Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19761112_0000035.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-25 06:50:51
Document Index: 70184892

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', 'art. 27', '§ 616', '§ 191', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 191', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1431', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| WALLACE v. HEWITT
WALLACE v. HEWITT
Lowell D. HEWITT, Superintendent and Carson, Curtis C., Records Clerk
MEMORANDUM NEALON, Chief Judge. In this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court is faced with complex questions regarding the interaction of this civil rights complaint with a previously dismissed petition for habeas corpus filed by the same prisoner. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Huntingdon, Pa. The action has been brought against the superintendent at Huntingdon and a records clerk for their roles in transferring plaintiff to Maryland to face criminal charges there. Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of $10,000 from each defendant. In a pro se petition for habeas corpus filed August 17, 1976,
plaintiff attacked the validity of detainers placed against him by the State of Maryland on May 24, 1976 while he was a sentenced prisoner incarcerated at Huntingdon. Pursuant to those detainers, plaintiff had been transferred to Maryland, tried on charges there, and returned to Huntingdon. On September 7, 1976, plaintiff was ordered to amend his habeas corpus petition to allege exhaustion of remedies under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Md. Code art. 27, §§ 616A-616R.
Plaintiff persisted in the view that the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 19 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann. § 191.1 et seq. (1964), was applicable to his case and that its provisions had been violated.
On September 29, 1976, this Court held that: [whether] the Interstate Agreement on Detainers is applicable to petitioner's transfer to Maryland, or, as petitioner alleges, the Uniform [Criminal] Extradition Act is applicable, petitioner must first resort to state courts to test the legality of his confinement. As set forth in the Order of September 7, petitioner has a remedy in the state courts of Maryland if the Interstate Agreement on Detainers has been violated. For a failure to provide a timely extradition hearing, Pennsylvania state courts will review the confinement of persons in Pennsylvania custody. Either way, exhaustion of state remedies will be required. (footnotes and citations omitted). Consequently, plaintiff's habeas corpus petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust available state remedies. Sixteen days after the dismissal, on October 15, 1976, plaintiff filed this action.
Because adequate financial information has been supplied indicating plaintiff qualifies, permission to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Since it is not questioned that the Interstate Agreement of Detainers and the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act are constitutional and comport with the requirements of due process, plaintiff's claim for damages must be predicated, as was his petition for habeas corpus, on a failure to comply with the provisions of the Extradition Act. Indeed, a careful comparison of the complaint and the provisions of § 10 of the Extradition Act demonstrate that the essence of his civil rights action is a violation of the Act:
the complaint alleges that he waived no rights, was never served with warrants, never appeared before a judge until his trial in Maryland, and was not permitted to challenge the validity of the charges until after his transfer while being tried; § 10 of the Act mandates an immediate appearance in court prior to extradition, notice of the demand for extradition and of the crime being charged, and the opportunity to test the legality of the arrest through the writ of habeas corpus.
19 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann. § 191.10 (1964). It is apparent that plaintiff would in no way be entitled to damages unless defendants have at least violated the provisions of either the Extradition Act or the Agreement. Because of the identity of the subject matter upon which both the petition for habeas corpus relief and the complaint for § 1983 damages are based, and because there has been no exhaustion of equitable judicial remedies available in state courts to challenge the propriety of his transfer from Huntingdon to Maryland, the question presently before the Court is whether this action should be permitted to proceed, or whether this action should be dismissed as "frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Clark v. Zimmerman, 394 F. Supp. 1166, 1177-78 (M.D.Pa.1975). Clearly, § 1983 applies to plaintiff's claim for damages notwithstanding that following exhaustion of judicial remedies, he could be entitled under habeas corpus to release from custody. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554-55, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 493-94, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973).
