TO AMEND-ASSU~SIT, from the original MANDAMUS petition was received,
and docketed.
In the Past, I have had much problem in obtaining verification in all in-
stant matters.
Please appreciate the fact that I have taken time to notarize the same.
Thanking you in advance,
James Boyc~ S~et~
Pr,od
IN T~ COURT OF C0~J~COh PLEAS
FOR THE CO~TY OF
J~U~ES BOYCE SINGLETON
petitioner
V.
DEP~.Ti~i T OF
GLENN JEFFES et al;
Responde~ts
: CIVIL 2202, i985
: DOC~T I~0. 67, 19~5
GEBTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, J~ES BOYCE SIi~iGLETON, hereby certify that i have this 13th day
of ~ bruar$, 1987, served the forgoi~ document on the i'ollowing in-
terested parties~,~ via Firs~ss ~ail, o~'' Ha~d Delive~ry.
Gle~n~ Jef£es
Bureau Bldg.
Camp Hill, Pa. ~701t
Robert ~¥i. Freem~
Administration Bldg.
Camp Hill, Pa. ~70il
Douglas Sh~f£'er
P.0. Box 200
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
David ~ioffman
P.O. Box 200
C~mp ~iill, Pa. 17011
SWORN ~' ° ')~
A,',~
BEFORE ME THIS
IN! THE COURT OF CO~ON PLEAS
FOR THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
JAMES BOYCE SING.ETON
petitioner
V.
IEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
GLENN JEFFES et al;
Reapomdenta'
CIVIL: 2202, 1985
DOCKET NO. 87, 1985
Blt~I~F ~ $]3PPOEr OF SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT
NO~ ~omes, JAMES. BOYCE SING~,.ETON, pro se, petitioner in the above captioned matter,
aver~ the following:
MAT~ ERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
KNOWLEDGE AND ACQUIESOENCE: If prison officials know of violations of your rights,
are in a position to eorrect them, and fail to do so, they may be liable. Officers
who are present at a beating and fail to intervene m~y be liable. Higher officials
who are aware of unconstitutional conditions may be liable for/to persons confined
tham, unless they have no power to alter them. Know~edge and acquiescemce in other
constitutional violations has been held sufficent to establish liablity in damages.
Of course to be liable under this theory, an official must know enough to be on notice
of the illegal condum$,
Knowledge and aequiescence may be inferred by a Court where( 1 ) a official would nor-
m,lly excercise reasonably close supervision over a subordinate, and(2) the subord-
inat$,act~a_lly inflicting constitutional deprivations was not doing so in a secret or
ia~ated manner.
"Acts of omission are actionable in context to the same extent as acts of commission".
SMITH v. ROSS, 482 F.2d 33,36 (6th Cir. 1978). ACCORD, E~ELLE v. GAMBLE, 429 U.S. 97,
~06 97 S.Ct. 285(1978)(claim of denial of medical care may be based on "acts of omiss-
ions''); Bogard v. C0~K, 586 F.2d 399 (Sth Cir. 1978)(nonfeassance as well as misfeasa~
ce actionable).
You must prove that a particular d~fendant was personally involved in ~he deprivation
of your rights. JOHNSON v. GLICK, 481 F.2d 1028,1034 (2d Cir. 1.973).
(continued from previous page)
The burden of establishing that respondents' had personal involvement in this matter
lies on the shoulder of the plaintiff, in as much, your petitioner displayed with
sold judgement, the capacity of involvement amd showed "deliberate indifference" of
each respondent in his official capacity.
Therefore: petitioner moves that this matter be resolved, and damages and judgement be
awarded in his favor.
I, J,Zl,'~ES BOYCE SI~.~GL~TON, states that he is the movant in the above
captioned matter, and hereLu states that the facts are.~ue to the
SWORN AriD SUBSCRIBED,1TO
BEFORE ME THIS ~,~r~
NOTARY, ~-~' --
MY CO~:¥,iS~.;j~ ~/?~;.~% j~. 27, 1'~$
Member, Pe~sy~v~nim ~o~iafion of No~a~
MEMMORANDUM OF LAW
HAHLOW v. FITZGEARLD, supra note 184, at 2738.
PROCUNIER v. NAVARETTE, id. at 565.
WTLLIAMS v. BENNETT, 689 F.2d 1370, 1385-86 (11th Cir. 1982); POWELL v. WARD, 643 F.2d
924,934 n. 13 (2d Cir. 1981).
CHAVIS v. ROWE, 643 F.24 1~81 (Tth Cir. 1'981 ); WARE v. HEYNE, 575 F.2d 593 (Tth Cir. 1978);
BRYANT v. McGINNIS, 463 F. Supp.. 373 (W.D.N.Y. 1978).
McGARY v. BURRELL, 622 F.2d 705 (4th Cir. 1980); STRACHAN v. ASHE, 548 F. Supp. 1593,1i205
(D. Mass. 1982); O'CONNOR v. KELLER, 510 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Md. 1981).
WOOD v. STRICKLAND, supra:, note 187, at 321-22~.
McCLELLAND w. FACTEAU, 610 F.2d 693 (lOth Cim~. 1979).
See OW~2~ v. LASH, 682 F. 2d 648, 657-59 (Tth Cir. 1982), and case sited CORRIZ v. NARANJO,
667 F.2d 892, 89~ (lO~h Cir. 1981).
MARY and CRYSTAL, v. RAMSDEN., 635 F. 2d 590, 600 (Tth Cir. 1980); RHOADES v. ,ROBINSON~
612 F.2d 766 (3d Cir. 1979); BASKINS ~. PARKER, 602 F.2d 1205, 1209 (Sth Cir. 1979).
SMITH v. WADE, supra, note 290.
GILL v. MANUEL, 488 F.2d 799, 801. (gth Cir. 1973).
See AUMITJ.RR v. UNIVERSITY of DRT~WARE, 434 F. Supp. 1273, 1309-13 (D. Del. 1977),
Id.
ELROD v. BU~$, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (1976); DEERFIELD Me~. Ctr. v. CITY of DEER-
FEILD BEACH, 66~ F.2d 328, 338 (Sth Cir. 1981); JOHNSON v. BERGLAND, 586 F.2d 993, 995
(4tn Cir. 1978).
IN TME CO~ON PLEA~.a COURT, FOR THE CO~%~i"f OF
CUMBERLAND, CARLISE, PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON
petitioner
VS.
CO~ONWEALTH OF PENNSELVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al,
Respondents '
NOS. 2202'. C .D. 19851
CIVIL:: 85, 198~
AFFIRMATION/PROOF OF SERVICE
I, JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON, being duly sworn to the charge of perjury, and the penal~,y
thereof; states that he has made service on all interested partiea whose names and
addresses appear below.
Sai~ service was made by "Hand Delivery,' and "First Class Mail".
Glenn J~mffes
Bureau Building
Camp Hill, Pa. ~7011
Robert M. Freeman
Administrative ~! ~.ding
Camp H~il 1, Pa. 1701
Douglas Shaffer
S.C.I.Camp Hill, P~. 170111
David Hoffmen
S.C.I.Camp Hill, Pk. 17011~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE COUNTY
OF CUMBERLAND, CARLISE, PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON
vs. petitioner
COMMONWEALTH OF P~INSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et at,
Respondents '
NOS. 2202 C.D. 1985
CIVIL: 85, 198"f.~
M~TER~ FACTS NOT' IN DISPUTE:
Disciplining inmates for pursning legal remedies to redress alleged abuse of their
rights, either ~ direct deprivation of privileges or ~ denial of potentially
a~ailable privileges, can aimilarly severly discourage them from effectively and
appropriately utilizing ~he. Courta ....... Classification demisions, be i?. for parole
or for work r~lease ~ eorractional s~stem, should no~ be affected by an individuals
%o peti%ion the Court~ fo~ redrass of grirvances.
See: VAUGHN v. TROTTER, 51~6 F. SUPP. 886, 899 (M.D. TENN. (1~980).
MOORE v. H~WARD, 470 F. SUPP. 1079, 1~O80 (E.D..VA.1976).
WHEREFORE, Petitioner r~mpect/klly prays that thia. Court %ake~ no,ice herein.:
grant plaintiff relief im accordance ~o l~w.
AFFIVDAV1T
I, JAMES BOYCE SIN6LETON, swear and affirm %hat all imformation contained herein
ia t~e an~ correct to the beat of my knowledge and belief.
· O~tA PAUPERIS
I, JAMES BOYCE $ ~I~ON, Deelar~ ~t~ I am She movant in She above entitled matter;
~h~t im ~upport o2my mo~ion ~o proceed without being required to prepay fees, costs
oF giv~ ~uri~ therefore, I stat~ ~h~t because of ~ ~rcerty, I am unable to pay
th~ roosts o£ sai~ proceedings or ~o give see~ri~ thereo£; ~hat I am tilted ~o relief.
SWORN ANp SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME T. HISZ~J~0
WARREN E. ULSH, JR., Notary Pub'[ic
Lower Allen Twp., Cumberland County
My Commission Expires November 5, 1990
IN T~',[o COMMOM PLEAS COURT FOR
THE COUNTY OF CU~,~ERL~ND, CARLISE
p~N~,~ SYLVANIA ·
James Boyce Singleton
petitioner
VS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
~ t 0'ustice et al :
Depar~men of
Respondents :
Nos. 2202. C.D. 1985
Civil: 85, 1987
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,~ames Boyce Singleton,being duly sworn to the charge of perjury,
and the penalty thereof; states ths~t he h~s made ~r~-ce o~ ~I~i! intereste~
parties whose names and addresses ap?ears below.
Said service was m~de via "First c!sss ml?~il"
Glenn Jeff es
Bureau Building
Camp Hill,Pa. ~7011
Robert M. Freeman
Administrative Building
Camp Hill,Pa. !7011
Douglas Shaffer
S.C.I. Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
David ~offman
S.C.I. Camp Hill, Pa. 1701~
SWORN TO .AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE
ME THIS ~,,~ ~/~/? DAY OF
.... ..,
.... ~OTARY >UBLiC
LISA GODISH, NOTARY PUSLIC
CRES~ T~HtP' CAMBRIA COUNt,
MY ~MMISSlON ~PIR~ J~N. 14, 1~1P~
~ .... P~titioner
~ ~ ~ ~987
IN THE. COMMON PL~Ao COURT FOR
'~HE COUNTY OF CUI,~ERLAND,CARL-S~
PENN SYLVA2~ IA ·
James Boyce Singleton
(Petitioner)
CiVil: 2202, 1985
Docket nos. 87, !985
VS
Department of Correction
Glenn Jeff es et al
_M~,ON ~0R D~FA~LT JUDGSMENT --
Now comes the plaintiff, in the above named captioned matter,
and hereby respectfully submit the follo~ing:
1. On August !3, 1985 Petitioner filed a v~rit of Mandamus in
the Common~ealt~h Court of Pennsylvania,Dauphin County. Subsequently,
- ts ~recting the record of
that Court issused a notice to the responden ~-
~ -~ later,
the gov~rn~ent~ .... unit be lodged in this mat~e~ More than a year
this Court,(reffering to Co;~7~onwealth Cou~t) s~ua ,sp,ont~ issued s. rule to
~.c~l,..~n should not be dimissed for lack of ~orosecution.
sho~?' cause why the - ~'o _ ~ ~
In response,your petitioner filed a motion for summary Judgement.
