IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PETER HOCK, :

:

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 04-CV-4517

v. :

:

COUNTY OF BUCKS AND BUCKS COUNTY :

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, :

:

Defendants. :

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

OF DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF BUCKS AND

BUCKS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

1. Defendants County of Bucks and Bucks County Department of Corrections 

(“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Statement 

of Undisputed Facts in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.1

2. Defendant County of Bucks is a municipal entity that maintains offices in 

Doylestown, PA. (Compl. at ¶ 2). 

3. Defendant Bucks County Department of Corrections is a County funded 

and operated criminal justice agency, part of the executive branch of county government. 

(See description of Department of Corrections at Bucks County Government website, 

attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit “A”). 

4. The Department of Corrections services all municipal and state law 

enforcement authorities via the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas and 18 local 

District Courts. (Ex. A). 

 

1

The references to Exhibits refer to the Exhibits attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment.

Case 2:04-cv-04517-MMB Document 9 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 7
2

5. The Department of Corrections is the single largest criminal justice agency 

within Bucks County, employing 328 people in various types of jobs. (Ex. A). 

6. The Bucks County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”) is a facility that houses 

medium to maximum security classified pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners. (Ex. 

A).

7. Plaintiff Peter Hock (“Hock”) worked as a probationary Corrections 

Officer in the BCCF for a little less than six months, from April 8, 2002 through 

September 30, 2002. (See excerpted pages of the deposition of Peter Hock, dated July 

27, 2005, attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit “B,” at 101-

102, 115). 

8. Hock understood that he (1) was a probationary employee for his first six 

months of employment; (2) would receive evaluations after 90, 120, and 150 days to 

determine whether his performance was acceptable to continue employment; and (3) was 

not part of the union until he completed his probationary period. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. 

at 101-102). 

9. As a Corrections Officer, Hock was responsible for maintaining security 

and discipline in the BCCF. An important task of a Corrections Officer is writing and 

understanding reports. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 19, 24, 111-112; see also Job 

Description of Corrections Officer for the County of Bucks attached to Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit “C”).

10. Writing incident reports is an important duty of a Corrections Officer at 

the BCCF. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 19, 24). 

Case 2:04-cv-04517-MMB Document 9 Filed 08/01/05 Page 2 of 7
3

11. Hock received a few days of training in the writing of reports. (See Ex. B, 

Hock dep. at 19-20). 

12. In the event that a Corrections Officer witnessed an incident, the BCCF 

required a Corrections Officer to complete an Incident Report. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 

23). 

13. In fact, a Corrections Officer usually had to complete a written report 

before the Corrections Officer could leave work after completion of his or her shift. (See

Ex. B, Hock dep. at 23-24). 

14. Hock knew he could be disciplined if he did not write an Incident Report 

in a timely manner. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 24). 

15. Hock sought to include all important facts in the incident reports that he 

completed. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 20).

16. Hock wrote only two incident reports that form the basis for his complaint. 

(See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 10-11; see also Compl. at ¶ 29). 

17. The first report occurred on August 8, 2002, when Hock completed an 

incident report describing his observations of a “Code 99” F block incident involving an 

inmate that occurred on August 6, 2002. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 11-26; see also

Incident Report From Corrections Officer Hock to Shift Command, dated August 8, 

2002, attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit “D”). 

Case 2:04-cv-04517-MMB Document 9 Filed 08/01/05 Page 3 of 7
4

18. He wrote that “[i]t seemed that the inmates where [sic] tring [sic] to get 

storys [sic] straight. I saw a lot of them whispering about it and telling each other what 

I/M Herder thought happened.” (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 11-26; see also Ex. D).2 

19. Hock turned the report into shift command and did not provide a copy to 

anyone else. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 13). 

20. Hock did not verbally report anything that was not in his written report. 

(See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 10-12). 

21. Hock had a responsibility as a Corrections Officer to complete this report. 

(See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 23). 

22. No one told Hock to change or rewrite his report. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. 

at 13-14). 

23. The second report occurred on September 10, 2002, when Hock submitted 

an internal incident report to shift command describing his observation of a Code 99 

incident in the reception area. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 45-49, 69-70; see also Incident 

Report From Officer Hock to Shift Command, dated September 10, 2002, attached to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit “E”). 

