|
I just went way out on a limb....on friday the court clerk told me I
was
practicing law and that it was highly unorthodox. She's right on all
counts.
As this will ne defended by the Oklahoma Attorney General....
March 14th I filed a Habeas Corpus for a prisoner in the jail, just a
short
application that I verified.It named Ronnie Henley as the Petitioner.
Friday I filed a Petition For Writ of Mandamus and an Affidavit in
support
of with me as the affiant. I told the Court Clerk that it was a Habeas
Petition by way of a Mandamus Petition, and I had her file it with the
same
case number as the earlier Habeas action.
Don Garrison, who happens to be the top most supervisor within the Jail
Inspection Division of the Okla. State Dept. of Health, is the
respondent.
Can I now file a MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF in this
habeas/manamus action?
The Petition and Affidavit will be posted under this post...
|
| |
| |
.=2E......................IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PONTOTOC COUNTY
..=2E................................................STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Ronnie Henley
PETITIONER
Vs. ......................................Case Number________________
DON GARRISON
RESPONDENT
..=2E......................................PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
..=2E..............................................I STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1=2E The cause is in the nature of a Habeas Corpus / Petition for Writ of
Mandamus action ( SEE: Exhibit A ) due to the respondent to enforce
certain
due process rules at the Pontotoc County Jail, said rules being
promulgated
and in effect under the Jail Inspection Standards within his own
agency,
such neglect being an unlawful act under the Administrative Procedures
Act
of the Oklahoma Statutes at 75 O.S. 302(C)1-3 and 75 O.S.
302(D).Additionally, Respondent refuses to allow your defendant the
Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection of the laws afforded by
the
United States Constitution.
..=2E....................................................II Jurisdiction
2=2E Jurisdiction is invoked in the instant case pursuant to 12 O.S.
1451:
Oklahoma's writ of mandamus remedy is available to correct violations
of a
prisoner's minimum due process rights. See Waldon, 861 P.2d at 313;
Canady
v=2E Reynolds, 880 P.2d 391, 397 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). Minimum due
process
in prison disciplinary proceedings requires, inter alia, the inmate's
right
to present witnesses in his defense if not unduly hazardous to
institutional
or correctional goals, and a written statement by the factfinder as to
the
evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff
v=2E
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64, 566 (1974); Waldon, 861 P.2d at 313.
These
are precisely the type of claims that Mr. Baird made in his petition.
For
example, Mr. Baird claimed the disciplinary chairperson in the Phillips
hearing failed to make a written statement as to why he relied on Mr.
Phillips' version of facts over other witnesses' testimony, and the
defendants refused to call certain witnesses that Mr. Baird asked to
testify
in his defense. Although the Oklahoma mandamus remedy is not available
to
claims involving the respondent's refusal to perform a legal duty that
is
discretionary, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, ch. 18, App., Rule 10.6(B), the
written
statement requirement for minimum due process is not discretionary.
..=2E.....................................................III Petitioner
3=2E Petitioner is Ronnie Henley,, acting through Dane Metcalfe as "next
friend" to Ronnie Henley, a
prisoner of the Pontotoc County Jail who is without access to the
courts and
who is being "punished" in the Jail by having his First Amendment
United
States Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech withheld by being
denied
visitation, the reason given that all prisoners of the holding area he
is
contained in are being subjected to an unlawful "group" punishment,
though
Ronnie Henley has not been accused of any wrong doing.
IV Respondent
4=2E Respondent Don Garrison is, as best as your Petitioner can tell, the
highest level supervisor within the Jail Inspection Division of the
Oklahoma
State Department of Health, with the address as provided to your
Petitioner
as follows:
OSDH
PHS Jails
1000 N.E. 10th
OKC. OK.73117
..=2E..................................................V Facts
5=2E When your Petitioner made a complaint by telephone to Mr. Don
Garrison on
the 14th day of March, 2005 that Pontotoc County Jail Officials had
informed
that the Jail Inspectors who had inspected the Pontotoc County Jail on
the
8th day of March, 2005 allowed a group punishment of all prisoners in
bullpen number 5 without even a semblance of due process required by
not
only by the federal courts, but by the rules of his own agency, and
that
furthermore, restrictions on visits can not be made for punishment by
these
same rules, Mr. Don Garrison refused to consider said complaint valid,
and
told your Petitioner to let him worry about how he runs things in that
department.
6=2E The due process rules that Respondent chooses to neglect enforcing
are as
follows, to wit:
310:670-5-4. Prisoner rules and discipline
(a) Written facility rules shall list all chargeable offenses, and the
range
of sanctions and disciplinary procedures to be followed and shall be
made
available to prisoners. A rule book that contains all chargeable
offenses,
range of sanctions, and disciplinary procedures is provided to each
prisoner
upon booking and is translated into those languages spoken by the
significant number of prisoners. When a literacy or language problem
prevents a prisoner from understanding the rule book, a staff member
shall
assist the prisoner.
(b) All persons who deal with prisoners shall be familiar with the
rules of
prisoner conduct, and the approved sanctions. To prevent discrepancies
among
staff in interpretations, in-service training shall be conducted as
often as
necessary by direction of the administrator.
(c) Employees shall prepare a disciplinary report when they have reason
to
believe that a prisoner has committed a violation of rules.
(d) Disciplinary reports prepared by staff shall include at least the
following:
(1) Specific rules violated;
(2) A formal statement of the charge;
(3) Any unusual prisoner behavior;
(4) Any staff or prisoner witness;
(5) Disposition of any physical evidence;
(6) Any immediate action taken, including the use of force; and
(7) Date and time of the report.
(e) Administrative due process procedures shall be followed for all
rule
violations. A chairperson or a committee may be appointed by the
administrator to hear the charges and make a decision on appropriate
action
to be taken. Due process procedures shall include at least the
following
elements:
(1) Written rules that specify offenses and sanctions;
(2) Prisoner has been made aware of the rules and sanctions;
(3) Prisoner receives written notice of the charges and time of hearing
prior to the hearing;
(4) Prisoner is present at the hearing and hears evidence, except for
confidential information or presents unruly behavior or waives that
right in
writing;
(5) Prisoner has the right to make his own statement;
(6) Prisoner has the right to call relevant witnesses;
(7) Prisoner may be assisted by a willing prisoner or staff member of
his
choosing;
(8) The decision shall be based solely on the evidence and shall be
rendered
in writing;
(9) Record shall be made of the hearing;
(10) Decision shall be reviewed by the facility administrator or
designee;
(11) A prisoner shall have the right to appeal the decision of the
facility
administrator or designee to the next level of authority;
(12) If a prisoner is found not guilty, the disciplinary report and all
associated documents shall be removed from the prisoner's file;
(13) If a prisoner is found guilty, the findings shall be maintained in
the
prisoner's file.
(f) If a prisoner allegedly commits an act covered by statutory law,
the
case may be referred to the appropriate court or law enforcement
officials
for prosecution.
(g) There shall be a written policy and procedure to respond to
prisoner
requests to staff and grievances.
[Sour
|
| |
| |
|