2. Answers to the intia! Petition were due October' !3th 1985
3. Respondents have been requested to answer ~-~o .... ons on
numereous occasions. (see docket)
4. On December ~ 1986 .... action vras transfsr~.~ to
~,, ohms .~ this
Honorable Court Jurisdiction.
5. On February 4th 1987 Pteitioner file~ in this court a motion
entitled: ex post Fa~o/h~nc Pro Tunc to dispute any ma. terial facts,the
same ~as not answered.
6. On February !4th 1987,YOU~ petitioner filed/entered a brief im
support of sumptuary Judgement. Knowledge and acquiescence.
7. ~s of date there has been no response from respondents.
, ~ ~ nea~!y two yea~s s~ce ~et~t~one~
8 It is now~ f~./ ~.~na.
filed action in i~land~:,~u~s,and said action still hasn't been challenged,
9. The failure of this Defend~nt to r~spond to t]:0~~', Order of Court
and rules of Procedure, evi~:~ences o studied temtech, pt for,and reckless
this Lawsuit and has caused serious
di~r~.rd of,his responsibilities in
harm to plaintiff, '~'he Zlaintiff has clearly been disadvantaged in the
preparation and developement of his case by the ?~il].ful conduct of the
De fendant ·
Wherefore ,your Honorable Court is respectfully requested to enter
o~ t Judgement in favor of Ptazntmf~ aha a~amns~ Defendants,
a De f~ul '~"~
Glenn Jeff es, Robert M. Free~n, Douglas oh~.~ fer, David ~=oee~n .
Petitioner Pro Se
A,FFI,D,AVIT
ro se,petitioner in the above
~ o ~ ~,.~ all imformation hersin contained,are true
captioned ,matter, ot~t~s
and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
/~I James
Petitioner
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFOR
ME THIS c~)' ~- ) _
~ . ....... DAY OF
OTA~ ~BLlC ~
· NUMBER
Drawer A, Old Route 22
Cresson, PA. 16630-0010
17~'/%
OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY
COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
TELEPHONE:
(717) 787-5584-787-8836
October 20, 1996
:]ames Singleton , K-2973
P. O. Box 200,
Camp Hi I I , Pa. 1701 I
Re:
Singleton v. Glenn 3effes, et al
No. 2202 C. D. 1995
Dear Mr. Singleton:
I am in receipt of your letter of October 12, 1986.
This is to advise you that to date the defendants in the above
captioned matter have not filed an answer to your action in
mandamus. I suggest that you do whatever you deem appropriate
in order to move this matter along. It is up to you to proceed
with the prosecution of your case.
Very truly yours,
C. R. Hostutler
Deputy Prothonotary-Chief Clerk
CRH:wI d
IN THE COURT OF C0i?IIVlON PLEAS FOR
THE COUNTY OF CUI~BERLAND, CARLISE,
PENNSYLVANIA
JA~ES BOYCE SINGLETON
VS.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU
OP CORRECTIONS
GLENN JEFFES ET AL.
DOCKET~ NOS. 2202,1985
CIVIL, 87,1985
A~NDED COIvlPLAINT IvlEMORANDUM OF LAW
Petitioner, JAN~ES BOYCE SINGLETON, c.onferes on this
Honorable Court, who has jurisdiction under state law
governing appelate procedures and any action brought
against any state agency, or sub-division thereto,
This action is being brought pursuant to rule 1035,
1018.1,. and 237.1 Pennsylvania Rules of Court, 1986.
Petitioner now moves to remedy any procedural defects
in previous motion. "I¥IOTION FOR SUM~v'IARY JUDGEN~ENT"
"MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEN[ENT"
Dupree v. Lee, 241 pa. super. 259 a.2d 331 (1976).
"There must be some point at which our Courts must
refuse to accept an attorney's negligent representatio~
of his client when it interferes with orderly adminis-
tration of justice".
A plaintiff is entitled to hold his judgement taken by
default for want of answer, formerly called an "AFFIDA-
VIT OF DEFENSE" only where the plaintiff's complaint is
self-sustaining,~ that is set forth in clear and concise
terms a good cause of action or such averments of fact
as, if not controverted, would entitle the plaintiff to
a verdict for the amount of the claim. Gorson v. Lacka-
wanna county Bd. of Com'rs, 465 a. 2d 703, 77 pa. Cm with.
140, 1983.
IN THE CCURT OF COR2~ON PLEAS
FOR THE COUNTY OF CUMBEqLAND
CARLIS E, P E'(? SYLVAN IA
JAMES BOYCE SINGI. E~ON
p etition er
VS.
P~..~JSYLVANIA BURFAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.
respondents '
NOS. 2202, C.D. 1985
CI~ZIL: 85, 1987
MOTION FOR SUZ~'~RY JUDG~IEqT
Petitioner, JAME~ BOYCE SINGI. ErON, conferes on this Honorable Court, who has the juris-
diction state law governing Appelate Procedures and any action brought against an~ state
agency, or Sub-division thereto:
This action is being brought forth pursuant to rule 1035 Pennsylvania Rules of Court,
1986.
Now cc~nes, JAM~ BOYCE SINGLErON, Plaintiff in the above captioned matter, petitioning
this Honorable Court for Sunmmary Judgement against Respondents" Glenn Jeff es,et al.
1. Petitioner avers that there has been no responsive pleading or preliminary
objections by Respondents'.
A. Responsive pleading shall admit or deny each averment of fact in the proceding
pleading or any part thereof to which it is responsive.
On or about August, 13, 1985, This Honorable Court issued a Rule upon respondents, Rule~8,!
Motion to Defend. In that New Matter, the Court ordered said respondents to forward all
Records, Affidavits and Documents concerning this matter, and respondents failed to c~n-
ply with this order.
Rule 1035 (c) If on motion of this rule, judgement is not rendered upon, the whole
case or for all the relief asked and a trial is nesscessa~f.
The Court at the hearing of the .~notion, by ex,mining the pleadings and the evidence before
it and by interrogating counsel, shall if practical ascertain what material facts exsists
without substantial controversy snd what materis]l are actually in good faith controverted.
It shall ther~pon, make a order specifying the facts that appear without substanaial
controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not
in controversy and directing such further proceedings in the action as are Just upon the
trial of the action, the facts so specified shall be deemed established. And the trial shall
be conducted accordingly... Adopted April 18th, 1966, effective ~y 9th 1966. Amended
and effective April 18~h, 1975. October 16th 1981.
Rule: 1037 (c) In all cases, the Court on a motion of a party may enter an appropriate
judgement against a party upon Default of Admission. Adopted June 25th, 1946. Effective
January 1st, 1947, amended January 23rd, 1975, effective July 1st, 1975, December 16th,
1985 effective July 1st, 1984.
In conclusion , petitioner prays that this Honorable Court grant said relief against
respondent"s and for plaintiff.
Respectfully Submitted,
AFFIVDAVIT
I, JAI~ES BOYCE SINGLETON, swear and affirm that all
imformatton contained herein is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief
FOR~A PAUPERIS
I, JAS~S BOYCE SINGLETON, Declare that I am the movant
in the above entitled matter; that in support of my
motion to proceed without being required to prepay fees,
costs or give security therefore, I state that because
of my poverty, I am unable to pay the costs of said pro-
ceedings or to give security thereof'; that I am titled
to relief.
A~ES BOYCISINGLETON
RICHARD SHANDOR, Notery Public
Cresson, Cembrle County. Pa
~ CemmI~on ~;r~s ~¥ 27, 1991.
JuL
IN THE C0l~1i'~i0N PLEAS COURT, FOR
THE COUNTY OF CUI~[BERLAND, CARLISE,
PENNSYLVANIA
JA~ES BOYCE SINGLETON
petitioner
VS,
COi"'Ii~ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTlvIENT OF JUSTICE et al,
respon:dents '
NOS. 2202 C.D. 1985
CIVIL, 85, 1987
AFFIRI~ATION/PR00F OF SERVICE
I, JAI'~S BOYCE SINGLETON, being duly sworn to the charge
of perjury, and the penalty thereof; states that he has
made service on all interested parties whose names and
addresses appear below.
Said service was made by "Hand Delivery" and "First Class
Nail"
Glen Jeffes
Bureau Building
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
Robert i','l. Freeman
Administrative Building
Camp Hill, Pa. 1701~
Douglas Shaffer
S.C.I.Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
David H'offman
S.C.I.Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
Robert Greevy Exit,
Attorney for Defendants
16th Floor
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, Pa. 17108
IN THE CCURT OF CO~'.1OI'.] PLEAS
FOR THE C(.~JNTY OF CUMB,~tLAND,
CARI.ISE, P ~'.~ ,'SYLVANIA
J AI";~ BOYC E oI,,lGI.
petitioner
VS.
F}~]~SYI VA[fIA BURF~IU OF
CORI{~'~TIONS, et al.
respondents
At'.ID NOW, this day of
: NOS. 2202, C.D. 1985
CIVIl.: 85, 1987
RULE
,1987; ~oon petition filed by the plaintiff and
motion of JAMES BOYCE SINGLETOn, pro se, A rule is hereby granted upon the attorney
Robert Greevy Exit., attorney for the defendants~, to show cause why an order should
not be entered granting the within motion for leave of Court to file an amended c~n-
plaint·
Rule returnable the day of ,1987, at , in the main courtrocm, Cum-
berland County CourtHouse, Carlise, Pennsylvania, at which time a hearing should be
held to determine merits and issues raised in above stated action·
in the form of damages of $100,000, this Court lacks jurisdiction,
42 Pa. C.S. S761(a) (1) (v). See BalS'h¥ v. Rank, 507 Pa. 384, 490
A.2d 415 (1985); Fawber v. Cohen, 91 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 55.9, 497
A.2d 697 (1985). Accordingly; we enter the following
ORDER
NOW, December 8, 1986, this action is
transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
The Chief Clerk shall certify to the prothonotary of
said court a photocopy of the docket entries and transmit to him the
record thereof.
hereby
From the desk of
GARY L. HOLLINGER
Court Administrator
Subject
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE
CR_ESSON CENTER
Cresson, Pennsylvania 16630
TELEPHONE NUMBER
AREA CODE 814-886-8111
NUMBER ~--
Drawer A, Old Route 22
Cresson, PA. 16630-0010
Drawer A, Old Route 22
Cresson, PA. 16630-0010
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 85 CIVIL 1987
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, October 9, 1987, the defendants' rule to show
cause on the defendants' preliminary objections is dismissed.
The defendant is ordered to list the determination of the
preliminary objections for argument.
Daniel L. Horwitz, Esquire
For the Bureau of Corrections
By the Court,
H rold E. Shee±y, p.j.