Merely the fact that § 1983 applies, however, does not establish either that § 1983 has been violated or that the courts must automatically permit the action to proceed. See, e.g., Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1976). I. In the first instance, there appears to be no violation of § 1983. Plaintiff asserted in the earlier habeas corpus action that there had been no compliance with the Extradition Act; the claims made in this § 1983 action bear a substantial similarity to certain provisions of that Act. Plaintiff could argue that, since the Act has been violated, so has due process and, since state courts would not provide a damage remedy for violations of the Act, he should be permitted a damage remedy under § 1983. However, as discussed earlier, when detainers are filed against sentenced prisoners, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers is applicable, and not the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.
Alternatively, plaintiff could argue on the basis of the Agreement. However, as indicated by the Order of September 7 in the habeas corpus action
and as revealed by a careful examination of the § 1983 complaint, there are no allegations that would establish a violation of the Agreement sufficient to constitute a violation of due process. The Agreement, for example, requires a 30-day waiting period after the detainers are filed, 19 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann. § 1431 (Art. IV(a)) (1964), trial within 120 days after arrival in the receiving state, id. (Art. IV(c)), and dismissal of pending charges if a prisoner is returned to the sending state without having been tried, id. (Art. III(d)). One and one-half months after the detainers were filed, plaintiff was sent to Maryland to stand trial, and one month thereafter plaintiff, having been tried, was returned to Huntingdon. While the Agreement also requires that a prisoner be informed of the contents of the detainer, id. (Art. III(c)), and plaintiff has alleged that he "was not read or served a warrant," the purpose of this provision is to permit a prisoner to receive a prompt disposition of outstanding detainers. Since plaintiff received such a disposition, there has been no violation of due process growing out of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.
Plaintiff will not be permitted to amend his complaint to allege violations of the Agreement and of due process: since becoming aware that the Agreement was the applicable statute, he has already had two opportunities, once when amending his habeas corpus petition and once when filing this § 1983 complaint, to allege violations of the Agreement. He has failed to do so, and, from all that appears, the Agreement has not been violated. Cf. Mukmuk v. Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services, 529 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1976). Moreover, even if a cause of action were established under § 1983 and the due process clause for violation of the Agreement, the Court would decline to exercise its jurisdiction in this case. II. There are circumstances under which the federal district courts must abstain from reaching the merits of constitutional complaints. Most common are the cases where the injunctive power of a federal court is sought. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), a plaintiff sought to enjoin a criminal prosecution, pending against him, which he alleged inhibited the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The Court abstained, holding that this plaintiff could adequately protect his First Amendment rights in defending against the prosecution itself. In Huffman v. Pursue, 420 U.S. 592, 95 S. Ct. 1200, 43 L. Ed. 2d 482 (1975), this same principle was found applicable to a civil proceeding under a state's nuisance statute. Again, although the plaintiff contended that there existed a threat to constitutional rights, the Court held that respect for the efficacy of important state functions required the invocation of the doctrine of abstention. And, in Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S. Ct. 598, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1976), the Court held abstention appropriate since the relief fashioned by the district court represented an intrusion into the functioning of internal municipal affairs unjustified by the extent of constitutional deprivations.
See id. at 376-380, 96 S. Ct. 598. Since there was no pending action of either a civil or criminal nature, Rizzo makes it clear that the extent of the deprivation and the importance and sensitivity of the state function are factors which may by themselves justify abstention. See also Wallace v. Kern, 520 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 912, 96 S. Ct. 1109, 47 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1976). &nbsp;The doctrine of abstention has been applied in the lower federal courts in damage actions under § 1983. In Fulford v. Klein, 529 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1976), and Clark v. Zimmerman, 394 F. Supp. 1166 (M.D.Pa.1975) (Sheridan, C.J.) the purported constitutional deprivations arose out of criminal prosecutions; appeals were still pending. In Fulford it was held that an action for damages could not be prosecuted while there was an appeal pending and "before all state remedies have been exhausted. . ." 529 F.2d at 378. The damage claim under § 1983 was viewed as a "thinly disguised circumvention of state remedies." Id. at 381. The facts were very similar in Clark, a ...