24. Hock did not submit the incident report to anyone else. (See Ex. B, Hock 

dep. at 69-70). 

 

2 Hock alleges in his Complaint that “he reported first-hand observations that inmates fabricated a 

version of events involving an incident of excessive force where the Defendants elected to pursue 

charges against the officers involved . . . .” (Compl. at ¶ 29). Hock also alleged in the Complaint 

that he reported that he witnessed the inmates contriving or rehearsing a version of the incident to 

support the inmate involved. (Compl. at ¶ 13). These averments are not supported by Hock’s 

Incident Report. (See Ex. D). Under either version of the report, Hock fails to establish that his 

speech was on a matter of public concern.

Case 2:04-cv-04517-MMB Document 9 Filed 08/01/05 Page 4 of 7
5

25. Hock wrote that an inmate came and informed Officer Baehser that 

another inmate should not be on the same block. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 46; see also

Ex. E at Bucks/Hock 0005). 

26. Hock also wrote that the inmate had to be forcibly taken off the block. 

See Ex. E at Bucks/Hock 0006). 

27. Two other officers (Officer Vegvary and Officer Baehser) also completed 

reports of this incident that were similar to Hock’s report. Officer Baehser wrote that an 

inmate approached him and told him that he could not be on the same block as another 

inmate. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 49-51; see also Incident Report From Officer Baehser 

to Shift Command, dated September 10, 2002, attached to Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment as Exhibit “F”). 

28. Corrections Officer Vegvary wrote that he and Hock had to restrain an 

inmate and place him on the ground. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 51-52; see also Incident 

Report From Corrections Officer Vegvary to S/C, dated September 10, 2002, attached to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit “G”). 

29. Neither Baehser nor Vegvary were disciplined for the incident or 

submitting reports of the incident. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 51-52).

30. On September 30, 2002, Captain Brown gave Hock a 150 day evaluation 

showing that he had received a 59 percent average. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 83; see also

Captain’s Review Form Probationary Employee Evaluation attached to Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit “H”). 

31. Hock needed 60 percent or above to pass his probationary period. (See

Ex. B, Hock dep. at 60; see also Ex. H). 

Case 2:04-cv-04517-MMB Document 9 Filed 08/01/05 Page 5 of 7
6

32. Brown also wrote that “[s]upervisors have reported that Officer Hock 

lacks IPC skills and has been overly aggressive with inmates. I counseled him about this 

on 9/9/02. On 9/10/02 Officer Hock was again involved in excessive use of force on an 

inmate. Therefore, I am recommending termination at this time.” See Ex. H.; Compl. at 

¶ 23).

33. On September 30, 2002, the County of Bucks terminated Hock’s 

probationary employment. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 114-116; see also County of Bucks 

Record of Disciplinary Action attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as 

Exhibit “I”). 

34. Hock responded that “[s]upervisors need to step up to the plate.” (See Ex. 

B, Hock dep. at 116; see also Ex. I.) 

35. Hock meant that some of the supervisors that he viewed as being sloppy or 

not following procedure had to improve their performance. (See Ex. B, Hock dep. at 

116). 

36. Hock did not write anything about the two incident reports of August 8, 

2002 or September 10, 2002 or his First Amendment rights in response to his termination.

Date: August 1, 2005 s/

Frank A. Chernak (I.D. No. 57602)

BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &

INGERSOLL, LLP

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599

(215) 665-8500

Attorneys for Defendants

County of Bucks and Bucks County 

Department of Corrections

Case 2:04-cv-04517-MMB Document 9 Filed 08/01/05 Page 6 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Frank A. Chernak, hereby certify that on the 1st day of August, 2005, a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing Statement of Undisputed Facts of Defendants County of 

Bucks and Bucks County Department of Corrections has been filed electronically and is 

available for viewing and downloading from the ECF system. I further certify that I 

caused a true and correct copy of same to be served upon the following counsel via U.S. 

Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

David P. Bateman

Bateman & Caliendo, LLC

420A Dresher Road

Mezzanine Level

Horsham, PA 19044

Date: August 1, 2005 s/

Frank A. Chernak

Case 2:04-cv-04517-MMB Document 9 Filed 08/01/05 Page 7 of 7