:pbf
OOT 2.,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
85 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
ORDER
NOW, this day of , 1987, a Rule to Show Cause why
Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint in the above-captioned matter
should not be sustained is hereby issued upon and against the Plaintiff. Said Rule shall
be returned on or before , 1987. In responding to said Rule, Plaintiff
shall serve a copy thereof on Defendants and shall so certify in the response.
Upon failure of Plaintiff to respond to said Rule on or before ,
1987, Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be sustained and
the above-captioned civil action dismissed with prejudice.
James Boyce Singleton
David L. Horwitz, Esq.
Harold E. Sheely, P.J.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 3UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
Vo
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
85 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Defendants, by and through their attorney, David L. Horwitz, Assistant Counsel,
Department of Corrections, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represent as follows:
The Honorable Harold E. Sheely, President 3udge, has previously ruled upon another
issue in the above-captioned matter, having granted, by Order entered August 31,
1987, Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint from an action of mandamus to a
civil action.
On September 8, 1987, by registered mail, Defendants served Plaintiff with their
Preliminary Objections to the complaint in the above-captioned matter. A Notice
to Plead, as required by Pa.R.C.P. No. 1026 and in the form set forth in Pa.R.C.P.
No. 1361, was attached to the front of said Preliminary Objections. Proof
of service, being a true and correct copy of United States Postal Service Form
3811 "Domestic Return Receipt", is appended hereto and marked as Exhibit "A".
Twenty or more days have passed since Plaintiff was served with Defendants'
Preliminary Objections.
Plaintiff has not filed an answer to Defendants' Preliminary Objections within~ or
since the expiration of, the twenty day period for filing responsive pleadings
required by Pa.R.C.P. No. 1026.
Plaintiff has neither sought nor received from Defendants an agreement for an
extension of time for the filing of his answer to Defendants' Preliminary Objections.
o
Plaintiff is therefore in default for failing to take action as required under
Pa.R.C.P. No. 1026.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that this Honorable Court issue a Rule to Show
Cause why Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint should not be
sustained.
Respectfully submitted,
David L. Horwitz
Attorney for Defendants
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
I, July 1~., DOIIITIC RETURN!
EXHIBIT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 2UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
Civil 1957
Civil Action - Law
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David L. Horwitz, Assistant Counsel, Department of Corrections, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, hereby certify that service of true and correct copies of the within
Petition for Issuance of Rule to Show Cause and proposed Order was made upon Plaintiff
at the below-listed address by depositing same in the United States Mail, registered
and prepaid, on this ] s' day of October, 1987:
3ames Boyce Singleton
Inmate K-2973
State Correctional Institution at Cresson
Drawer A
Cresson, Pennsylvania 16630-0010
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
OF THE ;,i,;3 r:~3N'..:'T,~RY'
CUMBER-;. ::NL~ ,30UNTY
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 85 CIVIL 1987
IN RE: ARGUMENT CONTINUED
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, December 8, 1987, the above case appearing on
the Argument List for December 9, 1987, is continued by agreement
of counsel. The Prothonotary is directed to relist the case for
the January 13, 1988 Argument Court.
By the Court,
James Boyce Singleton
For the Plaintiff
David L. Horwitz, Esquire
For the Defendant
: pbf
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOR THE
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON
(PLAINTIFF)
- V-
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, ET.AL.
(DEFENDANTS)
9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
: CUMBERLAND COL~TY BRANCH
:
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
: CIVIL COURT DIVISION NO.
:
: 2202 OF 1985
:
:
:
:
· CIVIL ACTION - ASSUMPSIT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James Boyce Singleton, do hereby certify that, on this date, I am
serving a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to file
an Amended Complaint upon the person and in the manner as indicated below,
which service satisfies the requirements of Rule 440 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure.
SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS:
ROBERT A. GREEVY, ESOUIRE
16TH FLOOR
STRAWBERRY SQUARE
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
17108
OLD ROUTE 22
CRESSON, PENNA.
16630-0010
DATED: ~, 19~_~
Couni j~ Court ho been directed to
· hem* he ~.ppeal'of't state prison
damall~s ~or alleged'civil right~
· C°mmotiWealtli Court
Slgned'~ .the'matter to the county
couCh.niter Ill'ding 'the appeal of
Jnmei~BoYce Singleton, an Inmate
at the State Correctional Institu-
tion at Camp Hill, fi~ll~ within the
county's Jurisdiction, ·
$1t~gleton Originally flied
writ O! mandnmul with the state
cou~tl_n t985 requ~sting damages
from Ibc.state D~p~tment of Cor-
rectio~..~ and tl~ree officials of ~.he
LowerAllen T~P. il~son.
Officlais itst~ In the action are-.-
Superintendent Robert M. Free.
man,:~and counselors Douglas'
Shaff~' and David Hoffmnn.
Singleton was serving a 4- to
10-ye~ sentence for delivering
controlled substance at t~e time he
lodged the complaint. '
H~ now Is being held In the
prison pending a decision on
parole violation he allegedly corn.
mltted' last August after four
months of freedom, prison offi-
cials said yesterday.
In his writ, which he composed
himself, Singleton charges that
prison, officials violated the law by
impostng different punishments on
inmates who committed identical
offenses.
lie claims pri.~oners have been
denied their constitutional right to
equal protection under the law and
the right to due process "at all lev-
els of disciplinary proceedings."
The Inmate asks the court to
order the Department of Correc.
ttons', to .ensure pri.~on officials
'comply with state and federnl stat-
utes governing civil rights ,of prl~-
For himself, Singleto~ seeks
damages totaling $100,000 nnd
reinstatement of the statu.~ ~nd
iob he held prior to the disciplinary
action.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOR THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND,
CARLIS E, PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON
VS
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS,GLENN JEFFES
et al.
I~OS. 2202,C.D. 1985
CIVIL ACTION: ASSUMPTSIT
NOTICE TO PLEAD
Rule: 1361.
To: ROBERT A. GREEVY, EXIT
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed action in
Assumptsit within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgement may be
entered against you.
~mes Boyce Sin~eton (~tit~ne
~rawer A, Old RSute 22
'Cresson, Pa. 16630-0010
IN THE COURT OF CO~40N PLEAS
FOR TttE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CARLI SE, PENNSYLVANIA.
J~4ES BOYCE SINGLETON
VS.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS,GLENN JEFFES,
et al.
NOS. 2202,1985.
CIVIL ACTION: ASSUMP$IT
MOTION TO AMEND
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO
ASSUMPSIT'
AND NOW comes, your petitioner, JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON, pro se, confering upon
this honorable court, requesting permission for leave to amend original com-
plaint (Mandamus) to Assumpsit.
This court has jurisdiction under rule: 1033,1034,1035(f) and 1528 of the Penn-
sylvania Rules of Court,1987.
Petitioner respectfully presents the following in support of the above entitled
motion.
(1). That the plaintiff, JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,h~rein referred to as your petit-
ioner, appears as pro se counsel of record in this matter.
(2). Your petitioner commenced this action August 6th,1985. by filing a complaint
in Mandamus against various state officials.
(3). Petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsyl-
vania, Dauphin County. Said writ was received ~n August 23th, 1985. Subsequently,
that court issued a notice to the respondents' directing the record of that Gov-
ernmental Unit be lodged in this matter. More than a year later, this court s~a
sponte issued a rule to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for
lack of prosecution. In response, your petitioner filed a motion for summary jud-
gement.
(4). Answers to the initial complaint were due October 13th, 1985.
(5). Respondents' have been requested to answer allegations on numerous occassions.
(see docket).
(6). On December 8th, 1986. this action was transfered to this Honorable Courts'
jurisdiction.
(7). On February 4th, 1987, petitioner filed in this court a motion entilted:
Ex Post Facto/Nunc Pro Tunc. To dispute any material facts. The same was not ans-
wered.
(8). On February 14th, 1987, your petitioner entered a brief in support of summ-
ary judgement, acknowledge and acquiescence.
(9). As of date there has been no response from defendants.
(10). It is now ~ and nearly tw~ (2) years since petitioner filed
mandamus action, and said action still hasn't been challenged.
(11). In light of this order, your petitioner seeks to cure a substantial amount of
defects by changing the form of action from a complaint in mandamus to a complaint
in assumpsit. (Rule 1033 of the Pa. R.C.P.).
(12). Since filing of the original complaint, your petitioner has been subjected to
additional hardships as a result of the underlying deprivation that gave rise to this
action.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner respectfully moves this Honorable Court for leave to file
an Amended Complaint, in the intrests of ~ustice, and for this he shall ever pray.
Respectfully Submitted,
Drawer A,
Old Route 22
Cresson ,Pennsylvania 16630-0010
,1987.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)ss.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )
I, JAS~S BOYCE SINGLETON, First being duly sworn according to law, desposes and
says that I am the plaintiff in the within matter and I make this Affidavit in supp-
ort of my motion for leave to file a amended complaint.
I further asservate under the penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief, the foregoing is true and correct to the matters I believe
to be true.
~= - - /clarant /
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Republic within and for
said county and state, personally appeared JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON, and
acknowledge the execution of the foregoing Affidavit.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOR THE COUNTY OF CU~ERLAI~,
CARLISE,PENNSYLVANIA-
J~4ES BOYCE SINGLETON
Plaintiff
VS.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS,GLENN JEFFES,
et al. Respondents'
NOS. 2202,1985.
CIVIL ACTION: ASSUMPSIT
COMPLAINT - ASSUMPSIT
This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Rule: 1033,1034,1035(f).
and 1528 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Court,1987.
(1). The petitioner is a jailed person who now and in the past have been incarcerated
at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill,Pennsylvania. Located in the town-
ship of Lower Allen,County of Cumberland.
(2). The respondents', The Bureau of Corrections, is a cabinet level ~partment, aut-
torized by law to promulgate standards regarding Health,Safety, and Welfare of prison
environments 61 P.S. 460,3. U.S. Civil Rights Act of Institutionalized Persons, 42 U.S.C.
1997.
Said respondents' are governed and controlled by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
Leroy S. Zimmerman,Esq., who is an elected public official and acting as such under
color of law.
(3). Respondent, Robert M. Freeman, is the Superintendent of the State Correctional In-
stitution at Camp Hill, an~. as such has been directed and appointed to govern all Inm-
ates according to law. Said Superintendent in his official capacity, is acting and
failing to act under color of law.
4.,Respondent,~Douglas Shaffer, is a Counselo~ at the State Correctional Institution
at Ca~p Hill, and as such has been directed and appointed to govern Ail Inmate~ acc-
· -°rding to law. Said Counselor in his official capacity is acting and fatltn~ to act
;-~under,color of law. '~ '
" '~5.' Respondent, David Hoffman, is also a Counselor at the State Correctional !nstitut- ..
:'!'",) t :C~mp Hill, and as such has been directed and appointed to govern all inmates accO- rding to~law. Said Counselor in his official capacity is acting and failtn~ to act under
'oolor of law.
