Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-1036 " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO . 165 8 , 91 OTN. E002328-4 VS. () :2 - /63 ~ DAVID WAYNE MEEKS CIVIL NO. MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: This is a Civil Action in Mandamus filed Pro-Se by David W. Meeks. A State prisoner, alleging violations of his Constitutional Rights, Due Process and seeking a Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief. 1. This instant petition request this Court to grant a writ of mandamus, pursuant to this courts original jurisdiction under 42 PA. C.S.A. 9761. 2. Petitioner David W. Meeks believes and avers that he was arbi- trarily denied proper consideration for parole solely on the basis of his original offense in violation of his Constitutional Rights. Petitioner has been prejudiced by the respondents and seeks this court intervention. 3. In Voss v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, PICS Case No. 01-2623 (Pa. Comm. Dec. 12, 2001) Smith, J. the court refused todismiss a prisoner's petition for review challenging the denial of his application for parole board's assertion that granting parole would not support the concept of "Fair Administration of Justice" did not meet the requirement of Due Process. Preliminary objection overruled. 1 4. Petitioner believe and avers that the process of denying him parole solely on the basis of his offense in violation of his Constitutional Rights to Due Process, Equal Protection, Expo Facto Clause, The Supremacy Clause, A Missapplication of Legis- lative Statutory Intent, and Misguided attempt to gain proceeds from the State and Federal Governments, which the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections receives for petitioner continue incarceration at the State Correctional Institutional at Graterford. 5. Petitioner believes and avers that respondents have delayed his parole intentionally in order to gain proceeds, and that the Board has conspired with the Department of Corrections under the guise of Justice. Respondents have intentionally denied petitioner and those similarly situated, proper consideration for parole. Whereas petitioner and those similarly situation are incarcerated well beyond their Minimum Dates solely on the basis of their offense. 6. Petitioner believes and avers that there is a conspiracy between Officials in the State Office, the Pennsylvania Board of Proba tion and Parole and the Commonweal th Department of Corrections, to keep the prisons overcrowded, and to use the argument that the State needs more prisons, so that they could gain money of proceeds in whatever form. 7. Petitioner believes and avers that he was injured by this plan, and states that his Constitutional Rights and Due Process Clause were and continue to be violated by respondents. Petitioner has a right to be properly considered for parole, and a right not to be placed in a separate category from his co- defendant, in that petitioner is being denied consideration due to the elements of his crime and by his co-defendant.1 I. Petitioner avers that he was denied parole because of what his co-defendant may have said in his official statement to the state police, about the crime committed. 2 8. Petitioner seeks this Court to issue a declaratory judgment, that their agents have violated petitioner's Constitutional Rights and Due Process Clause, by reviewing him as a violent offender, and by placing him in a separate class of prisoners. 9. Petitioner seeks an injunction against the respondents to cease and restrain its arbitrary and illegal processes against petitioner, of which have prejudiced him, and violated his rights, and to find some avenue of release on parole for petitioner. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1991, petitioner was arrested and charge with Rape, Burglary and Unauthorized use of Automobile. Following his arrest, he was immediately taken to the Cumberland County Jail. Petitioner plead guilty of the charge of rape and was sentenced to [5] to [20] years, as for burglary [1] to [20] years concurrent and as to unauthorized use [6] months to [2] years, by the Honorable Judge G. Hoffer and Honorable Judge W. 01er, of Cumberland County Court of Common pleas. Petitioner was transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. Petitioner was eligible for parole as of September 5, 1996, and was reviewed by the Parole Board on or about November of 1996. Petitioner received a decision from the Board on or about January 25, 1997. And was denied parole for the following allege accusations that not support said charges: 1. Substance Abuse 2. Assaultive instant Offense 3. High Assaultive Behavior 4. Instrument of Crime Denied parole due to crime of violence, "will be reviewed in December of 1997.2 2. Petitioner alleges that decision of the Board is a result of statement of co-defendant. 3 Peti tioner was again reviewed in the month of December of 1997, and a decision was rendered on or about March 4, 1998. Petitioner was refused parole for the following reasons: petitioner's need for counseling and treatment, serious nature of crime and because petitioner's allege misconduct during review period. "Will be reviewed in or after January, 1999. Petitioner was again reviewed in January and a decision was rendered on or about August 13, 1999. Petitioner was denied parole for the following reasons: The Board of Parole and Probation has determined that the mandates to protect the safety of the public and to assist in the "Fair Administration of Justice" cannot be achieved through your release on parole. "Will be reviewed in or after May, 2000. Petitioner waB again reviewed in May of 2000, and a decision was rendered on or about August 8, 2000. Parole was denied for the following reasons: The Board of Parole and Probation has determined that the mandates to protect the safety of the public and to assist in the "Fair Administration of Justice" cannot be achieved through your release on parole. "Will be reviewed in or after January, 2002. Petitioner was again reviewed in January of 2002. Petitioner was denied Parole for the following reasons: The Board of Parole and Probation has determined that the mandates to protect the safety of the public and to assist in the "Fair Administration of Justice" cannot be achieved through your release on parole. "Will be reviewed in or after January, 2004. ARGUMENT Your Honor: Petitioner avers that the Pennsylvania Parole Board have created arbitrary policies to prevent petitioner, and other inmates similarly situated, from being released. Due to the cir- cumstances surrounding their offense, and petitioner and other similarly situated, are being fairly considered for parole, but are being denied parole arbitrarily. 4 Retitioner avers that he has a right to a fair and adequate review and that he cannot be treated differently that other inmates and given separate process as is the case here. Due to respondents failure to fulfill their duty, they have violated petitioner's Constitutional Rights, and Due Process Clause. Leaving petitioner with no avenue of relief. Petitioner believes and avers that he had a liberty interest in not being denied his chance for parole eligibility, Block v. potter.3 Petitioner avers that respondents denial of his parole solely on the basis of his offense is Constitutionally impermissible and arbitrary. In this instant case petitioner was convicted of rape, and is being denied parole because he was convicted of said charges. Petitioner believes that it is respondents policy not to release inmates on parole who have committed certain offenses including the offense of rape. Petitioner believes that this denial is not based on petitioners behavior, or his failure in rehabilitation but solely because petitioner was convicted of rape. This unlawful process further represents a violation of petitioners Due Process to be free from arbitrary Government action. [Meachum v. Fano] The interest of society in the parole system is servedonly when the applicants are treated with basis fairness, because fair treatment in parole decisions will enhance the chance of rehabilitation by avoiding reactions to arbitrariness, MORRISEY at 434. In this instant case petitioner believes and avers that he was denied parole solely because he was convicted of rape and that a denial of parole based on his offense alone is a violation of his Constitutional Rights. 3. "Even if a State statute dose not give rise to Liberty Interest in Parole Release under Greenholtz. Once a State Institutes in a Parole System all Prisoners have a Liberty Interest flowing directly from the Due Process Clause in not being denied Parole for arbitrary or Constitutionally Impermissible reasons." 5 Petitioner understands that he has no right to parole but he does have a right to be fairly considered for parole like other inmates and not to be arbitrarily denied based on some impermissible criteria. Under the Supremacy Clause petitioner has a right to be free from arbitrary government action, but respondent did choose to and ignore the law. Respondents actions were arbitrary and therefore in violation of petitioners Constitutional Rights. Wherefore the petitioner prays that the courts seeks an injunction against the respondents, to cease and restrain its arbitrary and illegal processes against petitioner, of which have prejudiced him, and violated his rights, and to overturn the Parole Board's decision on denying petitioner parole. '57Jtv-~ David W. Meeks Pro-Se 6 () C> 0 c: f'V .1 ;s:: :JC ""DOJ ':;!::>> ~..tl mrr ::0 Z::J:.' I :-~~:~ E4 Zr;:- cn._,:: J,(:') -<L_ ~C) '"Tl ......'T~ ~O =i: .