COURT OF COMMON PLEASCIVIL ACTION

SKUYKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------MAJOR GEORGE TILLERY,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
JOHN WETZEL, Secretary of the Department of
Corrections; JOHN KERESTES, Superintendent,
SCI Mahanoy; BRENDA TRITT, Superintendent,
SCI Frackville; GEORGE MILLER, Deputy
Superintendent, SCI Frackville; JENNIFER NEWBERRY,
Acting Superintendents Assistant; Dr. PAUL NOEL,
Director of DOC Medical Services; JOHN STEINHART,
Chief Health Care Administrator, SCI Mahanoy; Dr. John
Lisiak; KAREN HOLLY, RN; VICKIE STANISHEFSKI,
Former Chief Health Care Administrator, SCI Frackville;
Dr. HARESH PANDYA; Major MICHAEL DAMORE;
Lt. CLARK; Ms. GRIFFIN; Captain S. DOWNS; SHARON
LUQUIS; DORINA VARNER, Chief Grievance Officer,
DOC Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals; and
RANDALL SEARS, Deputy Counsel, Department of Corrections;
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------COMPLAINT
MAJOR GEORGE TILLERY, pro se
AM 9783
SCI FRACKVILLE
1111 Altamont Blvd.
Frackville, Pa 17932
Dated: January 5, 2016
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for violations

of the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
Sections 1, 2, 7 and 11 of Article I of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania pursuant to 42 USC 1983, 42 Pa Const. Stat. 6602(e)(c)1, and
violations of other Pennsylvania state law.
2.

This Court is the appropriate venue pursuant to 231 Pa Rules of Civil

Procedure 1006 because the events and omissions giving rise to the causes of
action occurred in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.
PARTIES
3.

Plaintiff, MAJOR GEORGE TILLERY (Plaintiff or Tillery) is a sixty-five

year old African-American man incarcerated in the custody of the Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections (DOC), currently housed at SCI Frackville, 1111
Altamont Blvd, Frackville, PA 17921.
4.

Defendant JOHN WETZEL (Wetzel) is Secretary of the Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections and is responsible for the confinement, care and

rehabilitation of approximately 51,000 inmates at state correctional facilities
funded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As part of his overall management
and operation of the entire adult corrections system, the secretary directly
supervises the Office of Chief Counsel, Office of Inmate Grievance and Appeals,
Office of Special Investigations and Intelligence and the Office of Medical

Services. His address is: Secretary John Wetzel, Department of Corrections, 1920
Technology Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050.
5.

Defendant JOHN KERESTES (Kerestes) is the Superintendent at SCI

Mahanoy and is responsible for the overall operation of SCI Mahanoy including
the well-being and health of individuals incarcerated there. Defendant Kerestes is
sued in his individual and official capacities. His address is SCI Mahanoy, 301
Morea Rd., Frackville, PA 17932.
6.

Defendant BRENDA TRITT (Tritt) is the Superintendent at SCI Frackville.

Defendant Tritt is responsible for the overall operation of SCI Frackville including
the well-being and health of individuals incarcerated at SCI Frackville. Defendant
Tritt is sued in her individual and official capacities. Her address is SCI Frackville,
1111 Altamont Blvd, Frackville, PA 17931.
7.

Defendant GEORGE MILLER (Miller) is Deputy Superintendent of

Facilities Management (DSFM) at SCI Frackville and makes determinations on

inmate grievances as part of the Program Review Committee (PRC). He is sued in
his individual and official capacities. His address is SCI Frackville, 1111
Altamont Blvd, Frackville, PA 17931.
8.

Defendant JENNIFER NEWBERRY (Newberry) is acting Superintendents

Assistant and Facility Grievance Coordinator at SCI Frackville. She is sued in her
individual and official capacities. Her address is SCI Frackville, 1111 Altamont
Blvd, Frackville, PA 17931.
9.