.6. Onor about l~y 23, 1980 Tho Unt. ted States of America by the Senate and House of Re-
';presentatives enacted an act that is cited es [he Civil Rights of Institutionalized Ps-...."
rson Act 42 U.S.C. 1997. said in part:
(a.)-"t~enever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any S~a%e or Po-
iitt~al Subdiv~.~ion of a State, official or agent t.hereof~ or other .... is subjecting ps-;-
'. rsons, residtJag or confined to an institution ~s defined, in section (2) t~ egregious, or:.x.,
'-' flagrant ~ondit~ons which deprive such persons of any rights, ~rivileges, or immunities,
secured or pro~ected by the constitution or laws of the United Sta%es causing such per-
· ~S~:I~' . ' or
sons to suffe~ grievious harm, and that such deprivation is pursuant to pattern pra-
ctices of resistance to the full'enJo7~ent of.~such rights, privileges, or inmunities,.
the At%orney'~neral for i~th~ name of .%h~: United States may insti*.ute a Civil A~tion":.
7. Furthermore,,the. afforem~n%ioned act provides for attorney fees for the prev~ilin~
par~ and prohibits retaliattoa'agatnst persons reporting conditions that may be a.. vio~'
lationunder this act .... '
: ":. ~ '. ,'' '~' : ~. ,-: ,~ ."-.
statuto requir.-. ' ?he epar e-t of ustic* by and throu U. t',
agent the Bureau'of Corrections........z...'"-Pr°~ulgated~' standars for Health~ Safety, and Welfare
' -.- ' Bulletin'
for all imprisoned persmas Said standards were published, in the Pennsylvania
. .- ~ - - ~.~ . . -.. , . -~ ','. : ./
'Sai s'tsndarda p[rovide in- rt:
SeCtion '95.2/.0 .... .. ......... .. ..... Di~cipllne and P~i~ontl
"In a ii'il ~ving an avenge daily i~ate population of more than ten, the a~inis'
~t~nshall appoint a b~ c~sisting of a minim~ of three persons to hear ~ ~is-.
pose of disetpl~a~ cases".
(A) 95.2 0
".The obJeo~i~e of Jail discipline are as follows:
(iii) To pro,de personel ~th ~ideltnes for Judging the behavior of prisoners. (tv)
T~ ~eve fai~ess in th~ a~ni~ion of di~.
~e a~ve-mentione~ s~nda~s have ~en and continues to be arbi[rarily viola~e~ there.:
effective~ causing excessive a~inist~ive discrection, whimsical decision'and .tn Just-'~,
ices to the ~titio~e~: " - .... ~:'
9. ~spond~t, Douglas ~affer, acting in a captious natu~ with lit[le or no ~ga~:~:~.. .
the ~11 ~ing of his charge, invoking ~ch discr~inato~ practices, ~isplaying a di~
ct ~htbit of bigot~, in direct violation of The Civil Rights of Imprtsone~ Persons,. ~.:~.-.
Liability ~der ~98~ is predicated on personal involvemen~ in the alleged consgitu['ional
;
violati~s and respondents' D~glas Shaffer, ~vtd Herman, and Robert M. Free,n, ~s
and at all times revelant~ ~d forehand ~ledge of incident and conspired to bring
perso~l. ~ie~ce to plaintiff ~ purposely evading issuaes.
~.:' ~sp°nden~ Ro~ M, Free~," i~ and at all t~es revelant, Superintendent of'the :
t~ ' '' ':"' Insti~uti~ at C~p Hill, and is perso~lly involved ~ condoning
S~ C.~rrec~ional ·
aet:io~of eo~ec~ional~'"officers, ~th~t revising l~ revelant facts, denying .pe~iti~(/
~'"~'~ ' ' "8~d ~ ~ A~ ~1 secti~ 7. page 10. ., .... ~"
~herefore¢ e~u~in~ t~e~ 1e an~ish ah~ ~ief to plaintiff and family me~r~'.~ . ~..
"~ ~."Petiti'oner"~8' ~alrea~: been disciplined ~ hearing ex, inet for misconduct: as~ulS~]~.
- fighting,.' ~i~h'.rec~end~ s~ctions: ' Class ~, ~0 dsys cell restrictions
cell-except for meals, showers, ~ ~cerctse, church, and co, tsar) rem~e fr~ X .bl~k
,' "Kt!'-bl0ok'b~ing designated a honor block At that point Douglas Shaffer was no longer
,~... ,petitioner's counselor. (Douglas Shaffer is "[" blocks counselor onlyl) '.~..;,
... . ~f ~ . .-..
,. Res~ondent~".Douglas Shaffer~ intentionally, knowingly, and willfully initiated a err-.'. :...
..... ~. oneous~repor[, because of personal feelings having no bearing on iss~les raise~,with ......':~..
~'~' malicious intent, displaying immaturity as a correction~.]- counselor.
" : " misconduct #1 ,nd ....
A. Many inmates in the past have had 4-R status ~nd was a~forded
~ ·have been punished by hearing examiner, which resolved in restrictions as did ~laintiff.
" ~ and ¢ontinue~ on their ~-~ status~ without incident or involvement of counselor., e~ the.
~ ',:' hearing examiner~s decision is conclusiv$. ,,.?...
-B. Irmates recieve different, and seperate punishment for the s~me offenses
.' ii:
r
"~'' C. The objective of Jail discipline are as follows:
~ To provide personel with guidelines for Ju~g~ng. the behavior of prisoners. To ach~
n ~
."'" .~eve fairness in the administration O~ disci~li e ·
. ~o Im~ttes here been given an "In, to Handbook" ~hich contains the rules of the prison.
Ihe ad~inistration reeoni~es theee rules and ~idelinos ~ ~hen they can be used for ..
· ~'iSsuing lamislmento . ..'":'
.-~'E. Due .prosess at all levels of the disciplinary proceedings are denied because,, of the
· .prison's failure to adop%':tbe administrative agency law. 2 Pa. C.S. 501-508.as req~t:~d
~ ,by law.- .
F,: The aforem~n%i~i~l~ vi°lati°nsbave exsisted in .the past. and continue to exsist not
withstanding a~tempts by petitioner to effectuate changes through administrative reme-
diesi;~.The petitioner has filed requests which the administration refused to 8ns~r ghr-
OUgh ~ub~erfug~. ':~" _ . .
'..'o', .ti iener' as the tight'to r.e of in idiousdi.cr in tionunde th. Equal
et c i use of.the. Fourteenth ~m-ndmeh%; Lee v. Washington. 390 U.S.'
·
·
All of these retained rights are enforceable by an action brought against ~pproprtate.':,,.. ~.,-~'"?:. '.
parties under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 12 U.S.C. 1983. '.:~.':::.j?.~:f.
H. In order g.o'.'be, liable for d~mages ~der 1983, respondents must have directly par-.''.--
ticipated in the actionable ~ongdoin~. Haldem-~ v, Pe~hursg,. . ~6 ~. Supp.':12~5
~, ~versed and ~manded in par~, 6~2 F. 2d 8~ (~d Cir. ~979). - ·
I. ~erefo~, your pegi[ioner reques~ thai Ibis Honorable Cour~ force ~he B~eau
~orr~e~on~ ~o ~,k~ ~n7 ,n~ ~11 ~pproprt~[* ~[~P~ ~v~[labl~ ~o ~nfore~
J. ~erefore', y~r petitioner. ,. respect~l~.reques~. . that this c~plaint in..ASS~!T
-considered as notice ~o" ghe Attorney General of reasonable cause to invoke the
[. ~r~for,~ 7o~.Po~t~°n~r'~e~p~eg~ll7 ~qu~g ~hls ~onor~bl~ Oo, ir[.
~
--' on any and all allega~ions~ [ate~ herein.
¢?" L. ~ ': petitioner"
erefore," 70u? respectfully requeststhis Honorable .
~'.cO~sel to-~presen~ the pe[iti~er in the above cap[ioned ma~[er.
M.':' '"*~erefo~, your petitioner re.s~ct~ily .~equest this Honorable C~rt to ~ive:-.filing'¥
fees if any, in regards. ~o the above captione~ ~tter. _ ...
~.:Because of :~[he foregoing, ~e[itioner has no' adeq~[e remedy a[.,law and i~ s~feriPg,
'and wiil continue to ~r~r', ~re~t, aha irre~ble loss, damage, and inju~ .therefore,%
. _. .: . .-. :..'.
-' ' "U '*i ' }":
'c~elled to seek equitable relief in thin C~. .. -~'~',
·
;~ ,. O.~/"~erefO~, 'Petitioner demand" ement~ . . . .: .. ..
. . .... ' . . .~' . . ,... · . ~ Y"~ ffi.
"'.' 'l'?,Replace 4-R classiftc~[~on and.lob.
.... . · . ~.. j .~
· . 'S.C~. 994 (1968). And finally, they retain s~me right to due process before, being
· '.'deprived of life, liberty, or property. ~'~--He~-~-P-a -U.S. , 103 S. Ct 86~ .!1.983)
i2)'..Award petitioner the reasonable cost and exspenses of this action.
(3). Award petitioner damages in the amount of 50,000,00. (Fifty Thousand Dollars).
(4). Award petitioner punitive damages in the amount of 50,000,00. (Fifty Thousand
Dollars).
(5). Grant such other and further relief as may be just.
WHEREFORE, yo~petitioner that all mailings concerning the above captioned matter
matter be addressed to: James Boyce Singleton, K 2973, Drawer A, Old Route 22, Cress-
on ,Pennsylvania. 16630-0010
AFFI~IT
I, JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON, hereby state that the information contained herein this
motion in ASSUMPSIT is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and
does state this under penalty provided by law.
james B'oyce~ing~n, ~rtioner
Sworn and Subscribed before me this
DOROTH~f"R. D~(NtEL, Not~ry Public
Cresmm, ~.p~wia County, Pa.
Mil Commission Expires May 13, 1991
day
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
~5 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
PRAECIPE POR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1012(a), David L. Horwitz, Assistant Counsel, Department
of Corrections, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, respectfully seeks leave of this Honorable
Court to enter his appearance as attorney for Defendants in the above-captioned civil
action.
Dated: September ~/ , 1987
David L. Horwitz
A.O.P.C. No. #7226
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 3UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: :3ames Boyce Singleton
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed preliminary
objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered
against you.
Dated: September ~, 1987
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P. O. Box .598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 3UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
Vo
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David L. Horwitz, Assistant Counsel, Department of Corrections, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, hereby certify that service of true and correct copies of the within
Praecipe for Entry of Appearance, Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's
Complaint, Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to
Plaintiff's Complaint and proposed Order was made upon Plaintiff at the below-listed
address by depositing same in the United States Mail, registered and prepaid, on this
~//-W .day of September, 1987:
3ames Boyce Singleton
Inmate K-2973
State Correctional Institution at Cresson
Drawer A
Cresson, Pennsylvania 16630-0010
~avid L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Commissioner
David S. Owens, 3r.
