Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-4697 CIVILJOHN RICHARD JAE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTIN F. HORN, individually and in his official capacity as former Secretary of Pa. Dept. of Corrections; DAVID S. MAEYER, individually and in his official capacity as Business Manager, SCI-Camp Hill; ROBERT G. GIMBLE, individually and in his official capacity as Business Manager, SCI- Camp Hill and DR. JEFFREY A. BEARD, Ph.D., individually and in his official capacity as Secretary, Pa. Dept. of Corrections, DEFENDANTS 01-4697 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., May 9, 2002:-- Plaintiff, John Richard Jae, is an inmate at SCl Greene. He filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, against various Pennsylvania correction officials and employees as a result of occurrences during a period of time that he was confined by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at SCI Camp Hill, in Cumberland County. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied a constitutional right to have adequate, effective and meaningful access to the courts, and to due process of law, and to possess his own "personal books/magazines & to freedom of choice to read what he chooses to 01-4697 CIVIL TERM read/freedom of expression." He seeks "compensatory & punitive damages, court & other costs, filing fees, service fees, plaintiff's attorney fees & costs (if any)," and a remedial order declaring invalid various administrative regulations of the Department of Corrections. Defendants filed a preliminary objection to dismiss the complaint which is ready for disposition. In order to plead a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must establish two essential elements: (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of the United States. Johnson v. Desmond, 658 A.2d 375 (Pa. Super. 1995). Plaintiff has satisfied the first element because the conduct complained of was committed by Pennsylvania state officials and state employees. Plaintiff's constitutional claims fall into the following categories: (1) that he has been denied access to the courts because he does not receive unlimited free office supplies, copies and postage, (2) double jeopardy, and (3) a challenge to the regulations on inmate discipline of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as they apply to possession of certain types of publications. DISCUSSION While averring that he received some free supplies, postage and copies, and some money, pursuant to a regulation of the Department of Corrections, plaintiff alleges a constitutional violation because he did not receive unlimited free office supplies, copies and postage. He claims that his prison litigation has been hindered as -2- 01-4697 CIVIL TERM a result of the restrictive Department regulation. The litigation he cites in his complaint Jae v. Horn, et al., (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 418 MD 1999). Jae v. Kyler, et al., (W.D.Pa. No. 99-CV-895). Jae v. Long, et al., (M.D.Pa. No. 99-CV-71). Jae v. Laskey, et al., (M.D.Pa. No. 99-CV-1610). Jae v. Horn, et al., (CCP Huntingdon County No. 98-1830). Jae v. SCI-Smithfield Library Director, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 2518 C.D. 1998). Prisoners have a constitutional right to access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 420 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). When a constitutional claim is made alleging a peripheral denial of access to the courts because of lack of legal materials, an inmate must show actual injury in order for his complaint to succeed. Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440 (1982). The constitutional concept of an inmate's right to access to the courts does not require that prison officials provide inmates free or unlimited access to photocopying machinery. Johnson v. Parke, 642 F.2d 377 (10th Cir. 1981). When an inmate's access to the courts is not unduly hampered by a denial of access to such machinery, he cannot complain. Id. We have examined the complaint and are satisfied that plaintiff has not pled a legally sufficient claim for lack of access to the courts to pursue his copious prison litigation sufficient to warrant a trial. ~ He cites no litigation regarding his criminal judgment of sentence. -3- 01-4697 CIVIL TERM Plaintiff alleges a violation of double jeopardy based upon restrictions he was subject to while in disciplinary custody at SCI Camp Hill. The double jeopardy clause protects against multiple prosecutions and punishments for the same offense. Commonwealth v. McGee, 744 A.2d 754 (Pa. 2000). A double jeopardy claim does not arise as a result of an inmate's administrative status. While averring that he was allowed certain books, magazines and reading material while in disciplinary custody, plaintiff alleges that Department of Corrections' administrative regulations constitutionally infringe on the content of such material because they vaguely prohibit material depicting, "actual penile/vaginal-oral, penile- anal or penile-vaginal, digital-anal, digital-vaginal penetration.": This claim is ridiculous, and accordingly frivolous. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts that are legally sufficient to permit his action to continue. Accordingly, the following order is entered. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of May, 2002, the preliminary objection of defendants to plaintiff's complaint, IS GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint, IS DISMISSED. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is not a named defendant. -4- 01-4697 CIVIL TERM John Richard Jae, BQ-3219, Pro se SCI Greene 175 Progress Drive Waynesburg, PA 15370-8089 Alan M. Robinson, Esquire Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 For Defendants :saa -5-