Defendant DR. PAUL NOEL (Noel) is the Director of the Bureau of Health
3

Care Services of the DOC. The Bureau of Health Care Services is responsible for
the delivery of all medical and dental care services throughout the DOC.
Defendant Noel is sued in his individual and official capacities. His address is
Department of Corrections, 1920 Technology Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
10. Defendant JOHN STEINHART (Steinhart) is the Chief Health Care
Administrator at SCI Mahanoy. Defendant Steinhart is the official with the
authority to insure that prisoners receive medical treatment and medical tests at
SCI Mahanoy. Defendant Steinhart is sued in his individual and official capacities.
His address is SCI Mahanoy, 301 Morea Rd., Frackville, PA 17932.
11. Defendant Dr. JOHN LISIAK (Lisiak) is a Doctor at SCI Mahanoy.
Defendant Lisiak is sued in his individual and official capacities. His address is
SCI Mahanoy, 301 Morea Rd., Frackville, PA 17932.
12. Defendant KAREN HOLLY (Holly) is a nurse at SCI Mahanoy. Defendant
Holly is sued in her individual and official capacities. Her address is SCI
Mahanoy, 301 Morea Rd., Frackville, PA 17932.
13. Defendant VICKIE STANISHEFSKI (Stanishefski) was until on or about
November 2015 was the Chief Health Care Administrator at SCI Frackville.
Defendant Stanishefski was the official with the authority to insure that prisoners
receive medical treatment and medical tests at SCI Frackville. Defendant
Stanishefski is sued in her individual and official capacities. Her last known
address is SCI Frackville, 1111 Altamont Blvd, Frackville, PA 17931.
14. Defendant Dr. HARESH PANDYA (Pandya) is a Doctor at SCI Frackville.
4

Defendant Pandya is sued in his individual and official capacities. His address is
SCI Frackville, 1111 Altamont Blvd, Frackville, PA 17931.
15. Defendant Maj. MICHAEL DAMORE (Damore) is head of Unit
Management at SCI Mahanoy. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
His address is SCI Mahanoy, 301 Morea Rd., Frackville, PA 17932.
16. Defendant Lt. CLARK (Clark) is a security officer at SCI Mahanoy. He is
sued in his individual and official capacities. His address is SCI Mahanoy, 301
Morea Rd., Frackville, PA 17932.
17. Defendant GRIFFIN (Griffin) is the Unit Manager of DB block, SCI
Mahanoy. She is sued in her individual and official capacities. Her address is SCI
Mahanoy, 301 Morea Rd., Frackville, PA 17932.
18. Defendant Captain S DOWNS (Downs) is head of Security/Intelligence at
SCI Frackville. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. His address is
SCI Frackville, 1111 Altamont Blvd, Frackville, PA 17931.
19. Defendant SHARON LUQUIS (Luquis) is a Hearing Examiner at SCI
Frackville. She is. Her address is SCI Frackville, 1111 Altamont Blvd, Frackville,
PA 17931.
20. Defendant DORINA VARNER (Varner) is Chief Grievance Officer, DOC
Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals. She is sued in her individual and official
capacities. Her address is Department of Corrections, 1920 Technology Parkway,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050.
21. Defendant RANDALL SEARS, ESQ. (Sears) is DOC Deputy Counsel and a
5

Chief Hearing Examiner. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. His
address is Department of Corrections, 1920 Technology Parkway, Mechanicsburg,
PA 17050.
INTRODUCTION
22.

This is a civil rights action brought by Major George Tillery, a 65 year-old

African-American man to stop and remedy retaliation against him for his exercise
of his First Amendment Rights. Tillery was subjected to numerous retaliatory acts
by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and its employees, including
medical neglect and medical mistreatment, unjustified cell searches, transfer to
another cell block, loss of his prison job and precipitous transfer from SCI
Mahanoy to SCI Frackville and then being set-up with a false misconduct and
given over four months in disciplinary custody (solitary confinement). This
retaliation was intended to punish and stop Tillery from filing grievances
challenging medical neglect and mistreatment of himself and other prisoners,
including the well-known journalist and former death row prisoner Mumia AbuJamal. This retaliation was punishment for Tillery continuing to publicly advocate
for Mumia Abu-Jamal, and to publicly expose the DOCs neglect and mistreatment
of prisoners medical problems as well as the DOCs retaliation against Tillery;
and continuing to file grievances objecting to these retaliatory actions by prison
officials.

23.

Throughout his over thirty years in prison serving a sentence of life without

parole, Tillery has challenged his conviction and sentence, and unconstitutional
restrictions on access to courts, prison conditions including security classification
and placement procedures, medical treatment, and housing conditions on behalf of
himself and other prisoners. He was held in solitary confinement in super-max
institutions in the federal and Pennsylvania prison systems for over twenty of
those years.
24.

