Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-3372.
November 28, 2005
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 30, 2005, Petitioner filed a pro se self-styled "Emergency, Constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjuciendum et Recipiendum." See Docket Entry No. 1. In this document, Mr. Poulson states that on February 26, 1993, Judge Ward F. Clark of the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas sentenced him to a life sentence. Petitioner argues:
The sentence of the court, IS NOT THE TRUE CAUSE OF THE RESTRAINT. The respondent has deviated from the promise of parens patriae, and gone beyond the Constitutional standards vested in the Least Restrictive Alternative Doctrine, and have openly pursued an interest in enforcing punitive conditions/court imposed sentence, from a court that lacks jurisdiction over non-residents, and that can only punish for contempt.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by way of legislative mischief and under the guise of its police powers has abandoned its corporate purpose, and has unlawfully claimed that its actions are vested in the publics interest. The Pennsylvania Maximum Sentencing Provisions ( 18 Pa.C.S. § 1101- 1105) is a tool of deception. Due to the merger of law and mental health all crimes are commercial, and all dangerous acts justify medical attention/treatment. No performance by way of 18 Pa.C.S. § 1101- 1105 is binding, any commitment term or restraint of liberties exceeding (72 hours) is in fact indeterminate and falls under the strict guideline of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966.
Sui Juris is restrained of liberties by virtue of the commitment order (i.e. DC 300B Form) currently in the possession of the respondent who has refused to disclose. Said form and the courts imposed sentence are in CONFLICT. The respondent is restraining based on the "sentence" and in doing so has created an unconstitutional condition that has inflicted cruel and unusual punishment.
The merger of mental health and the law brought with it certain essential rights and equal protections for those accused. Custodial rational is vested in parens patriae which prescribes a "72 hour" period of commitment upon warrant or written statement from a physician, (upon arrival at the facility) recording grounds that the committed person needs and examination.
The State, without said warrant or statement moved to have [ME] committed to a dangerously/criminally insane institution for diagnostic classification absent lawful notice, petition to commit or trial. To date, there has never been a professional judgment or lawful determination beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise that [I] pose a clear danger to myself or others.
The State, by way of force and vexatious/coercive means has extended my commitment term for many additional ongoing years, absent notice, warrant, trial or physicians findings to justify said extended restraint of [MY] liberties. I currently remain a victim of perjorative labeling and "societal reaction", committed for non-medical grounds, denied lawful yearly review to determine whether a substantive right protected by the Due Process Clause has been violated, or if [MY] liberty interest out-weigh the demands of society.
The State has never upon its own, or on behalf of the public entered its appearance upon the court docket nor entered any information that even suggests that there exists a public or private interest in having [ME] committed to an institution, and in doing so, has deprived me of [MY] liberty interest creating an unconstitutional condition.Id. [emphasis in original].
On August 30, 2005, Mr. Poulson wrote a letter, addressed to me, representing that all of his legal documents and notes had been confiscated by David DiGuglielmo, and that "the officials who confiscated my legal documents have issued an order that the law and statutes I used are under investigation and that I cannot use them anymore." As a result of this "organized raid," Petitioner states that he has been rendered "civilly dead," and is "no longer able to litigate [his] Civil Action No. 05-3372." See August 24, 2005 letter [Docket Entry No. 4].
On November 7, 2005, I ordered Mr. Poulson to complete a standard § 2254 form, setting forth the core of his argument on the form itself, and to return the completed form by December 7, 2005. See November 7, 2005 Order [Docket Entry No. 5].
On November 15, 2005, Petitioner returned the standard § 2254 form, on which he simply filled out the caption information on page 1 and left the remaining 10 pages blank. Attached to the blank § 2254 form is a typed document entitled "Actual And Constructive Notice Of Defendants Obstruction Tactics And Request For Unconditional Discharge." See Docket Entry No. 6.
Petitioner did not fill out the attached in forma pauperis form. However, as he correctly notes, he paid the $5 filing fee on June 30, 2005, when he filed his original self-styled emergency habeas petition.
In this typed document, sent "in the spirit of good faith and fairness," Petitioner states: "how on earth can I effectively litigate my Habeas Corpus action, when ALL the legal notes that have gathered over the (13 yrs.) of my commitment, that are DIRECTLY related to my case, have been taken from me, not withstanding the fact that the very Habeas action itself was taken as contraband? . . ." Id.
Petitioner argues:
[. . .] [T]here are liberty interest that follow me through the doors at SCI-Graterford. It is well established in law that, commitment to a dangerous institution such as "Graterford", is not cruel and unusual punishment [IF] certain rights remain un-infringed
The custody I once resided under [WAS NOT] a state of peonage because certain fundamental freedoms where provided/preserved by the custodian. When these liberties are no longer in existence, the nature of my custody changes from one committed via Parens Patriae, to that of a hostage/kidnappee. [. . .]
Justice, equity and the conscious of humanity dictate that unconditional discharge is the proper remedy. The D.O.C. cannot be given an excuse or "slap-on-the-wrist." They willingly elected to litigate in bad faith, they willingly elected to place me in a legal straight jacket and render me civilly dead.
Judge Angell, the D.O.C. does not deny, refute or contest anything that I aver in this notice, in fact, they stand firm on there actions and have continued to order their officer to confiscate legal documents. They have established a new president, and have determined, absent legislative or judicial ruling that "PENAL INTEREST" supercedes the United States Constitution.Id.
I have carefully reviewed all documents submitted by Mr. Poulson, and conclude none of the documents, separately or read together, are legally sufficient to raise a habeas claim. While Mr. Poulson is seeking release from incarceration, he does not appear to be challenging his life sentence, which is the only basis for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is not entitled to "unconditional discharge" under the habeas statute for the alleged improper seizure of his legal paperwork.
To the extent that Petitioner seeks the return of legal materials which he alleges were improperly seized, he may bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, to be successful, Mr. Poulson must show that the alleged unlawful seizure of his legal documents was objectively unreasonable. See e.g., Eakles v. Greenfield, CA No. 91-1937, 1992 WL 34132 at * 1-2 (E.D. Pa. February 18, 1992) (where the government shows a legitimate penological need necessitated the search, that the need could not have been satisfied by a more narrow means, and the search and any subsequent seizure were conducted in a reasonable manner under the specific facts and circumstances, there is no violation of the prisoner's Fourth Amendment rights).
My chambers will place a telephone call to Mr. Poulson's counselor at SCI Graterford to inquire whether, in fact, his legal materials have been seized and, if so, to ask that the legal materials please be returned to Mr. Poulson, if possible.
I find, after preliminary review, that the pleadings filed by Mr. Poulson are not legally sufficient to state a claim under § 2254. Therefore, I believe it appropriate to dismiss his habeas petition without prejudice.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further recommended a finding be made that there is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.