Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HOLLOWAY v. CAREY

December 14, 1979

ROY HOLLOWAY a/k/a JAY MANNS, Plaintiff, against HONORABLE, HUGH L. CAREY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; JOHN DOE, ASSISTANT COUNSEL OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; JOSEPH W. HENNEBERRY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; J. TRUBEE MILLER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; MICHAEL SACKHEIM, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK, N.Y., Defendants, and (FORMER) HONORABLE, MILTON J. SHAPP, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; (NOW) HONORABLE, RICHARD THORNBURG, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; JAMES GOLDEN, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; HONORABLE, JUDGE CHARLES P. MIRACHI, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNA; HONORABLE, JUDGE MARVIN HALBERT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNA.; EDGAR C. CAMPBELL, CLERK OF QUARTER SESSION COURT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA; DET. ROBERT KANE, BADGE NO. 9097; NOTARY PUBLIC, SHIRLEY KRAFT, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, Defendants.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEINFELD

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, commenced this action pursuant to section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act *fn1" for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based upon allegations of various violations of his federal constitutional rights. He is presently incarcerated at a state facility at Graterford, Pennsylvania following his extradition to that State from New York State. The defendants are officials of both States and include two governors, a former governor, a former attorney general, a secretary of state, two judges, two assistant attorneys general of New York State, a former assistant district attorney of the County of New York, a clerk of the court in Philadelphia, a Philadelphia police officer, and a notary public residing in Philadelphia.

The defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or in the alternative for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motions under Rule 12(b)(6) are granted and the action is dismissed.

 From plaintiff's discursive and rambling complaint it appears that he was arrested in New York City by federal agents on October 18, 1976 who stated "they wanted him for a homicide." He was taken to a federal facility where he alleges he was strip-searched in "a dank cold room" by federal agents. On the following day, he was brought to court for a "hearing" which was adjourned to October 26 to afford the authorities time to produce an extradition warrant. On the adjourned date, a detainer having been lodged against plaintiff based upon a New York State charge of an unidentified nature, he was transferred to the state facility at Riker's Island. Subsequently he was acquitted of the New York charge. However, based upon a fugitive warrant which charged him with murder, he was extradited pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act *fn2" to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He is presently confined to prison in the Commonwealth whether waiting trial or pursuant to a judgment of conviction is not alleged.

 Under the most liberal reading of the complaint, the Court is able to glean the following allegations which plaintiff advances purportedly to support his claims against the named defendants:

 (1) that plaintiff was arrested without a warrant (although not without probable cause);

 (2) that federal officers required him to submit to a strip-search following his arrest on homicide charges;

 (3) that an Assistant District Attorney, Mr. Sackheim, who was representing the County of New York, failed to assist plaintiff in the preparation of his case;

 (4) that he was forced to spend many hours waiting in court for his case to be heard;

 (5) that the presiding judge (State Supreme Court Justice Postell, not named as a defendant) "yelled" at the plaintiff, thereby insulting him, when he failed to reveal his name to the Court;

 (6) that plaintiff's court-appointed counsel (not named as a defendant) failed to use "legal maneuvers" to silence Judge Postell;

 (7) that the State's attorneys used "false and untrue methods" to oppose plaintiff's attempts to secure habeas relief while he was still incarcerated in New York;

 (8) that Governors Thornburgh and Carey, and former Governor Shapp conspired to deny plaintiff his rights; and

 (9) that he was improperly extradited from New York to Pennsylvania.

 The Court is mindful of its obligation liberally to construe the complaint of a pro se litigant, particularly one who is a prisoner. *fn3" Nevertheless, even the most meticulous search of the complaint and the most generous construction of the allegations fail to reveal a single cognizable claim. Initially, it should be noted that with respect to six of the thirteen named defendants, other than listing them in the caption of the case, no allegation or other reference is made to them. *fn4" As to them, plaintiff literally has failed to assert Any claim whatsoever. Moreover, none of the individuals upon whose alleged conduct plaintiff's claims are grounded the agents who ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.