Until the set-up misconducts that Tillery was accused of on April 30, 2015,

he had never had a misconduct for possession or use of a controlled substance nor
even tested positive for dirty urine in his over thirty years of imprisonment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background:
25.

Tillery was the lead plaintiff in Tillery v. Owens, a class action lawsuit filed

July 23, 1987, challenging the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement at

the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh ("SCIP") located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. It started as a pro se legal action by Tillary. It resulted in an historic
legal order requiring remediation of unconstitutional prison conditions including
deficient security, fire protection, access to the courts, over-crowded housing,
medical care, mental health care and dental services. The DOC was required to
make prison renovations costing more than a million dollars. See Tillery v. Owens,
719 F.Supp. 1256 (W.D.Pa.1989).

26.

The PA Department of Corrections (DOC) appealed only the part of the

District Court order to end double-celling. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that double-celling inmates in an overcrowded, dilapidated and unsanitary
state prison violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment. Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418 (3rd Cir. 1990)
27.

Tillery remains renown (or notorious) in the eyes of the DOC as the

prisoner responsible for Tillery v Owens. His prison records identify him as a
former leader in the Philadelphia Black Mafia and as one who has leadership and
influence in the prison population. (Exhibit A)
28.

In the immediate aftermath of riots at Camp Hill and other prisons in

October 1989, Tillery was shipped out of Pennsylvania and transferred into the
federal system, into maximum security and solitary confinement at Leavenworth
and then the super-max isolation prison at Marion, Ill. His prison jacket falsely
stated that Tillery was a participant in the Camp Hill riot and that he had gang
involvement. (Exhibit B)
29.

This was DOC retaliation for Tillery v Owens since Tillery was not

incarcerated at Camp Hill. Additionally, Tillerys PA Inmate Classification Form,

dated November 16, 1989the day before his transfergives him the best
possible score indicating his responsible behavior, and that he was a nonparticipant in the prison riots. (Exhibit C) In Tillerys three decades of
incarceration, he has no misconducts based on gang affiliations or prisoner
organizing.
8

30.

In the following years, Plaintiff was transferred between numerous PA state

prisons, including two stints in the Camp Hill Special Management Unit (SMU)
and then transferred to New Jersey where he spent five years in the New Jersey
State Management Control Unit (MCU) in Trenton. (Exhibit D)
31.

He was a lead plantiff in Tillery v Hayman, challenging the operations of

the NJ MCU. The investigation into his security status and misconduct record
exposed multiple false reports in his PA prison jacket. (Exhibit E) Tillerys good
conduct in the N.J. MCU earned him a rare transfer out of a highly restrictive
control unit.
32.

On March 9, 2010 Plaintiff was unexpectedly transferred back to

Pennsylvania because of Tillery v Hayman, without his legal papers and other
property.
33.

Instead of sending Plaintiff close to his family in eastern Pennsylvania, he

was imprisoned in western Pennsylvania at SCI Forest, a maximum-security

prison, and immediately placed on the Restricted Release List (RLL), a form of
indefinite solitary confinement. (Exhibit F) After a few months, Tillery was
transferred to SCI Retreat and put in the hole there.
34.

Fifty-nine years old and after five continuous years in solitary confinement,

Tillery had high blood pressure, episodes of labored breathing and chest pains,
removal of his gall bladder, a failing liver that required implantation of an
intrahepatic stent, poor circulation, degenerative arthritis in his leg, back pain and

untreated Hep C. For medical reasons he had been provided with an additional
mattress, orthopedic shoes, and back brace as well as medications.
35.

A medical emergency in September 2010 that required emergency surgery

to clear a blockage in Tillerys liver stent sent him to the hospital, and then to the
SCI Dallas infirmary. Prison guards told his family he was near death.
36.

Plaintiff was afterward transferred back to SCI Retreat, then to SCI

Pittsburgh, and then back to SCI Forest.

37.

Tillery was stripped of his personal property, denied underclothes and

orthopedic shoes and held under conditions identical to Disciplinary Custody

status, although he had no misconducts.
38.

Because Tillery was a known advocate for prisoners mental health

treatment, he was a witness for petitioners in Disability Rights Network of PA v.

John Wetzel, filed in March 2013, a lawsuit on the effect of housing inmates for
long term and what effects that has on the mental state of longtime prisoner in the
Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU).
39.

