Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-5196 civil CRAIG MOSS, · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants :NO. 01-5196 IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Before HOFFER, P.J., HESS, J. and OLER, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, .-~ ,2002, upon careful consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections, it is hereby ordered that the Motion is granted and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. By the Court, Raymond W. Dorian, PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendants Craig Moss DE-8914 SCI-RETREAT 660 State Route 11 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621 Pro Se CRAIG MOSS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW DAVID HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants : NO. 01-5196 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONR Before HOFFER, P.J., HESS, J. and OLER, J. .OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: This matter was initiated by Craig Moss, who is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat and who was formerly housed at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. The defendants include: David Hoffman, Unit Manager at SCI-Camp Hill; Philip Baker, Counselor at SCI-Camp Hill; Martin Dragovich, Superintendent of SCI-Camp Hill; and Robert Bitner, Chief Hearing Examiner with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. The defendants are presently employed by the Department of Corrections in various capacities at SCI-Camp Hill, except for Robed Bitner, who is currently employed at a different location. Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the defendants alleging that he has been denied his due process rights in connection with a misconduct hearing held on or about April 16, 2001. At the hearing, the plaintiff was found guilty. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the finding of guilt to the Chief Hearing Examiner, but in an untimely fashion. Thus, ultimately this civil action ensued. Plaintiff alleged that at the hearing, he was not permitted to give his version of the facts or present documentary evidence that supported his position. The defendants subsequently filed preliminary objections to. this suit seeking to dismiss the lawsuit by asserting that the plaintiff has failed to allege a due process violation and has failed to allege any violation of state law for which relief may be granted. However, at this stage in the litigation, dismissing the lawsuit based upon the defendants' rationale would be inappropriate. As such, this Court must raise the following issue sua sponte. In general, a decision by the Department of Corrections finding that a prisoner has committed misconduct is not subject to appellate review because the court does not become involved in internal prison matters. Ricketts v. Central Office Review Committee, 125 Pa. Cmwlth. 573, 557 A.2d 1180 (1989). Nevertheless, there exists a narrow exception where an inmate can identify a personal or property interest not limited by regulation. Lawson v. Department of Corrections, 114 Pa. Cmwlth. 573, 539 A.2d 69 (1988).~ Additionally, the court has also held that internal prison operations are more properly left to the legislative and executive branches, and that prison officials must be allowed to exercise their judgment in the execution of policies necessary to preserve order and maintain security free from judicial interference. See Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 554 Pa. 317, ~ Plaintiffhas failed to identify a personal or property interest as to which may trigger the exception to the rule allowing review of prisoner misconduct hearing. 2 721 A.2d 357 (1998). As such, it is the decision of this Court that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed.