Ricardo Noble v. John E. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.
This UnconStitu tonal for judges and Prison
$taer to allow their PET Sonal preyadices te interfere |
with their ability to de their job. LiteKky v WSs, WY7LIIDDS
| Crus wbeto, YOSus, 39UI7ZD,
Th + ecred/abused discretion by rgnorins
and Caley ERAT capleneeess Stated thar S6.t7 Cree pe
defendants and other Sc LoGreene Start Classified and
Aweats NGE(SL) AS STG because PennsylVania Dive.
classifies the NGECSL)AS 4 STA, des pile fact shot .
Head of PA, Dil: statedin aber regarories/Pleadin ge
that¢ the PALDO.e Never Classified the NGELS#) AS AS7E
The courterced/abused dosceretion by ignoring Law
ank fact that defen {eee Adm ttre Sand petitioner's
EXhroits ve rifiéd, that S.c.d5 Greene defendants ans other
Bed oreene Stal Ew ithout arth ority or basissan 6 EA Vidlot ior
OF PA1D.0.Ce policy, clo ssi fre dftreoate b NGCELS%o) @S & gag
and S7G@ and petitione © asa S76 member because he
SO NGE(S +s © 6 FE i
The ceuct erre dfabuse & dose cetyon by hers; NG law ,
and fa cf defendants adwmut, and pettioner's exhibits
verity that No St&if7 Greene defendant oc dtherc
S-ecLr Cceene STATE had aurnenty oc basis 're classify
eetitionec as a s7TEmembec Or noEeGYa)as O STE oe cui
Y fhe coucterre d/apusces discreten by falsely
claiming pet itvone c_waS hot classed asa S7G
mem ber' because he i NGE(S%), despite Fact thar
defeadauts agmited, and Petitione c's exhibits vecikied a
that if was because fretitionec (S NGE(S of) +e re ae
«Ss The couct ercedfabused disccetivn by Zlaiming af
"immareria\" the Couct usihg "Department of corcect/onslmoc" |
and "sag -@reene" intecckron geatal y as (Ff they are
thé Same, despt© pe tittoaec'S clear diStinction.
between Sidi Green™ defendants? ahd other Sct Greene _
StAFES FeFarraro ry basele Sand unautharized practices
polices and ve ulations ré,
égar da}
and pedesylvernin a rncat ding the NGE 5%)
Poucie S, Practices; a nt OF Corgectio nes
, and Feguletions .
G, The Couct er ed regarding Such
and Pet tionec's exhibe- ot defendants
Whether it is unconstitutional for judges and prison staff to allow their personal prejudices to interfere with their ability to do their job