Statement of Facts
In accordance with the standard of review for a motion to dismiss, the court will present the facts as alleged in the complaint.
See infra Part II. The statements contained herein reflect neither the findings of the trier of fact nor the opinion of the court as to the reasonableness of the parties' allegations.
Plaintiff's complaint begins with allegations that she was sexually assaulted by Defendant Winder in her cell on January 23, 2008. (Doc. No. 1, at 2-3.) She reported the incident and was taken to a local hospital the following day. (
Id. at 3.) She states that in retaliation for reporting the incident, upon her return to SCI-Muncy, she was placed in a psychiatric observation cell. Thereafter, she was advised by Defendants Dillela and Craver that she was to be placed on "strip suicide status." (
Id.) She alleges that during this time, Defendants Kazaar, Moon and Ritchie, among others, denied her blankets, a mattress, showers, heat, food, and basic hygiene items such as underwear, soap, and a toothbrush and toothpaste. (
Id.) In addition, she was housed in a filthy cell with the feces and blood of prior occupants covering the walls. (
Id.) She also reports being moved from cell to cell and being placed in a restraint chair on at least three occasions for five to eight hours. (
Id. at 4-5.) She indicates that she has been physically assaulted by corrections officers and that certain male corrections' officers have "handle[d]" her naked. (
Id. at 4-5.) She also alleges that she was denied medical treatment on several occasions. (
Id.) She complains that because she is constantly moved from cell to cell, she does not get her mail or her mail is lost. (
Id. at 7-8.)
She filed this action on March 6, 2008. (Doc. No. 1.) She represents that there is a grievance procedure available at SCI-Muncy and that she filed a grievance concerning the facts relating to the complaint. (
Id. at 1.) However, she also states that she did not complete the grievance process. (
Id.)
Ball v. Sci Muncy, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-0391 | Casetext Search + Citator
Ex-inmate wins sexual harassment civil case against guard, prison
OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL, July 1, 1968:
In these appeals, appellants attack the Constitutionality of the Muncy Act.[*] The Muncy Act provides a *644 mandatory and exclusive procedure and sentencing provisions for women convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
Appellant Jane Daniel was found guilty of robbery (by a Judge sitting without a jury) and was sentenced to the Philadelphia County Prison for a term of from one to four years. Shortly thereafter, the trial Judge vacated the sentence and resentenced Jane Daniel under the provisions of the Muncy Act to an indeterminate term at the State Correctional Institution at Muncy (hereinafter referred to as "Muncy"). Post-trial motions were denied and an appeal to the Superior Court followed. There, Jane Daniel challenged the validity of her new sentence on the principal ground that the Muncy Act denied women the Equal Protection of Laws as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[*] The Superior Court denied relief (Commonwealth v. Daniels, 210 Pa. Superior Ct. 156, 232 A. 2d 247), and this Court granted allocatur.
Appellant Daisy Douglas and a co-defendant, Richard Johnson, were charged with aggravated robbery and conspiracy. They were tried without a jury and both found guilty as charged. Johnson was given a sentence of from four to ten years in the Eastern State Penitentiary, and Daisy Douglas was given an indeterminate sentence to Muncy. She filed a petition for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, alleging that she had been denied the Equal Protection of the Laws by having been sentenced under the Muncy Act. The hearing Judge denied Daisy's petition, stating that he was "constrained" to follow the Opinion of the *645 Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Daniels, 210 Pa. Superior Ct., supra. Daisy Douglas appealed to the Superior Court from the Order denying her post-conviction petition and the Superior Court in turn certified the question to this Court pursuant to the Act of June 24, 1895, P.L. 212. We consolidated her appeal with that of Jane Daniel.
The pertinent sentencing provisions of the Muncy Act read as follows: "Any court of record in this Commonwealth, exercising criminal jurisdiction, may,[*] in its discretion, sentence to . . . [Muncy] any female over sixteen years of age, upon conviction for, or upon pleading guilty of, the commission of any criminal offense punishable under the laws of this State. . . . Every sentence imposed pursuant to this act shall be merely a general one to . . . [Muncy], and shall not fix or limit the duration thereof. The duration of such imprisonment, including the time spent on parole, shall not exceed three years, except where the maximum term specified by law for the crime for which the prisoner was sentenced shall exceed that period, in which event such maximum term, including the time spent on parole, shall be the limit of detention under the provisions of this act."[**] (Act of 1913, P.L. 1311, § 15, as amended, 61 P.S. § 566.) It is this exception which creates the basic issue in these two appeals.
Commonwealth v. Daniel
Despite efforts to bring parity to women’s prisons, the reformatory ideal still played an important role in shaping the daily routines of incarcerated women in Pennsylvania at the end of the 20th century. Programs at Muncy, the only maximum security prison for women in Pennsylvania, emphasized their spe- cial needs as victims of physical and sexual abuse. Traditional emphasis on training for domestic life was transformed into a therapeutically oriented focus on emotional control. Relying on data from a survey and interviews conducted with women incarcerated at Muncy in 1999, this article describes the gendered nature of prison life and the way in which treatment programs for women were transformed from an emphasis on restoring moral virtue to fallen women to providing therapy for the mentally ill.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.940.9723&rep=rep1&type=pdf