LSEP 8
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
P.O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
(717) 975-4860
Deputy Commissioner
Administration
LEE T. BERNARD II
Deputy Commissioner
Correctional Services
LOWELL D. HEWITT
lg87
Deputy Commissioner
Programs
ERSKIND DERAMUS
September #, 1987
Mr. Lawrence E. Welker
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County Courthouse
Hanover and High Streets
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
RE: 3ames Boyce Singleton v. Pennsylvania
B_ureau of Corrections, et al,
75 Civil 1987
Dear Mr. Welker:
Please find enclosed herewith for filing of record with
the above-captioned Civil Action at Law the following:
1. Praecipe for Entry of Appearance; and
2. Proposed Order to dismiss the Complaint; and
3. Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint; and
#. Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants, Preliminary Objections
Plaintiff's Complaint; and
the Court pertaining to
to
5. Certificate of Service
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
DLH:bs
Enclosures
Very truly yours,
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
(717) 975-#86#
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 3UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
Vo
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al,
Defendants
Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
ORDER
NOW, this__ day of , 1987, upon consideration of Defendants'
Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, it is ORDERED that the Complaint be
Dismissed with Prejudice.
Harold E. Sheely, P.3.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 3UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V,
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OB3ECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Defendants, by and through their attorney, David L. Horwitz, Assistant Counsel,
Department of Corrections, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1017(b)(2,#) hereby enter their Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint in the
above-captioned matter as follows:
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff Singleton appears to be alleging deprivation of due process and
equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal
constitution caused by the imposition of a sanction, to wit: a reduction in status or
program level classification, pursuant to a determination by an intra-prison hearing
examiner that Plaintiff Singleton had committed an infraction of the disciplinary rules
at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. The gist of Plaintiff's complaint is
that the loss of his "honor block" status at the #-R program level classification was
an excessive punishment improperly imposed upon him.
2. In support of his claim against the Defendant "Bureau of Corrections", Plaintiff
alleges that inmates in general are denied due process during intra-prison disciplinary
proceedings by reason of Defendant "Bureau of Corrections'" failure to adopt the
Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§ 501-~0g (Plaintiff's Averment 9.E.). Plaintiff
fails to allege any facts at all regarding the actual conduct of the intra-prison disciplinary
proceedings he was subjected to, let alone facts which would give rise to an inference
that said proceeding was conducted in a manner violative of Plaintiff's due process rights.
3. Plaintiff alleges (Plaintiff's Averment 9.F.) that unnamed persons constituting
the "administration" have responded with "subterfuge" to some supposed requests for
administrative remedy regarding the general matters referred to in his Complaint
(Plaintiff's Averments 9.A., 9.B.~ 9.C., 9.D., 9.E.). Plaintiff fails to allege with specificity
and particularity the identity and individual acts of such persons. Plaintiff also fails
to allege with specificity or particularity the existence, identity, nature and substance
of any such request or any facts regarding the response to and disposition of any such
request from which an inference of due process violation can be drawn.
#. Plaintiff alleges that the "administration" inconsistently enforces prison rules
contained in an "Inmate Handbook" (Plaintiff's Averment 9.D.). Plaintiff fails to allege
with specificity and particularity which, if any, rules contained in said "Inmate Handbook"
created in Plaintiff procedural or substantive rights. Plaintiff further fails to allege
with specificity and particularity any facts establishing the identity of persons and the
acts committed by them with respect to this allegation from which an inference of a
violation of Plaintiff's due process rights can be drawn.
§. Plaintiff alleges that, generally, different inmates receive different
punishments for similar offenses (Plaintiff's Averment 9.B.). Plaintiff fails to allege
any facts from which it may be inferred that the reduction in status accorded to
Plaintiff was arbitrary, capricious, unrelated to a legitimate penological objective, or
imposed in a manner inconsistent with or contrary to law.
-2-
6. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Superintendent Robert M. Freeman acted in
conspiracy with Defendants Douglas Shaffer and David Hoffman to "bring personal
grievance to plaintiff by purposely evading issues" (Plaintiff's Averment 9). Plaintiff
alleges no facts of joint conduct between the aforesaid Defendants. Plaintiff alleges
no facts as to what constitutes the conduct he denominates as "evading issues" or facts
from which a violation of Plaintiff's civil rights by reason of "evading issues" may be
inferred.
7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Superintendent Robert M. Freeman
individually violated Plaintiff's due process rights by denying an appeal raised by the
Plaintiff. Plaintiff fails to allege that he did all acts necessary to preserve his right
to appeal. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts from which it may be inferred that the
denial of his appeal was arbitrary, capricious, unrelated to a legitimate penological
objective, or done in a manner inconsistent with or contrary to law.
8. Plaintiff fails to allege facts with respect to conduct on the part of Defendant
Douglas Shaffer from which it may be inferred that any civil right of Plaintiff was
violated by the aforesaid Defendant.
9. Plaintiff has alleged no facts whatsoever with respect to the conduct of
Defendant David Hoffman.
10. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts from which it may be inferred that the
Defendants, jointly or severally, directly or indirectly caused Plaintiff to suffer any
legally cognizable injury.
11. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts which establish that he has, in fact,
suffered any legally cognizable injury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action against the named
Defendants, jointly or severally, and, therefore, said Defendants move this Honorable
Court to dismiss Plaintiff's civil action in the above-captioned matter with prejudice.
-3-
IN THE NATURE OF DEMURRER
12. The paragraphs numbered one through eleven hereinabove are incorporated
by reference herein as though set forth at length hereat.
13. Plaintiff has alleged that the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act,
#2 U.S.C. § 1977, confers upon him substantive rights which he may enforce by this
private civil action (Plaintiff's Averments 2, 6, 7, 9). Plaintiff's reliance on said Act
is misplaced. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act authorizes the Attorney
General of the United States to initiate suit or intervene in an ongoing civil action
brought before a Federal court. Said Act creates no substantive rights which may be
enforced in a civil action brought before this Honorable Court of Common Pleas.
Further, said Act neither mandates nor authorizes the promulgation of regulations by
Defendants to ensure the health, safety or welfare of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's citation to
this statute is irrelevant and immaterial.
14. Plaintiff has alleged that Pennsylvania Statute 61 P.S. 460.3 creates specific
substantive rights of which he has been deprived by the Defendants (Plaintiff's Averments
2 and 8). Said statute pertains only to the regulation of state regional correctional
facilities, entities which are separate and distinct in nature and operation from that
of state correctional institutions. Plaintiff has averred that the events which form the
basis for his complaint were products of his incarceration at a state correctional
institution, specifically Camp Hill. Plaintiff's citation to this statute is, therefore,
irrelevant and immaterial.
15. Plaintiff alleges that 37 Pa. Code § 95.240 creates specific procedural
guarantees or substantive rights of which he has been deprived by Defendants (Plaintiff's
Averment 8). Said section of the Pennsylvania Code pertains solely and exclusively to
regulations governing discipline and punishment at county correctional facilities, entities
separate and distinct in nature and operation from state correctional institutions.
Plaintiff's citation to this regulation is irrelevant and immaterial.
16. Plaintiff has not pled the existence of any statute of the United States or
this Commonwealth, or any regulation of the Defendants which creates either a liberty
or property interest in an "honor block" status of a "#-R" program level classification.
17. This Honorable Court may take judicial notice that 37 Pa. Code
§ 93.10(a)(l)(iv), which governs inmate discipline in state correctional institutions,
specifically provides for reduction in program level i.e. status as a proper sanction
within a discretionary range of authorized sanctions imposed for infraction of a Class
I Misconduct.
18. Plaintiff alleges that "BC-ADM 801" (attached hereto as Exhibit "A") at
Section VII provides for a right of appeal. The BC-ADM 801 policy establishes conditions
precedent for the taking of an appeal from misconduct proceedings, but does not provide,
in any section thereof, that the mere taking of an appeal shall be resolved in favor of
the inmate appellant.
WHEREFORE, even if such well=pleaded facts, if any, are taken as true, Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and Defendants move this
Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiff's civil action in the above-captioned matter with
prejudice.
SCANDALOUS AND IMPERTINANT ALLEGATIONS
19. Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant Douglas Shaffer (Plaintiff's Averment
9, first and fifth unnumbered paragraphs) charge said Defendant with acts that have
no bearing upon any issue related to Plaintiff's claim while unnecessarily and cruelly
attacking this Defendant's moral character in a manner offensive to the dignity of this
Honorable Court.
-5-
WHEREFORE, Defendant Douglas Shaffer moves this Honorable Court to strike
scandalous and impertinent pleadings made by Plaintiff in the first and fifth unnumbered
paragraphs contained in the averment numbered as nine (9) in Plaintiff's Complaint in
the above-captioned matter.
Dated: September ~/ , 1987
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
-6-
f~~C-AI~M 30] Administrative Directive
Subject:
INMATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
BUREAU OF CORRECTION
L SCOPE AND PURPOSE:
Institutional life shah be governed by standardsiof behavior designed to promote
correctional objectives and to maintain the general welfare of the institutional
community. The lawk of this Commonwealth, the rules and regulations of the
Bureau of Correction and of the institution are part of the standards of behavior
governing each institution.
Discipline for behavior which deviates from such standards shall be handled by
staff in the manner prescribed by this directive. Such behavior shall be evaluated
within the context of the correctional plan of the individuals, the effect of
such behavior on others and its consequences for the good order of the entire
institution.
Dlfl~iNrrloNS
For the purpose of this directive, the following definitions shall apply:
A. Administrative Custody - A housing status which provides closer supervision,
control and protection than is generally provided in general population
status, for non-disciplinary reasons.
Disciplinary Custody - A housing status, to which inmates found guilty of
Class I Misconducts may be committed.
C. Hearing Committee
A panel composed of three (3) members, consisting of:
(a) A Major or Captain of the Guard
(b) A Casework Supervisor
(e) A School or Vocational Supervisor
(In the case of the Vocational Supervisor he must be a non-uniformed
Supervisor .)
The Superintendent of an institution which does not employ at least three
persons for any of the three categories of members, may designate
management level staff members from the same phase of institution operation
to serve. .
These members shall be selected from a pool of nine persons (except
the State Correctional Institution at Graterford which shall have twelve)
designated by the Superintendent.
No member of a Hearing Committee panel shall have a direct supervisory
role over any other panel member. Hearing Committee members who
are closely related shall not serve on the same panel.
EXHIBIT "A"
BC-&DM 801
De
4. No staff member who wrote or approved the misconduct charge(s) or
conducted the investigation into the charge(s) shall serve on the Hearing
Committee panel which hears that miseonduet,
5. There shall be only one (1) uniformed person on any hearing panel.
6. Only top-level management persons shall be chosen to sit on a Hearing
Committee panel.
Hearing Committee Coordinator '~
The Hearing Committee Coordinator shall be a Casework Supervisor. The
duties of the Hearing Committee Coordinator shall include, but not be
limited to:
1. Scheduling of hearings,
2. Determination of relevancy of witnesses and availability at the hearing,
3. Extent of direct or cross-examination of any witnesses,
4. The reading and explanation of the charges to the charged inmate,
5. Announcing the decision and rationale of the Hearing Committee,
6. All other functions previously reserved to the Chairman of the Hearing
Committee.
E. Hearing Examiner - An employee of the Bureau of Correction Central Office
who assumes all of the functions of the Hearing Committee as described in
this directive and other related duties.
F. In Camera - A hearing is held in camera when the hearing committee or
examiner hears testimony or reviews evidence or documentation without the
presence of the charged inmate.