As a result, Plaintiff was placed in the SCI Forest RLL step-down program

on April 24, 2013 in preparation for a return into general population. This included
regular psychological treatment, to help with the effects of longtime placement in
solitary confinement. (Exhibit G)
40.

After nine continuous years in solitary confinement, Tillery was released

from a Restricted Release List (RLL) Step Down program at SCI Forest. This
required approval of Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel. Plaintiff hadnt had a
10

misconduct in eleven years. Tillery was transferred to SCI Mahanoy on April 30,
2014.
41.

The Superintendent at SCI Mahanoy, John Kerestes, had been Deputy

Superintendent at SCI Frackville in March 2002 when Tillery was imprisoned

there and falsely accused of organizing inmates to attack guards. Although there
was no such organizing, Tillery was transferred to the Camp Hill Special
Management Unit (SMU) for nine months. Tillery had no misconducts in the
Camp Hill SMU.
42.

After two weeks in SCI Mahanoy Administrative Custody, on May 14,

2014, Tillery was released into General Population and housed in cellblock DB.
43.

Plaintiff was then a sixty-four year old man, a prisoner for thirty years, over

20 years spent in solitary confinement in numerous prisons in the PA and federal

systems. His medical problems continued: high blood pressure, labored breathing
and chest pains, a failing liver, poor circulation, degenerative arthritis in his leg,
back pain and untreated Hepatitis C. He continued needing an additional mattress,
orthopedic shoes, and back brace as well as medications.
Exercise of First Amendment Rights at SCI Mahanoy
44.

As a condition of the Step Down Program and entry into general

population, confinement, Tillery was supposed to receive mental health aftercare,

but his requests were ignored by Ms. Griffin, his unit manager, who didnt want
prisoners from RLL to be complaining about prison conditions. Tillery filed

11

grievance Gr #524682, August 24, 2014 to obtain that weekly psychological

session. (Exhibit H)
45.

Tillery suffered from chronic cough and chest pains. He filed Gr. #524957

August 26, 2014 stating that his cell had inadequate ventilation units, with nonworking exhaust vents no windows. The lack of maintenance, proper air
circulation, bacteria fungus, mold in the showers and cigarette smoke creates a
high risk of illness for the prisoners, especially the elderly who are suffering from
chronic respiratory problems. Citing Tillery v Owens, 719 F. Supp. 1256 (W.D.
Pa. 1989). (Exhibit I)
46.

Defendant Major Michael Damore, supervising all the unit managers at SCI

Mahanoy, advised Tillery to stop filing grievances, telling him that he could be
given a prison job as peer specialist. Damore said that Tillery could get more
done that way than by filing grievances.
47.

Plaintiff was selected by Damore to be trained in a special DOC Central

Office class to become a Peer Specialist, a top certified prison job, with a top
prison pay scale. Tillery could not have been chosen for this job unless his conduct
during the Step Down program and while in Administrative Custody was
excellent. The paid training program took place over ten days, eight-hours a day.
48.

On November 7, 2014 he received a Certificate of Achievement at SCI

Mahanoy for this and began his job as peer specialist. (Exhibit J) Tillery was
paid $70 month for this job.

12

49.

Plaintiffs work as peer specialist required being on call twenty-four

hours a day to assist a CO in helping with a problem with a prisoner or otherwise

assisting other prisoners, particularly the elderly and mentally ill. Peer specialists
met with Damore and unit managers once a month to discuss prisoner problems.
50.

In the latter part of December 2014, Tillery developed a skin rash covering

his lower extremities and purchased a hydrocortisone cream from the prison
commissary to treat it.
51.

The rash became worse and Plaintiff went to sick call and reported that he

and other prisoners had developed this rash and he believed it was caused by a
bacteria, possibly in the water. The prison guards drink bottled water. Tillery was
given another cream for treatment, triamcinolone, which is a steroid, also called
aristocort.
52.

On January 31, 2015, Plaintiff filed Grievance #549714 because the skin

rash covering his lower extremities was burning and painful and interfered with
his sleep. Tillery objected to the lack of diagnosis and improper treatment. Tillery
further complained that this rash is an epidemic on D block half of the inmates
are having problems with this rash. (Exhibit K)
53.

Another prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal (AM 8335), was suffering from a

noticeably spreading severe skin rash, rapid weight loss and change in his manner
of walking and conversational responses. Tillery urged Mumia Abu-Jamal to seek
medical assistance.

13

54.

