Original jurisdiction in case of Commonwealth, ex rel. Rodney Anthony Lindsley, Jr., et al. v. William Robinson, Glenn R. Jeffes, Joseph F. Ryan, Gilbert A. Walters, Thomas J. Figmik, John R. Stepanik, John Matey, Walter Uranowski, Richard Kinder, James A. Taylor, Fred W. Jacobs, Hermann Tattlerm, Thomas J. Cole, Richard R. Manley, Charles T. McKeown, Robert Berkheiser, Bernard Brominski, Mr. Montacy, J., et al.
Rodney A. Lindsley, Jr., petitioner, for himself.
Glenn Gilman, Deputy Attorney General, with him J. Andrew Smyser, Deputy Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondents.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by President Judge Bowman.
To a petition for review in the nature of mandamus of petitioner pro se, Rodney Anthony Lindsley, Jr. (petitioner), the sixteen named respondents have filed preliminary objections: (1) in the nature of a demurrer; (2) raising the defense of pendency of a prior action, Pa. R.C.P. No. 1017(b)(5); and (3) challenging this Court's jurisdiction in mandamus.*fn1
Respondents' preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits as true all well and clearly
pleaded material and relevant factual averments and all inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316, 155 A.2d 343 (1959); Mistick v. Cammack, 397 Pa. 296, 154 A.2d 588 (1959); Commonwealth v. Musser Forests, Inc., 394 Pa. 205, 146 A.2d 714 (1958); Vance v. Kassab, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 328, 325 A.2d 924 (1974). Conclusions of law and unjustified inferences are not so admitted. Lerman v. Rudolph, 413 Pa. 555, 198 A.2d 532 (1964). We thus consider whether petitioner has stated a cause of action which, if proved, would entitle him to the relief sought. Yania v. Bigan, supra. If upon such examination there remains doubt as to the propriety of dismissing the complaint, the demurrer shall not be granted. Borden v. Baldwin, 444 Pa. 577, 281 A.2d 892 (1971).
It is not necessary to belabor the lengthy and complicated factual averments of the petition to conclude that the demurrer is not well taken and must be dismissed.
Count II of the petition contains averments which, if supported by evidence, would indicate deliberate and systematic harassment by respondents of petitioner for, inter alia, petitioner's activities as a "jailhouse lawyer" and for actions brought by petitioner on his own behalf in Federal District Courts. See Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969).
Count III of the petition contains averments which, if proved, would indicate that petitioner has been given disciplinary misconducts without due process of law, see e.g. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) and U.S. ex rel. Neal v. Wolfe, 346 F. Supp. 569 (E.D. Pa. 1972), and Count IV contains ...