G. Misconduct - Any behavior prohibited by Bureau of Correction institution
regulations, rules or policy. The term is also used' to identify individual
items listed as prohibited activities in §Ill.
H. Misconduct Charge - Listed in Section III of this directive.
I. Misconduct Report - BC-141, Part I.
J. Program Review Committee - An panel of three members consisting of: 1.
The Deputy Superintendent for Operations, 2. The Deputy Superintendent
for Treatment Services, and 3. A Classification and Treatment Manager.
The Superintendent may designate appropriate substitutes.
K. Restricted Housing Unit - An area or group of cells used for the purposes
of inmates assigned to administrative and disciplinary custody and for the
temporary housing of inmates awaiting classification or available cell space.
PROmlTi~D ACTIVITY
Behavior which constitutes any of the following is prohibited.
SC:A
A. Class I Misconduct Charge_~
1. Any felony, misdemeanor or summary offense.
2. Escape
3. Possession of contraband including money, implements of escape,
unpreseribed drugs or drugs which are prescribed, but the inmate is
not authorized to possess, drug paraphernalia, poisons, intoxicants,
materials used for fermentation, property of another, weapons or other
items which in the hands of an inmate present a threat to self, others
or to the security of the institution. · I~hen an inmate is charged under
this section With possession of an item of contraband which is a weapon
or item which~ in his hands presents a threat to others or to the security
of the institution, and the item also has a legitimate use in the area
discovered, credible evidence that the item has been used only for the
legitimate purpose shall be considered to mitigate the misconduct to a
Class II.
4. Kidnapping, taking hostage or holding any Person against his will.
5. Destroying, altering, tampering with, or damaging property.
6. Wearing a disguise or mask.
?. Engaging in sexual acts with others, or sodomy.
8. Indecent exposure
9. Engaging in, or encouraging any group activity without prior approval
by Superintendent or designee.
10. Disruption or interference with the security or orderly running of the
institution.
11. Failure to stand count, interference with count.
12. Bribery.
13. Threatening another inmate or other person with bodily harm, or with
any offense against his person, family, or property.
14. Extortion, blackmail, protection, demanding or receiving money or
anything of value in return for protection against others, to avoid
bodily harm, or under threat of informing.
15. Assault or fighting.
16. Adulteration of any food or drink.
17. Refusing to obey an oral or written order.
18. Refusing to work or encouraging others to refuse to work.
19. Unauthorized use of dangerous or controlled substances.
20. Violating a condition of a Pre-Release program.
21. Breaking restriction or quarantine.
22. Possession or consumption of intoxicating beverages.
23. Making fermented beverages.
24. Lying to an employee.
25. Gambling, conducting a gambling operation or possession of gambling
paraphenalia.
26. Unauthorized use of mail or telephone.
27. Conduct in violation of posted regulations.
28. Presence in an unauthorized area.
29. Loaning any property for profit.
30. Using abusive or obscene language to an employee.
31. Violation of Administrative Directives not specifically enumerated above.
32. Possession or eireulation of a petition.
33. Repeated Class 2 Misconducts.
34. Conspiracy to commit any Class I or Class II misconduct.
35. Failure to report presence of contraband.
3
BC-ADM 801
B. Class II Misconduct Charges
1. Body Punching, Horseplay
2. Taking Unauthorized Food from Dining Room, Kitchen or Officer's Mess.
3. Tattooing or other Forms of Self-Mutilation.
4. Failure to Report to Work or Unexcused Absence from Work.
5. Loaning or Borrowing Property except Legal Material.
6. Failure to Follow Safety and Sanitation Regulations Regarding the
Inmate's Person, Quarters or Equipment.
7. Smoking where Prohibited. -'
8. Possession off, any item not authorized for retention or receipt by the
inmate not ~peeifieally enumerated as a Class I contraband (//3).
Existence of Class I contraband-mitigating factors established as per #3.
9. Any Violation of any Rule or Regulation contained in the Inmate
Handbook or Institutional Supplement not Specifically Enumerated Above.
An attempt to commit any Of the foregoing misconducts is a misconduct of
the same class as the completed offense would be.
MISCONDUCT REPORTS
A. Misconduct Reports
1. Content of the Misconduct Report~
The misconduct report is used to give notice to the inmate of the
conduct violations, with which he has been charged and the facts upon
which the charges are based. The misconduct report will be used as
evidence against the inmate at the misconduct hearing.
2. Charging Staff Member
The misconduct report is used to give notice to an inmate of the
misconducts with which he is charged, it shall be written by a staff
member who has personal knowledge of the misconduct or by a staff
member at the direction of a person who has personal knowledge of
the misconduct.
e
Time of Writin~ of Misconduct Report~
The misconduct report shall be written within a reasonable period of
time after the events which constitute the misconduct.
Ap~)roval by Ranking Officer on Duty
Prior to service of the misconduct report on the inmate, the report
shall be reviewed and approved by the Shift commander. If the Shift
commander is a regular member of the hearing committee which will
hear the misconduct charges, the report may be approved by the second
in command.
BC-ADM 801
B. Service of Misconduct Report
1. The inmate shall be served with the misconduct report within a
reasonable time after it is written.
e
If an inmate is placed in pre-hearing confinement, the misconduct report
shall be delivered to the inmate within 3 hours after the time the pre-
hearing confinement begins.
3. The misconduct report should, whenever possible, be delivered by
someone oth~. than the charging staff member.
4. The staff member who delivers the misconduct report shall record the
date and time of delivery on the misconduct report.
C. Distribution of Additional Copies
A copy shah be retained by the staff person who wrote the misconduct.
A copy shall be forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent for Treatment
Services. The original shall be forwarded to the Coordinator of the Hearing
Committee/Hearing Examiner.
Witness Request, Inmate Version and Waiver forms shall be delivered to the
charged inmate with the Misconduct Report. The inmate shall fill out the
Witness Request Form and return it to the block officer no later than 9:00
A.M. the next working day and waiver forms may be returned at any time
prior to the misconduct hearing. The block officer shall forward the Witness
Request Form to the Hearing Coordinator/Examiner. The inmate should
bring the Inmate's Version Form to the hearing.
V. MISCONDUCT HEARING
Scheduling - The misconduct hearing shall be scheduled no less than 24
hours nor more than 6 calendar days after notice of charges is delivered.
A minimum of forty-eight hours notice must be given prior to hearing on
a misconduct charge which results in the revocation of pre-release status.
The misconduct hearing shall be conducted by a Misconduct Hearing
Committee or Hearing Examiner as defined by Section II of this directive.
C. Inmate Assistance
The inmate shah be permitted assistance in presenting the case from
any staff member or any inmate in general population status, provided
that such staff member or inmate is willing to serve in such an advising
capacity.
The inmate shall be permitted to meet with the person chosen an
appropriate length of time before the hearing.
An inmate assistant may assist the inmate in the presentation of
witnesses or other evidence and shall have a reasonable opportunity to
address the hearing committee/examiner.
BC-ADM 801
Do
Plea
The charges shall be read. The charged inmate shall admit or deny the
charges. An inmate who refuses to plead shall be deemed to have admitted
the charges. He may submit his version in writing or may orally present
his version which shah be recorded on the Inmate's Version Form.
Witnesses
1. The Hearing. Committee may require thee presence of any staff member
or witness.
Up to three relevant witnesses, who have been properly requested, shall
be permitted unless the Hearing Committee Coordinator/Examiner
determines that the witness is unavailable or that a countervailing
security concern makes it unreasonable to produce the witness. The
inmate may include in this number one staff member who witnessed the
misconduct, or if no staff member witnessed the misconduct, the charging
staff member.
(a) Relevance - The inmate must state on the Witness Request Form
why he believes the witness is relevant.
(b) Availability.
If the inmate requests a staff member or inmate witness who is
not available at the time of the hearing, the inmate may elect
either to waive the six (6) day hearing requirement to permit the
witness to be present or to have the witness execute a written
statement under oath which will be presented in lieu of live
testimony. If the inmate elects to have the witness present, the
hearing will be reseheduled at the earliest practical time after the
witness is available.
(c) Countervailing Security Concern
For the purpose of this section, a countervailing security concern
is established when the institution presents evidence to show that
the requested witness has a demonstrated history of recent erratic,
hostile and/or disruptive conduct on multiple occasions such that
the presence of the witness would unduly disrupt the progress of
the hearing. In the event that a requested witness who has no
such history as herein described, exhibits a current state of mind
such as would reasonably lead to erratic, hostile and/or disruptive
conduct at the hearing, it shall be the duty of the Hearing
Committee Coordinator or Examiner to personally examine the
requested witness before the hearing, to determine the suitability
of presenting the witness in person at the hearing. If the Hearing
Committee Coordinator/Examiner determines that it would be
unsuitable to have the witness present, he may at his election
either continue the hearing until the witness may be safely
produced, take a written statement from the witness, or hear the
testimony of the witness out of the presence of the charged inmate.
BC-ADM
In the event that a witness exhibits erratic, hostile and/or disruptive
behavior at the hearing, the witness may be removed.
3. The Hearing Committee/Examiner may at their discretion examine the
charging staff member, the charged inmate or any other witness. Except
in the case of testimony heard in camera as provided below, the inmate
shall be permitted a reasonable opportunity to ask relevant questions
of any witness who has testified against him unless the witness objects.
The extent of the questioning shall be controlled by the Hearing
Coordinator/Examiner. ~
4. Determinations of credibility shall be left to the judgment of the Hearing
Committee or Examiner.
5. All testimony shall be under oath.
6. If the inmate elects to plead guilty or waive his right to a hearing,
no witnesses will be required.
F. Confidential Source of Information
When the misconduct is based upon information supplied by an informant
whose identify should remain confidential, the following procedure shall be
employed:
The information given by the informant, but not the identity of the
informant, shall be disclosed to the inmate during the hearing unless
the institution has reason to believe that the disclosure of the
information itself would disclose the identify of the informant. In the
latter instance, the information shall be presented to the Hearing
Committee or Examiner, in camera.
The reliability of the informant will be established to the Hearing
Committee or Examiner by a preponderance of the evidence by showing:
a. The informant had the ability and was in the position to observe,
b. The informant has knowledge of the subject matter of the violation,
and
c. The informant has given reliable information previously or that
other witnesses have corroborated some of the information supplied
by the informant.
The inmate shah be permitted to be present during the presentation of
the reliability evidence unless the institution reasonably believes that
the disclosure of the information describing the reliability of the
informant would present a threat to the institution's security, in which
ease the evidence shall be presented in camera to the Hearing Committee
or Examiner.
BC-ADM 801
VL DISPOSITION Ol~' CHARGES
A. Determination of Guilt.
1. As soon as possible after the hearing of all evidence, but within the 6
day limit, the Hearing Committee/Examiner shall determine whether the
inmate is guilty of the misconduct charges based upon a preponderance
of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that the inmate committed
the misconduct with which he is charged. Each vote of a Hearing
Committee member shall have equall w~eight.
2. After the decision is reached by the Committee/Examiner, the inmate
charged shall be called before the Committee/Examiner to hear the
decision.
