Original jurisdiction in the case of Donald Sylvester Jones v. Curtis Carson, Records Officer, et al.
Donald Sylvester Jones, petitioner, for himself.
Francis R. Filipi, Deputy Attorney General, with him, Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondents.
Judges Craig and Palladino and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri. Judge Williams, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.
Donald Sylvester Jones, Petitioner, pro se, a prisoner serving a sentence in the State Correctional Institute at Huntingdon, is before us on his complaint in mandamus against which preliminary objections have been filed by Respondents, who are designated in Petitioner's complaint as follows: "CURTIS CARSON, Records Officer, RECORDS OFFICER HEIDEL, J. A. DICK, Administrative Assistant, S. L. GROVE, Activities Director, THOMAS A. FULCOMER, Superintendent, FRANK D. GILLIS, Executive Assistant, GLEN R. JEFFES, Commissioner of Corrections, all, in both their individual and official capacities as Employees at SCI-Huntingdon, Drawer R, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, 16652, and, Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections, Box 598, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011."
In an order dated January 9, 1984, it was directed that this case be treated as a Petition for Review in the nature of a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, addressed
to this Court's original jurisdiction; and by order of January 13, 1984, Petitioner was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Respondents' preliminary objections, filed February 8, 1984, first challenge our jurisdiction on the ground that the only officer of the Commonwealth named as a respondent is the Commissioner of Bureau of Corrections, Glen R. Jeffes, and that his presence as a respondent cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court because the complaint fails to aver that he has done anything of which Petitioner complains; that a Writ of Mandamus does not lie except to enforce a clear legal right enjoyed by Plaintiff and where there is a corresponding duty owed by any of the Respondents to perform some ministerial act or mandatory duty; and that there is an adequate remedy available to Petitioner within the corrections system. Respondents' objections include a motion to strike certain statements in Petitioner's complaint alleged to be scandalous and impertinent.
Petitioner's request for relief is relatively simple. He requests that copies of prison misconduct reports be made available to him in preparation for an anticipated parole hearing. Petitioner enumerates the conduct reports concerning his misconduct as those on April 20, 1977, August 10, 1977, November 30, 1979, May 1, 1980, October 21, 1980, and December 1, 1980; and he avers these reports were missing from his personal effects after he moved on November 10, 1981, from another prison into his present institution in Huntingdon; that Commissioner Jeffes promulgated a new regulation involving misconduct actions and procedures, effective August 11, 1983, which he avers contains the following:
E(1) Any inmate who is approaching the expiration of his ...