HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1832
JOSEPH A. ELLIOTT, SR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V.:
:
JEFFREY A. BEARD, Ph.D., : NO. 2007-1832 CIVIL TERM
Defendant :
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., October , 2010
Petitioner began the instant action by filing a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
on Cruel and Unusual Punishment and the Denial of Due Process” on April 3, 2007. The
petition was reinstated by the Court and served by the Sheriff on October 4, 2007.
Despite having been properly served the respondent took no action on the petition.
Apparently frustrated with the delay, petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of
Mandamus” with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On February 25, 2010 the Supreme
Court issued an order directing this court to adjudicate the matter within 120 days. The
case was thereafter assigned to the undersigned. On March 1, 2010 we entered an order
scheduling a hearing on the petition for May 11, 2010. Shortly before the hearing
petitioner filed a “Petition for Special Relief” in which he requested a continuance and
asked for a protective order. After hearing from both parties we granted petitioner’s
request for a continuance as well as several of his special relief requests. The hearing on
the underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus was rescheduled for June 11, 2010.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on June 10, 2010. While the motion
contained several grounds for dismissal, we were satisfied that the petition did not state
NO. 2007 – 1832 CIVIL TERM
grounds upon which habeas corpus relief could be granted. Therefore, we granted the
respondent’s motion.
Petitioner is a sentenced prisoner under the control of the Pennsylvania
1
Department of Corrections. Respondent is the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department
2
of Corrections. Petitioner claims respondent, through his agents, transferred him from
one institution to another and seized several of his files dealing with pending litigation.
He further alleges that those actions were retaliatory in nature.
The only cognizable basis for habeas corpus relief is 1) illegal detention or 2) a
violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Com. ex. Rel. Fortune v. Dragonvich, 792 A.2d 1257 (Pa.Super., 2002). The petitioner
does not allege either. The Fortune Court specifically held that a retaliatory transfer does
not provide the basis for habeas corpus relief. While the alleged seizure of his legal
materials may be a violation of due process, it does not rise to the level of cruel and
unusual punishment. Furthermore, any due process violation can be “appropriately
addressed in a claim for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law as
prescribed by the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” 792 A.2d 1259 – 1260.
Therefore, we dismissed his petition as we were required to do under the Prison
3
Litigation Reform Act.
___________________ _______________________
DATE Edward E. Guido, J.
1
Petition, paragraph 1.
2
Petition, paragraph 2.
3
Section 6602 (e) (2) of the Act requires us to “dismiss prison conditions litigation at any time” if it “fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6602 (e) (2).
2
NO. 2007 – 1832 CIVIL TERM
JOSEPH A. ELLIOTT, SR., CA-1717
SCI-GREENE
175 PROGRESS DRIVE
WAYNESBURG, PA 15370
VINCENT R. MAZESKI, ESQUIRE
MARY E. WARNER, ESQUIRE
55 UTLEY DRIVE
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
:sld
3