HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0448 miscellaneous appeal3. S98036/99
ISHANGO MIKE BUNDY,
Appellant
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
MARTIN F. HORN, COMMISSIONER OF
CORRECTIONS; 3EFFERY BEARD, :
EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; :
THOMAS W. FULCOMER, REGIONAL :
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; BEN :
VARNER, FACILITY MANAGER; :
CONNER BLAIN, DEPUTY SUPT. :
CENTRALIZED SERVICES; WILLIAM :
H. HARRISON, PRISONER SERVICES :
PSYCHOLOGIST- SCI GREEN AND :
RANDY W. SELL, CORRECTIONS/ :
COUNSELOR II, :
:
:
Appellees
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 918 MDA 99
Appeal from the Order Entered April 5, 1999, In the
Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Civil Division,
at No. 98-0448 Misc.
· BEFORE: CAVANAUGH, MUSMANNO and BROSI<Y, 33.
MEMORANDUM' ~ ! I,, E D t~ 1 g 2000
This is a pro se appeal from an order denying Appellant habeas corpus
relief. Appellant raises eighteen issues for our review. Because of the
substantial number of issues, we shall not list them all verbatim.
Nevertheless, after reviewing the matter we conclude that the court did not
]. S98036/99
err in denying Appellant habeas corpus relief. Consequently, we affirm the
order appealed from.
Appellant is a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Camp
Hill serving a life sentence. Previously, Appellant had been housed at SCI
Greene but was transferred to the Special Management Unit (SMU) at SCI
Camp Hill for multiple misconduct violations and aggressive behavior. The
SMU is a specialized housing unit primarily designed to house the most
violent, disruptive and non-conforming prisoners in Pennsylvania's statewide
corrections system. On November 19, 1998, Appellant's Petition for Habeas
Corpus, which had been filed in Greene County, was transferred to
Cumberland County. A hearing was held on March 24, 1999, after which
Appellant's petition was denied. The present appeal followed.
Appellant has set forth eighteen separate "questions presented" in his
pro se letter brief. We will not set forth each of them verbatim. However,
most, if not all of these claims would fairly fall into one of two basic claims, a
denial of procedural due process or a denial of fundamental rights and/or
imposition of "cruel and inhuman punishment." Notably, in 1995, twenty-
one inmates housed in the SMU at Camp Hill litigated a habeas corpus
-2-
3, $98036/99
petition, raising similar issues to those found here, with partial success.~ In
response to that litigation certain review policies were modified or new
policies were implemented. Moreover, the process relative to confinement in
the SMU and movement between the separate levels of the SMU was
scrutinized to ensure that the process comported with Due Process
guarantees. We are satisfied that the policies in place provide adequate due
process protections.
To the extent Appellant's arguments sound in "cruel and inhuman
punishment" we are inclined to echo the sentiments of the trial court.
Although the level of restrictions and confinement are substantial, and life in
the SMU is Spartan, the facilities are modern and conditions of confinement
are about as decent as the situation allows. Two things must be
remembered in considering Appellant's claim, first, the SMU is a unit
reserved for the most dangerous and disruptive prisoners in the entire
statewide correctional system, and second, each prisoner has "earned" his
way in to the unit. They have not found themselves there by mere
happenstance. Given these factors, although Appellant is being denied
certain privileges or amenities normally associated with prison life, the
deprivation does not violate due process guarantees. The deprivation
~ Sacobs et al. v. Lehman et al., 45 Cumberland L.3. 64 (1995); afl'd,
Dept. of Corrections v. Torres, 707 A.2d 249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997);
-3-
J. S98036/99
Appellant faces is a direct and reasonable response to his actions and
Appellant is afforded an opportunity to regain the aforesaid amenities by
modifying his troublesome behavior.
Appellant has proceeded pro se in this matter and, apparently because
he is not educated in the law, many of his specific arguments do not raise
legally cognizable claims as they quibble with facts that have, essentially,
been found against him. Nevertheless, we have reviewed Appellant's appeal
and scrutinized the general issues raised. We conclude that Appellant has
not set forth grounds for habeas corpus relief. That is, Appellant has not
established that his confinement constitutes "cruel and inhuman
punishment," nor has appellant been deprived of fundamental rights or
liberties without due process of law. Moreover, we conclude that the opinion
of the trial court provides a sound response to Appellant's challenges on
appeal. Consequently, we shall affirm the denial of habeas corpus relief on
'the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed.
allowance of appeal denied, 724 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1998).
-4-
3. S98036/99
Date:
-5-