HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-0266 miscellaneousRAYMOND BOOTH, PETITIONER
V.
MARTIN HORN, ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS 99-0266 MISCELLANEOUS
IN RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., December 29, 1999:--
Raymond Booth is an inmate under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
the conditions of his confinement in the Special Management Unit (SMU) at the State
Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Cumberland County? Respondents filed an
amended answer with new matter to which petitioner was directed to file a response,
and did not. Petitioner challenges his custody status in the SMU, claiming that the
administrative regulations under which his liberty is being restricted violate his
constitutional rights. That issue has been fully litigated by other similarly situated
inmates in the SMU and determined to be without merit. Cook v. The Department of
Corrections, et al., (98-0106 Misc., December 21, 1998); Bundy v. Department of
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV~',Ni;~.
~ Pa.R.Crim. P. 1701(b) provides, "A petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging the conditions of the petitioner's confinement in a criminal matter shall be
filed with the clerk of court in the judicial district wherein the petitioner is confined."
99-0266 MISCELLANEOUS
Corrections, (98-0448 Misc., April 5, 1999).
Petitioner further alleges that his custody in the SMU violates due process
because he has not been allowed representation or witnesses in defense of disciplinary
proceedings that have been brought against him? Respondents'filed an answer with
new matter averring that since October 8, 1997, when petitioner was currently
incarcerated in the SMU he has been subject to eight disciplinary actions as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
Disciplinary action #14306. The hearing date was April 10, 1998.
Petitioner testified but did not request witnesses or the assistance
of an inmate or staff member. He was found guilty. Petitioner did
not appeal.
Disciplinary action #72073. The hearing date was June 18, 1998.
Petitioner testified. Petitioner did not request witnesses or the
assistance of an inmate or staff member. He was found guilty and
appealed at the first of three levels of administrative appeal. His
appeal was denied. Petitioner did not appeal to the second level of
administrative appeal.
Disciplinary action #10453. The hearing date was September 2,
1998. Petitioner initially requested witness testimony and
assistance from a staff member but then waived both at the hearing
and plead guilty to the charges. Petitioner did not appeal.
Disciplinary action #10455. The hearing date was September 2,
1998. Petitioner entered no plea. Petitioner did not request
witnesses or the assistance of an inmate or staff member. He
testified and was found guilty. Petitioner did not appeal.
Disciplinary action #10466. The hearing date was September 22,
1998. Petitioner did not enter a plea, but did testify. Petitioner did
not request witnesses or the assistance of an inmate or staff
member. He was found guilty but did not file an appeal.
Disciplinary action #131448. The hearing date was December 4,
2 We have held that inmates in the SMU have a liberty interest protected by the
due process clause because the administrative custody in Phases IV, III, II constitutes
an atypical, significant deprivation. Jacobs v. Lehman, 45 CLJ 64 (1985); aff'd 707
A.2d 249 (Pa. Commw. 1998); petition for allowance of appeal denied 724 A.2d 350
(1998).
-2-
99-0266 MISCELLANEOUS
(g)
(h)
i 998. Petitioner did not request witnesses or the assistance of an
~nmate or staff member. He plead not guilty. He was found guilty
but did not file an appeal.
Disciplinary action #167992. The hearing date was March 31,
1999. Petitioner did not request witnesses or the assistance of an
inmate or staff member. Petitioner plead guilty. He did not file an
appeal.
Disciplinary action #167981. The hearing date was March 22,
1999. Petitioner refused to attend hearing. He waived his hearing.
He was found guilty and did not file an appeal.
Petitioner has not answered the new matter as directed by this court. Taking the
allegations in the new matter as true there is no need to conduct a hearing as petitioner
has clearly not been denied due process with respect to the disciplinary proceedings
that have been brought against him. Accordingly, the following order is entered.
AND NOW, this
ORDER OF COURT
day of December, 1999, the within petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, IS DENIED.
Edgar B. Bayley, J. ~
-3-
99-0266 MISCELLANEOUS
Raymond Booth, #CS-2943
SCI Camp Hill
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200
Elvira O. Guida, Esquire
Assistant Counsel
Pa. Department of Corrections
:saa
-4-