Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-900 EquityCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT HANKINS, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY 04-0900 EQUITY TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., June 4, 2004. In this equity case, an inmate at a state correctional institution has appealed from a March 2, 2004, ex parte preliminary injunction permitting the institution to deal with his hunger strike by medical forced feeding if necessary. Following a hearing within five days, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531, on the issue of whether the preliminary injunction should be continued, modified or dissolved, it was continued in effect, on March 4, 2004. Appellant failed to file a statement of matters complained of on appeal in response to an order of the court. However, his Notice of Appeal from the March 2, 2004, order seems to complain about the court's refusal in the course of the time-mandated hearing on March 4, 2004, to accede to his request that the matter be postponed until he obtained counsel. This opinion in support of the court's order of March 2, 2004, is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS On March 2, 2004, Plaintiff, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, filed, inter alia, an Application for Ex Parte Preliminary Injunction, incorporating by reference a complaint against Defendant. The complaint, supported by a physician's signed statement, alleged that Defendant was an inmate at the institution engaged in a life-threatening hunger strike. The application requested an immediate injunction permitting his medical treatment, including the involuntary administration of nutrition and hydration. The immediate ex parte injunction requested was granted on March 2, 2004, and a hearing within five days as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1531 was scheduled for March 4, 2004. The hearing proceeded as scheduled and at one point it seemed that Defendant would agree to an order continuing the preliminary injunction; however, an order entered to this effect had to be vacated when Defendant began to equivocate as to his intentions. During the course of the hearing, Plaintiff supported its position that a preliminary injunction was appropriate, through medical and other testimony. It was also clear from the evidence that Defendant's hunger strike was intended to secure court intervention in various issues with the prison which would not be properly addressed in the present context. The court's suggestion as to a more proper procedure than self-starvation for securing judicial review of his grievances does not seem to have been well-received. In the course of the hearing, Defendant decided that he wanted to postpone the matter to secure counsel. The court declined at that point to accede to a delay in what purported to be, and in the court's view was, an emergency medical situation in which Defendant was manipulating both the institution and the court for his own purposes. At the conclusion of the hearing, at which Defendant testified, the court entered the following order: AND NOW, this 4th day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction, and following a hearing on the issue of whether the ex parte preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, in the above-captioned matter should be continued, modified or 2 terminated, and the Court finding that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm which could not be dealt with by way of another remedy, that the injunction will have the effect of restoring the parties to the status quo as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct, that the requested injunction is reasonably suited to the abatement of the objectionable activity, that the moving party's right to relief is clear, and the wrong is manifest, and that the injunction is required to avoid a comparably greater injury than that which would result by its refusal -- specifically, immediate and irreparable harm to the health of the Defendant --, the preliminary injunction issued on March 2, 2004, is continued in full force and effect pending further order of Court. The parties are notified of their right to a full trial on the issues presented in this case. BY THE COURT, s/J. Wesley Oler, Jr. DISCUSSION Plaintiff's right to injunctive relief in cases of the present type is well established. See, e.g., Commonrvea/th of Pennsylvania, Department of Public We/Jbre, Farvierv State Hospital v. Ka//inger, 134 Pa. Commw. 415, 580 A.2d 887 (1990). The right to counsel, including court-appointed counsel in situations involving the deprivation of a protected liberty interest, is of course fundamental. See, e.g., Banks v. Ryan, 124 Pa. Commw. 603, 610, 556 A.2d 950, 954 (1989). On the other hand, as a general rule courts do not assign counsel to expedite civil cases,~ nor do prisoners have the same degree of liberty interests as other persons have. Ka//inger, 134 Pa. Commw. at 419, 580 A.2d at 889 (1990). Under the unique circumstances of this case, involving a time-mandated hearing, an emergency medical situation, obvious manipulation of the prison and judicial systems by Defendant, the timing of Defendant's request during the course of a hearing, and the preliminary nature of the proceeding involved and See, e.g., Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 25, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 2158, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981). 3 availability of a subsequent trial on the merits, the court is of the view that it acted properly counsel. in denying Defendant's request for a delay based on the absence of BY THE COURT, Timothy A. Holmes, Esq. Assistant Counsel Governor's Office of General Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Robert Hankins, DT-3209 SCI-Camp Hill 2500 Lisburn Road P.O. Box 8837 Camp Hill, PA 17001-8837 Defendant, pro se J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 4