On or about February 18, 2015 Plaintiff directly approached SCI Mahanoy

Superintendent John Kerestes and told him that Mumia Abu-Jamal looked as if he
was going to die and needed to be taken to the hospital. Superintendent Kerestes
told Tillery that he should mind his own business and just take care of himself.
Tillery answered that taking care of Mumia was like taking care of himself and
Mumia Abu-Jamal needed to go to the hospital.
55.

Plaintiff also complained to Kerestes that older prisoners had been given

misconducts for missing count because they slept through count. Tillery also
reported the spreading skin condition in his cellblock that went undiagnosed and
untreated. This advocacy was part of Plaintiffs job as a peer specialist.
56.

Later that day, February 18, 2015 Lt. Clark conducted an investigative

cell search of Tillerys cell. This went on for two hours, causing him to miss
dinner. Thirty pages of his legal papers were removed and his cell was left in
shambles. Tillery filed Grievance #554099 on February 20, 2015 citing
government interference, by confiscating legal documents. A few days later
[most of] those legal papers were returned. (Exhibit L)
57.

Two days later Damore berated MT for having talked with Kerestes telling

Tillery that he should have just come to me.

58.

On February 24, 2015, Karen Holly RN denied Grievance #549714, filed

on January 31, 2015, disputing Plaintiffs medical requests and observations of a

rash epidemic on D block, stating that skin problems were not treated with
antibiotics and that he should not be implying that conditions at the institution
14

caused his skin condition, asking him for his proof. (emphasis added) On
information and belief antibiotics had been dispensed from the infirmary for
treatment of other inmates for skin rash. Tillery grieved Kellys hostile response
but she was upheld by Steinhart and Kerestes. (Exhibit M)
59.

On February 25, 2015 Clark searched Tillerys cell again and left it a mess.

Afterwards, it was said that this was by accident.

60.

Unit Manager Griffin threatened Tillery with designation as a Muslim

combatant if he kept filing grievances.

61.

Damore moved Tillery from cellblock DB to cellblock CB at the other end

of the prison, telling him that he was moved to give him a new start.
62.

Damore also removed Plaintiff from his job as a Peer Specialist job

without a hearing. This was penalization for exercise of his First Amendment
rights for advocating for himself and other prisoners. Removing Tillery from his
job also resulted in a significant loss of pay. Plaintiff filed Grievance #555752.
(Exhibit N)
63.

On March 10, 2015 Clark conducted another cell search (allegedly random)

that left Tillerys cell in shambles. Personal property was taken. Plaintiff filed
Grievance #556125, 3/12/15. (Exhibit O)
64.

Tillery filed a criminal complaint against Clark for theft of his personal

property and submitted it to Damore.

65.

Clark threatened Tillery with cell searches whenever he was on duty after

3PM because Tillery had filed the state charges against him.
15

66.

Plaintiff clearly stated in his grievances that the DOC has the right to

conduct cell searches to search for contraband but complained but that these
searches were conducted to deprive him of legal materials and to harass him.
67.

On information and belief, based on communication between attorney

Rachel Wolkenstein who was acting on behalf of Tillery, and prison officials and
DOC counsels office, the justification for the cell searches was that Tillery is
designated an escape risk pursuant to DC ADM 802.1.A.e.
68.

On March 11, 2015 Tillery filed another grievance complaining of the

deliberate indifference to his continuing painful skin rash by Dr. Lisiak and
Holly. Grievance #556111 was denied on the grounds that it was frivolous.
(Exhibit P)
69.

On March 30, 2015 Mumia Abu-Jamal, the prisoner who Plaintiff had

spoken about to Kerestes, was rushed to the hospital in diabetic shock. Abu-Jamal
was released back to SCI Mahanoy on April 2.
70.

On April 3, 2015 attorney Rachel Wolkenstein had a legal visit with Tillery.

During that visit, Plaintiff informed attorney Wolkenstein that the cell searches,
change of cell assignment and loss of his job as peer specialist occurred after he
spoke up to Kerestes about Mumia Abu-Jamals illness and that he needed to be
taken to the hospital.
71.

At the conclusion of her visit with Tillery, attorney Wolkenstein and others

visited with Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was in a wheel chair, very thin and had a very

16

visible skin ailment. The skin on his arms and legs was darkened, thick and scaly,
his facial skin was flakey.
72.

On information and belief, Mumia Abu-Jamal told Wolkenstine and others

that Tillery had directly approached Kerestes about his illness.