~) :!J "'0 """0 w Om 5>c :;;! ~ N ~ 0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1658,91 OTN. E002328-4 VS. Oi.-J03~ DAVID WAYNE MEEKS CIVIL NO. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Petitioner, David W. Meeks, request this Court to grant him leave to file the attached Petition for Writ of Mandamus without prepayment of costs and to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS. A declara- tion in support is attached. Da ted: J /cJJ/ () J-. Respectfully submitted, ~~~t0. rYJ~ David W. Meeks Pro-S 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1658,91 OTN.E002328-4 VS. DAVID WAYNE MEEKS CIVIL NO. DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS I, DAVid (,Ah"'f/IJ~ l1uJ::.5 , am the petitioner in the above entitled case. In support of my motion to proceed without being required to prepay fees or costs or give security thereof, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceedings or to redress. I declare that the responses which I have made below are true. I. Are you presently employed? Yes~ No_ A. If you answered yes, state the amount of your salary per month and give the true name and address of your employer. 11 50.00 A MtJ,Ji/,. ~J/lIuS joelff) evertlfd,vA. (i.1'4-krlo~ .Pl'l~JV MA ibA.H (I OIJNlMtAlf p.O.8n.L J.LJ'-I /r,A-If/tor,) I PA I!",",~ OJ,,'" I t' B. If the answer is no, state the date of last employment and the amount of salary per month which you received. N/A 2. Have you received within the past twelve months any money from any of the following sources? a. Business, profession, or form of self employment? Yes No ,...,.. b. Rent payments, interest, or dividends? Yes____ No~ --- ~: ~o~~' i~~~~~~;~~~?o~;;f~~~urance payments? Yes___ NOK e. Any other sources? Yes___ No ~ 8 If the answer to any of the above is yes, describe each source of money and state the amount received from each during the past twelve months. (PIVCf\J+) ..t RO. 00 f).,r j"J 1 +It (, IJ. J.4cNtl.s. 3. Do you own any cash or do you have any money in a checking or savings account? Yes X No~. (include any funds in prison accounts) If the answer is yes, state the total value owed. .I' ).93 (p,..ISoN A~NJ) 4. Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other valuable property. (Excluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing) Yes___ No ~ If the answer is yes, describe the property and state it's approximate value. 5. List the persons who are dependent upon you for support; state your relationship to those persons; and indicate how much you contribute toward their support. /liON' I understand that a false statement or answer to any questions in this declaration will subject me to penalties for perjury. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this c91 st day of ~~R'LJA~yI , , 2002. 9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1658,91 OTN. E002328-4 VS. DAVID WAYNE MEEKS CIVIL NO. A F FIR MAT ION I,J)Auid Wll\iM' M~ek> , being first subject to the charge of perjury, and the penalty thereof, depose and say that all of the foregoing facts as set forth in the attached PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED: d /,gl / a~ 10 .. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the petitioner herein has the sum amount of $ :J. '1.3 on account to his credit at the h"i...\<.r-fa...J. ,j.\.o.,\<.. (O((ec..~IO''''''-\ Instituion where he is confined. I further certify that petitioner likewise has the follow~nr ;:securi ties to his credit according to the records of said N /11 Insti tutions: ;V / A I I DATED: ).. /)0/0) " () ~ s:. :Urn m[,. z.Jj Zr'" ci)~"';; -<.c::'. !;::O ~o 5>2 ~ " C) I'\,) :::;c :r,.. ;;;0 I "C) ::zc W N o COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DAVID WAYNE MEEKS : 02-1036 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this tb day of April, 2002, the motion of David W. Meeks to proceed in forma pauperis, IS DENIED.1 ~id W. Meeks, BV-1236, Pro se P.O. Box 244 Graterford, PA 19426-0244 l~/~~' Y-I'1-0 ~ RXs I This case is frivolous because this court has no jurisdiction on the "Motion for Writ of Mandamus." VlIWl\lASNN3d AlNnW O\)'f!}:38V'lnO 9S :OI!-lV 9 I l:ldV 20 AWlONCi-i.10Ud :jHl :10 38i:l:iO-G3ll:l -