\
3. If the inmate is found nOt guilty, that fact shall be recorded in writing.
The inmate shall be given a copy. No rationale for the decision is
required. All record of the misconduct shall be removed from the
inmate's institution file and retained in a separate institution file.
4. Two (2) of the three (3) Committee members must concur to convict
an inmate of any misconduct. A record shall be made of how each
member voted. This record shall be forwarded to the l~ogram Review
Committee if they are to review the misconduct. It shall not be
disclosed to the inmate. Only the vote count will be announced to
the charged inmate.
Be
If the inmate is found guilty, a written summary of the hearing will
be prepared which will include the facts relied upon by the Hearing
Committee/Examiner to reach the decision and the reasons for the
decision. The summary shall also include findings of fact concerning
the testimony of each witness presented. A copy of the written summary
will be given to the inmate. The inmate may if he wishes submit a
concise summary of the hearing which summary shall be made a
permanent part of the file. The inmate shall be informed of possible
avenues of appeal. The inmate shall indicate on the Misconduct Report
that he has been advised of his right to request a formal review and
so attest by his signature; if the inmate refuses to sign, two witnesses
shall sign to attest that the inmate was advised of the right to request
a formal review. The inmate shall be advised that he has fifteen days
to submit a written request for a formal review.
Sanctions
e
No sanction shall be imposed for any misconduct charge, for which the
inmate is found not guilty.
Inmates found guilty of Class I Misconduct charges may be subjected
to any one or more of the following sanctions:
Reduction of the classification of the misconduct to a Class 2 and
any sanction permitted for Class 2 misconducts.
Any sanction permitted for Class 2 Misconducts without change in
class of misconduct.
Change of cell assignment: including placement in Disciplinary
Custody in the RHU or restrictive confinement in a general
8
. BC-ADM 801
VIL
de
ee
APPEALS
population cell for a period of time not to exceed six months for
any one misconduct charge.
Change of program level.
Inmates found guilty of Class 2 misconducts may be subjected to any
one or more of the following sanctions:
a. A reprimand.
b. Suspension of privileges for a specified period of time.
c. Payment of the fair value of Property lost or destroyed or for
expense'.incurred as a result of the misconduct.
d. A chang~ of cell assignment except placement in Administrative
or Disciplinary Custody status.
Change, suspension or removal from job.
A. Appeal to the PRC
For the purposes of the Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review
Procedure, BC-ADM 804, both the decision of the Hearing
Committee/Examiner and the appeal decision of the PRC shall be
considered Initial Review Decisions.
Any inmate who has been found guilty of a misconduct by the Hearing
Committee or Examiner may appeal to the Program Review Committee.
The three bases for an appeal by the inmate are:
a. The procedures employed were contrary to law, this directive or
to the ICU Consent Decree;
b. The punishment is disproportionate to the offense; and
c. The evidence was insufficient to support the decision.
No appeals from a finding of not guilty are permitted.
3. All appeals shall be in writing. Only one appeal to the Program Review
Committee shall be permitted in the case of each misconduct.
4. Any inmate may seek the assistance of a staff member or an inmate
in the same population status in the preparation of an appeal. However,
only the inmate who has been found guilty of a misconduct shall be
permitted to seek review. The inmate grievant must sign the appeal.
5. The appeal shall include a brief statement of the facts relevant to the
claim. The text must be legible and presented in a courteous manner.
The inmate should identify any persons who may have information which
could be helpful in resolving the grievance. He may also state any
claims he wishes to make concerning violations of Bureau directives,
regulations, the ICU Consent Decree or other law.
The PRC will address all issues raised by the inmate and may, at its
discretion, consider any other matter relevant to the issues raised. The
PRC is not required to address any issue not raised by the appellant.
9
.BC-ADM 801
It will issue a brief written statement to the inmate of the reasons for
its decision.
7. The Program Review Committee shall have the power to:
a. Reject any appeal which does not conform to Section 2 above;
b. Uphold the Hearing Committee/Examiner,s decision;
e. Uphold the finding of guilt but mod/fy the punishment;
d. Vacate the decision and remand back to the Hearing
Committee/Examiner for rehearingi'
e. Vacate ':!the decision and the charge to permit recharge and
rehearing; and
f. Dismiss the charge and prohibit recharge.
The Program Review Committee may not impose a greater punishment than
has been designated by the Hearing Committee or Examiner. The Program
Review Committee shall render its decision within five (5) working days of
receipt of an appeal.
B. Appeals to the Superintendent
1. The inmate may appeal the decision of the Program Review Committee
to the Superintendent in accordance with the appeal procedures
deseribod for Program Review appeals above. This review shall, for
the purposes of the Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System, BC-
ADM 804 be considered the Appeal from Initial Review Decision.
2. The Superintendent, upon receipt of the request for review may make
any decision permitted to the Program Review Committee. The decision
of the Superintendent shall be forwarded to the inmate within three
(3) working days of receipt of the appeal. Any working day during
this period when the Superintendent is absent from the institution for
the entire day, shall not be counted against the allotted time for
response.
3. The Superintendent will address all issues raised by the inmate and
may, at his discretion, consider any other matter relevant to the issues
raised. He is not required to address any issue not raised by the
appellant. He will issue a brief statement of the reasons for his decision.
Final Appeal
Final appeal shall be to the office of the Chief Counsel pursuant to the
provisions of BC-ADM 804, Consolidated Inmate Grievance Review System.
10
BC-ADM 801
VUI. WAIVER
A. An inmate may voluntarily waive the hearing described in Section V at
anytime prior to the hearing*s completion. He may also waive any time
limitations relating to the hearing or the service of notice.
B, Ail waivers shall be in writing and shall be signed and dated by the inmate.
INMATK*S REFUSAL TO ATTEND HEARING ~
~Vhen an inmate refUtes to attend a hearing as described in Section V, the
following procedures Shal1 apply.
A. The inmate shall be informed that he has a right to a hearing, but that he
may waive that right by signing a written waiver. He should also be
informed that if he waives~the right, the hearing committee will d~eide if
he is guilty without his presence and if he is found guilty, discipline will
be imposed. If the inmate agrees to sign the waiver, it should contain a
statement that he has been advised as detailed above.
B. If the inmate refuses to go to the hearing or sign a written waiver, the
hearing will be held in absentia. If at any time during the time he is
subject to discipline for the misconduct (restriction of privileges or
confinement in diseilSlinary confinement) the inmate reconsiders and wishes
to have a hearing, one will be scheduled for him. The inmate may not
appeal any decision made by the hearing committee/examiner du~ing a
proceeding which he has refused to attend.
C. If an inmate requests such a hearing, it shall be scheduled as soon as
possible after the request is made.
D. If the inmate is found guilty, the hearing committee may not impose any
greater discipline than was imposed at the first hearing. The inmate shall
be given credit against the new discipline for any discipline to which he
was subject prior to the second hearing.
INMATE UNABLE TO ATTEND
If, in the opinion of the Hearing Committee/Examiner, the inmate is physically
or mentally unable to attend or participate in a hearing as described in Section
V, he shall postpone the hearing until the inmate is able to attend and participate.
The derision to postpone a hearing under this section shall be in writing and
shall be made close to the time the hearing would have been held.
XL PERIODIC REVIEW BY PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
A. The Program 1Review Committee, will interview, in person, at least once
every thirty days, those inmates assigned to Disciplinary Custody. The
determination of whether continued confinement is warranted will be based
upon a review of the counselor*s notes and recommendations, psychological
and psychiatric reports when available, recommendations by other staff and
their written observations regarding his attitude and actions and his attitude
and actions during the interview.
1!
,BC-ADM 801
B. The Program Review Committee shall, after interview, submit to the
Superintendent a status report detailing the reasons the Program Review
Committee feels that continued Disciplinary Custody is necessary for the
inmate. The Superintendent shall review the report and determine whether
the reasons set forth are valid and reasonable.
C. The Superintendent shall report to the Commissioner of Correction inmates
detained in Disciplinary Custody for more than 30 days. He shall include
or review his own comments, and of those of..tl~e Program Review Committee.
D. All inmates eontinuously confined in Disciplinary Custody for a period of
one year shall be given annual psychological or psychiatric examinations
during this confinement.
SUSPENSION DURING EMERGEIqCY
In an extended emergency situation or extended disruption of normal institution
operation, any provision or section of the Directive may be suspended by the
Superintendent for a specific period of time with the approval of the
Commissioner or Correction.
RIGHTS UNDER T~ DIRECTIVE
This direetive sets out policy and procedure. It does not create rights in any
person nor should it be interpreted or applied in such a manner as to abridge
the rights of any individual. The directive should be interpreted to have
sufficient flexibility so as to be consistent with law and to permit the
aeeomplishment of the purpose of the directives and policies of the Bureau of
Correction.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The foregoing has been approved by the Bureau of Correction and shall be
effective May 1, 1984. This supersedes all previous directives on this subject
and shall apply to all state correctional institutions and regional correctional
facilities.
Glen R. Jeff es ,., ,. .'
Acting Commisioner
12
DAVID S. OWENS, JR.
Commissioner
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
P. O.~ BOX 598
CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011
(717) 975-4860
Administration
LEE T. BERNARD II
Correctional Services
LOWELL D. HEWITT
Programs
ERSKIND DERAMUS
October 29, 1987
Gary L. Hollinger
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County Courthouse
Hanover and .High Streets
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
RE: 3ames Bo¥ce Singleton v. Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction~ et al.
85 Civil 1987
Dear Mr. Hollinger:
Please find enclosed herewith, for filing of record with the Court pertaining to
the above-captioned civil action, one (I) original and four (#) conformed copies of the
Brief in Support of Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff's Complaint to which
has been attached the appropriate Certificate of Service.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
(717) 975-#86t,
DLH:bs
Enclosures
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 3UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON~
Plaintiff
Vo
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS~ et al.~
Defendants
85 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
PRELIMINARY OB3ECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED
WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR INSUFFICIENCY
AND FAILURE TO CONFORM TO PA.R.C.P. RULES 1019(a) AND 10227
II. WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM?
III.
WHETHER THE PLEADINGS AGAINST DEFENDANT DOUGLAS SHAFFER SHOULD
BE STRICKEN OFF BECAUSE OF THEIR SCANDALOUS AND IMPERTINENT
CONTENT?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Plaintiff 3ames Boyce Singleton alleges that, at all times pertinent to this civil
action, he was incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill having
been lawfully committed to the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
to serve a sentence of imprisonment (Averments numbered as I and 9). Mr. Singleton
avers that he was cited by way of a "misconduct" for an infraction of the regulations
and policies governing the conduct of inmates (Averments numbered as 9). As a
consequence of the hearing examiner's determination that he was guilty of the charged
offense, Mr. Singleton received sanctions which included reduction in his institutional
program status and reassignment of housing quarters (Averments numbered as 9).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because It Is Insufficient and Does Not
Conform ~I/ith Pa.R.C.P. Rules l'019(a) and 1022.
