Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-9266 JOSHUA PAYNE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : NO. 11-9266 CIVIL JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY, : DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, AND : JEFFREY K. DITTY, : SUPERINTENDENT, : Respondents : IN RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner Joshua Payne has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus requesting an “immediate transfer from the SMU to S.S.N.U so that Plaintiff may began [sic] receiving immediate mental health treatment with an eye towards reintegration into an SCI General Population,” as well as a “declaratory judgment which states that above named Defendants has [sic] in fact violated Plaintiff’s Constitutiona [sic] rights.” Petitioner is currently incarcerated at SCI-Camp Hill, and he is housed in the Special Management Unit (S.M.U.), a unit devoted to prisoners with a history of problematic and behavioral issues. The writ states a cause of action whereby Petitioner seeks to inquire into the nature and cause of his restraint; however, more specifically, Petitioner’s writ is in the nature of a challenge to his prison conditions. Because this petition does not state a basis for relief, it will be dismissed. The writ may be summarized as follows. Petitioner takes issue with his placement in the Special Management Unit of SCI-Camp Hill. Petitioner avers that, immediately upon his arrival to the S.M.U., he had serious concerns regarding the conditions of his cell, including the cleanliness of the cell and the noise control at nighttime. Petitioner avers that as a result of the failure by SCI-Camp Hill staff to respond to his complaints, he slit his wrists and swallowed a razor blade he had obtained and broken in half. Petitioner was immediately rushed to an outside hospital for x-ray evaluations to determine if a removal of the razor blade was necessary. After hospital staff determined that Petitioner did not in fact swallow a razor blade, Petitioner was returned to SCI-Camp Hill and placed in a psychiatric observation cell for 24 hours. Petitioner avers that, despite the findings of the hospital staff, upon his return to incarceration he did defecate the razor blade, resulting in cuts to his rectum. Immediately thereafter, Petitioner avers that he re-swallowed the razor blade, resulting in a second trip to the outside hospital for x-ray evaluation. The hospital staff was able to remove the ingested razor blade, and Petitioner was again placed inside a psychiatric observation cell for 24 hours. Petitioner avers that the very next day he was transferred to a Mental Health Unit at SCI- Graterford for mental health treatment. Petitioner avers that he was placed on psychiatric medication that had previously been prescribed for him, and he was returned to the S.M.U. at SCI-Camp Hill. Petitioner takes issue with the length of time he was kept in the Mental Health Unit, asserting that he should have received “better, adequate, mental health treatment due to his depression. . . .” Upon his return to SCI-Camp Hill, Petitioner avers that he refused to eat for a period of 5 days, whereupon he made a request to staff to speak to the psychologist because he began again to have suicidal thoughts. When his request was denied, Petitioner avers that he cut himself and swallowed another razor blade. He was taken to an outside hospital where he received an x-ray, and a portion of the razor blade was removed from his body. Petitioner was placed in a psychiatric observation cell; however, his stay lasted for 3 days because all of the razor blade 2 could not be removed by hospital staff. Petitioner avers that he was thereafter returned to the S.M.U. without seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist. Upon his return to the S.M.U., Petitioner avers that he was again placed on psychiatric medication. Petitioner claims that he took the medication for 8 months, and, after that time, he was no longer able to continue his medication due to personal religious reasons which prevented him from eating or drinking during the month of Ramadan. As the result of his inability to receive his mediation, he again “heard voices” which told him to harm himself. Petitioner avers that he again cut his wrists, swallowed a razor blade, and attempted to hang himself in his cell. Petitioner was provided with x-rays and placed in a psychiatric observation cell. Petitioner avers that this cell was a “hard cell,” and he was given only a security blanket and a smock. Despite his confinement, Petitioner avers that he obtained another razor blade and began to cut himself. This final act resulted in his commitment to the Mental Health Unit at SCI-Gaterford, where he “does not believe that he received proper mental health treatment.” Petitioner was thereafter returned to SCI-Camp Hill and again placed in the S.M.U. Petitioner filed the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking relief (1) “in the form of immediate transfer from the SMU to [the Severe Special Needs Unit] so that Plaintiff may began [sic] receiving immediate mental health treatment with an eye towards reintegration into an SCI General Population,” and (2) “Declaratory Judgment which states that above named Defendants has [sic] in fact violated Plaintiff’s Constitutiona [sic] rights.” The Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth ex rel. Fortune v. Dragovich, infra, has described the availability of habeas corpus relief pertaining to prisoners in the Commonwealth: 3 “The availability of habeas corpus in Pennsylvania is both prescribed and limited by statute. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§6502 (power to issue writ); 6503 (right to apply for writ). Subject to these provisions, the writ may issue only when no other remedy is available for the condition the petitioner alleges or available remedies are exhausted or ineffectual. See [Commonwealth Dep't of Corrections v.] Reese, 774 A.2d [1255,] 1260 [(Pa. Super. 2001)]. Thus, ‘habeas corpus should not be entertained . . . merely to correct prison conditions which can be remedied through an appeal to prison authorities or to an administrative agency.’ Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v. Hendrick, 444 Pa. 83, 280 A.2d 110, 113 (1971). Moreover, ‘it is not the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penal institutions.’ Id. Accordingly, the writ may be used only to extricate a petitioner from illegal confinement or to secure relief from conditions of confinement that constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See id.; Weaver v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 688 A.2d 766, 775 n.17 (Pa. Commw. 1997). ‘[T]he failure or refusal of prison authorities to exercise discretion in a particular way may not be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding.’ Commonwealth ex rel. Tancemore v. Myers, 189 Pa. Super. 270, 150 A.2d 180, 182 (1959).” Commonwealth ex rel. Fortune v. Dragovich, 2002 PA Super 38, ¶ 5, 792 A.2d 1257, 1259. Our courts have repeatedly held that grievances arising from prison officials' exercise of discretion in overseeing the placement of prisoners is not a cognizable basis for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Dragovich, 792 A.2d at 1259 (referencing Commonwealth ex rel. Tancemore v. Myers, 189 Pa. Super 270, 150 A.2d 180 (1959)). “[T]he failure or refusal of prison authorities to exercise discretion in a particular way may not be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding.” Commonwealth ex rel. Tancemore v. Myers, 189 Pa. Super. 270, 274, 150 A.2d 180, 182 (1959) (citing as support Commonwealth ex rel. Woydakowski v. Burke, 175 Pa. Super. 519, 106 A.2d 678 (1954); Commonwealth ex rel. DiCamillo v. Burke, 172 Pa. Super. 10, 91 A.2d 916 (1952); Commonwealth ex rel. Sherman v. Burke, 364 Pa. 198, 70 A.2d 302 (1950)). Our Supreme Court has held that while the writ has a scope and flexibility to reach all manner of illegal detention, including its use to secure relief from conditions of confinement that 4 constitute cruel and unusual punishment, that ability is subject to an important caveat; specifically, the writ is not the proper means to challenge “prison conditions which can be remedied through an appeal to prison authorities or to an administrative agency”. Commonwealth ex rel. Bryant v. Hendrick, 444 Pa. 83, 90, 280 A.2d 110, 113. In Hendrick, the Court explained that it is not the ordinary function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penal institutions. This is the responsibility of those in charge of the prison itself and those officers, both state and local, who are given supervisory powers. We also emphasize that habeas corpus should not be entertained on the slightest pretext or merely to correct prison conditions which can be remedied through an appeal to prison authorities or to an administrative agency. But, we do mean that where the conditions of the confinement are so cruel and callous as the evidence in the present case establishes, the courts may grant relief through habeas corpus in order to protect the petitioner's fundamental and basic rights. Hendrick, 444 Pa. at 90, 280 A.2d at 113. It is apparent, therefore, that only those conditions which are “so cruel and callous” and those which allay a petitioner’s “fundamental and basic rights” are proper considerations upon which the writ may issue. Id. After review, nothing contained in the instant petition indicates that the conditions found in the S.M.U. at SCI-Camp Hill are so cruel and inhumane that relief must be granted to protect the prisoner’s fundamental and basic rights. Petitioner may indeed be disgruntled and displeased with his current location within the prison, but his fundamental rights remain intact, and none of the averments contained within his petition rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. The physical harm which has befallen the inmate is self-inflicted and in each case he received prompt medical treatment. Petitioner’s status as a resident of the S.M.U. is properly relegated to 5 the discretion of prison authorities, and, therefore, his placement in the S.M.U. is not a cognizable basis for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied. ORDER th AND NOW, this 16 day of December, 2011, the within Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. BY THE COURT, ______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, P. J. Joshua Payne, GQ5960 SCI-Camp Hill SMU P. O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 :rlm 6 JOSHUA PAYNE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : CIVIL ACTION – LAW : NO. 11-9266 CIVIL JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY, : DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, AND : JEFFREY K. DITTY, : SUPERINTENDENT, : Respondents : IN RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ORDER th AND NOW, this 16 day of December, 2011, the within Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. BY THE COURT, ______________________________ Kevin A. Hess, P. J. Joshua Payne, GQ5980 SCI-Camp Hill SMU P. O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 :rlm