Defendants recognize that when a prisoner plaintiff proceeds under pro se
representation, the Court may, in the interest of justice, not require strict compliance
with all the rules and procedures employed by the iudicial system. However, this
latitude does not extend to the point where the inadequacies threaten to impinge upon
the substantive rights of the adverse party. "A plaintiff seeking relief from the court
is required to file a complaint which must not only apprise the defendant of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but must also formulate issues
by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim." Cassell v. Shellenberger,
356 Pa. Super. 101, , 51# A.2d 163, 165 (1986) quoting Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity
v. University of Pennsylvania, 318 Pa. Super. 293, , 464 A.2d 1349, 1352 (1983).
-2-
The Plaintiff in this matter has provided no material facts upon which the broad
allegations of his claims are based. He has provided no dates, documents or descriptions
of acts or events which would enable the Defendants, jointly or severally, to prepare
any type of defense. Weiss v. Equibank~ 313 Pa. Super. #t, 6, , t, 60 A.2d 271, 27t~-275
(1983). The Plaintiff's complaint incoherently rambles in a manner contrary to the
requirements of Pa.R.C.P. Rules 1019(a) and 1022. Indeed~ the Plaintiff has not even
pled facts which establish that he has suffered an injury cognizable at law. Defendants
herein cannot be expected to respond~ either in required form or with any substance, to
a polemic essay lacking even the guise of proper pleading. Plaintiff's failure to conform
his pleadings with the above-noted rules of procedure is egregious and too prejudicial
to the Defendant's rights for this Honorable Court to allow this action to proceed.
II. Plaintiff's Complaint Fails to State a Claim.
A complaint should be dismissed on preliminary objections only where it appears
with certainty that, upon facts averred~ the law will not permit recovery by the plaintiff.
Patton v. Republic Steel Corp.~ 3t~2 Pa. Super. 101, #92 A.2d 411 (1985). In determining
whether a complaint sets forth a cause of action which, if proved by the plaintiff,
would entitle him to relief he seeks, the court will accept as true all well-pleaded,
factual averments and all inferences fairly deducible therefrom but will not accept as
true any conclusions of law. Higgens v. Clearing Machine Corp., 3~ Pa. Super. 325,
, t~96 A.2d 818, 819 (1985). ^ preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer is
properly sustained and the complaint dismissed when it appears certain that upon factual
averments and all inferences fairly deducible therefrom~ the law will not permit recovery
by the plaintiff. Halliday v. Beltz~ .356 Pa. Super. 375, 514 A.2d 906 (1986).
The only discernable facts, though not well-pleaded, relating to Mr. Singleton's
cause of action appear in the paragraphs grouped under the ninth numbered averment(s)
-3-
wherein he claims that he received several sanctions as the result of discipline imposed
upon him as a consequence of his misconduct. "Lawful incarceration brings about the
necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified
by the considerations underlying" the penal system. Price v. 3ohnston~ 33q U.S. 266,
285 (19~8). An inmate may be lawfully subjected to the rules of the prison system and
the procedures for the enforcement of these regulations so long as the conditions of
confinement do not otherwise violate the constitution. Bell v. Wolfish, ~18 U.S. 539,
556 (197#). Procedural due process is satisfied in prison disciplinary proceedings resulting
in the loss of a privileged status when the inmate is afforded: (1) written notice of
the violation charged at least 2~ hours in advance of hearing; (2) a written statement
by the fact finders as to the evidence relied upon and reasons for the disciplinary
action; and (3) the right to call witnesses on his own behalf and to present documentary
evidence when institutional safety and correctional goals will not be unduly placed in
hazard. Id.~ at 563-567. Plaintiff does not aver that he was denied this minimum
process. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim that he was denied constitutional due process in
the absence of the application of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §§501
et seq., is without merit.
Additionally, this Court may take judicial notice that there are no statutory
enactments or regulatory promulgations in this Commonwealth which create a protected
liberty or property interest in obtaining or retaining any program level classification
by inmates incarcerated in state correctional institutions. In the absence of such
entitlement, the grant or deprivation of such status is entrusted to the expertise of
the prison administrator. Hewitt v. Helms~ t~59 U.S. t, 60, ~70 (1983)i Robson v. Biester~
53 Pa. Commw. 587, , t~20 A.2d 9, 12 (1980). Even if Plaintiff was deprived of due
process with respect to his disciplinary hearing, the program level assigned to him was
subject to change, including demotional revocation, without benefit of due process.
Thus, arquendo~ accepting the averred-to facts as well-pleaded, the law would not
afford Mr. Singleton any relief. He falls to set forth a cause of action and, therefore,
the preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer should be sustained and the
complaint dismissed.
III.
The Pleadings Against Defendant Douglas Shaffer Should Be Stricken Off As
Scandalous and Impertinent.
"'Scandal' consists of any unnecessary allegation which bears cruelly upon the
moral character of an individual or states anything which is unbecoming to the dignity
of the court to hear .... 'Impertinence' in a pleading is the averment of facts which
are irrelevant to material issues and whether proven or not can have no influence in
leading to the result." 3ordon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lincoln Plan Corp., 10 Adams
L.3. 20q (1969). Mr. Singleton has alleged, in the first and fifth unnumbered paragraphs
grouped under the ninth averment, that Defendant Douglas Shaffer is bigoted, malicious
and immature. This vicious attack on the character of Mr. Shaffer is unnecessary and
unrelated to any issue purportedly raised in the complaint. It is repugnant to the
dignity of this Court and the judicial process for such allegations to be countenanced in
a pleading. Therefore, the above described allegations should be stricken off as
scandalous and impertinent.
CONCLUSION
For all the reasons of law set forth hereinabove, the Defendants respectfully pray
that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in the above-captioned matter
with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
October 2~ , 1987
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
-6-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 21UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
2IAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V.
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
~5 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
PRELIMINARY OB3ECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Defendants recognize that when a prisoner plaintiff proceeds under pro se
representation, the Court may, in the interest of justice, not require strict compliance
with all the rules and procedures employed by the judicial system. However, this
latitude does not extend to the point where the inadequacies threaten to impinge upon
the substantive legal rights of the adverse party. "A plaintiff seeking relief from the
court is required to file a complaint which must not only apprise the defendant of what
the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but must also formulate
issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim." Cassell v.
Shellenberger,_ Pa. Super. , , 51# A.2d 163, 165 (1986) quoting Alpha Tau
Omega Fraternity v. University of Pennsylvania, 318 Pa. Super. 293, , #6# A.2d
13#9, 1352 (1983). The plaintiff in this matter has provided no material facts upon
which the broad allegations of his claims are based. He has provided no dates, documents
or descriptions of acts or events which would enable the Defendants, jointly or severally,
to prepare any type of defense. V/eiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa. Super. ##6, , #60 A.2d
271, 27#-275 (1983). Indeed, the Plaintiff has not even pled facts which establish that
he has suffered an injury cognizable at law. Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
requirements of Pa.C.R.P. 1019(a) is too egregious to allow this Honorable Court to
permit this action to proceed further.
"Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many
privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying" the penal
system. Price v. 3ohnston, 33# U.S. 266, 285 (19#8). An inmate may be lawfully
subjected to the rules of the prison system and the procedures for the enforcement of
these regulations so long as the conditions of confinement do not otherwise violate the
constitution. Bell v. Wolfish, #18 U.S. 539, 556 (197t0. Procedural due process is
satisfied in prison disciplinary proceedings resulting in the loss of a privileged status
when the inamte is afforded with (1) written notice of the violation charged at least
2# hours in advance of hearing; (2) a written statement by the fact finders as to the
evidence relief upon and reasons for the disciplinary action; and (3) the right to call
witnesses on his own behalf and to present documentary evidence when institutional
safety or correctional goals will not be unduly placed in hazard. Id. at 563-567.
Plaintiff does not aver that he was denied this minimum process. Therefore, Plaintiff's
claim that he was denied constitutional due process in the absence of the application
of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §§ 501, et seq., is without merit.
Additionally, this Court may take judicial notice that there are no statutory
enactments or regulatory promulgations in the Commonwealth which create a protected
liberty or property interest in obtaining or retaining any program level classification
by inmates incarcerated in state correctional institutions. In the absence of such
entitlement, the grant or deprivation of such status is entrusted to the expertise of
the prison administrator. Hewitt v. Helms, #59 U.S. #60, t~70 (1983), Robson v. Biester,
53 Pa. Commw. 587, , #20 A.2d 9, 12 (1980). Thus, even if Plaintiff was deprived
of due process with respect to his disciplinary hearing, the program level classification
-2-
assigned to him was subject to change, including demotional revocation, without benefit
of due process.
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 598
Camp Hilly Pennsylvania 17011
Dated: September ~'/ , 1987
-3-
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
V
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 85 CIVIL 1987
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, August 31, 1987, the motion of petitioner
dated July 21, 1987, to amend his complaint from an action of
mandamus to a civil action is granted.
By the Court,
Harold E. Sheely, p.J.
James Boyce Singleton
Office of the Attorney General '
: pbf
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
JAMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
85 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
ORDER
NOW, this L day of ./}/]6L.~.'~"'---., 1988, whereas Plaintiff has failed to
comply with the January 21, 1988 Order of this Court to file an amended complaint, it
is ORDERED that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
James Boyce Singleton
Apartment 103
1#09 South 15th Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
David L. Horwitz, Esquire
For the Defendants
1710#
By the. Court,
H ar 0! E. ~he!l e~ p.~j.~'~'~'~o-'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH ~JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
Ve
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
85 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants, by and through their attorney, David L. Horwitz, Assistant Counsel,
Department of Corrections, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represent as follows:
1. On 3anuary 21, 1988 this Honorable Court entered an order sustaining
Defendant's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurer to the complaint
filed in the above-captioned matter.
2. By that same order, Plaintiff was given twenty (20) days from the date of
said order to file an amended complaint.
3. Plaintiff has not within or since the expiration of this twenty (20) day period
filed his amended complaint or other response.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that this Honorable Court enter an order dismissing
this action with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 2¥, 1988
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
NINTH 3UDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
3AMES BOYCE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff
Vo
PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
85 Civil 1987
Civil Action - Law
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David L. Horwitz, Assistant Counsel, Department of Corrections, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, hereby certify that service of true and correct copies of the within
Motion to Dismiss and proposed Order was made upon Plaintiff at the below-listed
address by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class and pre-paid, on this
2'/z~ day of February, 1988:
James Boyce Singleton
Apartment 104
1#09 South 15th Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
1710#
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
P. O. Box 598
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
DAVID S~. OWENS, JR.
Commissioner
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
P. O. BOX 598
CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011
Deputy Commissioners
Administration
LEE T. BERNARD II
Correctional Services
LOWELL D. HEWlTT
Programs
ERSKIND DERAMUS
(717) 975-4860
February 2t4, 1988
Mr. Lawrence E. Welker
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Court
of Common Pleas
Cumberland County Courthouse
Hanover and High Street
Carlisle, PA 17103
RE: 3ames Boyce Singleton v. Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections~ et
85 Civil 1987
Dear Mr. Welker:
Please find enclosed herewith for filing of record with the Court pertaining to
the above-captioned civil action at law~ Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and proposed
Order.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
David L. Horwitz
Assistant Counsel
(717) 975-t486#
DLH=sd