73.

It became publicly known that Tillery had advocated for Mumia Abu-Jamal

and warned Kerestes that Abu-Jamal needed to go the hosptial.

Retaliatory Transfer from SCI Mahanoy to SCI Frackville
74.

At approximately 7am on April 8, 2014 Tillery was transferred from SCI

Mahanoy to SCI Frackville. This transfer was without any notice and Plaintiff was
not allowed to pack his own personal effects and legal papers, as is usually done.
75.

Tillery had no misconducts during his time at SCI Mahanoy.

76.

On information and belief this was an administrative swap initiated by

SCI Mahanoy initially opposed by Captain S. Downs, intelligence office at

Frackville because Tillerys prior time at Frackville didnt work.
77.

On information and belief the prisoner who was swapped for Tillery was

totally surprised by his transfer and was told this was an emergency transfer
from Mahanoy.
78.

On April 7, 2015 attorney Rachel Wolkenstein requested a gate pass for a

legal visit with Tillery at SCI Mahanoy on Thursday, April 9, 2015, via email to
Ms. Jane Hinman, assistant to SCI Mahanoy Superintendent John Kerestes.
79.

On information and belief on April 8, 2015 attorney Wolkenstein received

verbal approval for that visit from Ms. Hinman.

17

80.

On April 8, 2015 attorney Wolkenstein emailed a letter and documents to

DOC counsel and SCI Mahanoy Superintendent Kerestes providing evidence that
the alleged justification for periodic searches of Tillerys cell was a wrong
classification of MT as an escape risk (DC ADM 802.1.A.e) when his
classification had been previously corrected to DC ADM 802, Sec. 1.A.1.C. (See
SCI Forrest Superintendent Daniel Burns October 2, 2012 and Unit Manager
Brenda Haupt letters.) Sec. 1.A.1.C. does not provide the legal basis for periodic
cell searches. (Exhibit Q)
81.

On Thursday, April 9, when attorney Wolkenstein arrived at SCI Mahanoy

to visit Tillery, she was informed that he was not at Mahanoy but at SCI
Frackville.
82.

On April 13, 2015 attorney Wolkenstein forwarded the April 8 letter to the

DOC to Superintendent Tritt and in a separate letter Wolkenstein wrote to DOC

counsel, Superintendent Kerestes and SCI Frackville Superintendent Tritt:
It now appears that the numerous cell searches of Mr. Tillery as well as
this transfer to SCI Frackville are retaliatory for being outspoken about his
concern for Mumia Abu-Jamals deteriorating health, in addition to the
institutions response to Major Tillerys own grievances and the erroneous
ADM 802 classification of him as an escape risk. (Exhibit R)
83.

On April 24, 2015 attorney Wolkenstein had a legal visit with Major Tillery

at SCI Frackville, consulting with Tillery on the issues of the his retaliatory
transfer from SCI Mahanoy to SCI Frackville and legal challenges to his 1985
conviction.

18

84.

On April 27, 2015, Tillery filed a request to Tritt to review and correct the

information in his file and adjust his security classification, referring to attorney
Wolkensteins April 13, 2015 letter and attachments. Tritt refused to conduct this
review, saying that Frackville was a new slate and that Tillery would have to
wait until March 2016. (Exhibit S)
85.

Plaintiff filed Grievance #564228 on April 29, 2015, objecting to this

refusal to conduct the review; but Newberry, acting Facility Grievance

Coordinator denied this on the false grounds that Tillery had not provided the
required documentation. (Exhibit T) All the documentation had been sent by
attorney Wolkenstein to Tritt on April 13, 2015.
False and Retaliatory Misconduct Charges
86.

On April 30, 2015 Plaintiff was charged with receiving a letter with

positive test result for suboxone. Misconduct Charge B723372, signed by

Downs, charged MT with two Class 1 misconducts: #22 Possession or use of a
dangerous or controlled substance and #40 Unauthorized Use of Mail or
telephone. (Exhibit U)
87.

The misconduct report was based on mail addressed to Tillery, that an

officer in the prison mailroom (a mailroom shared by SCI Mahanoy and SCI
Frackville) thought had a suspicious orange substance affixed to envelope and
underneath the postage stamp and sent the letter to the SCI Frackville security
office. Downs report states:

19

A small portion of the substance was removed and tested utilizing a

Buprenorphine HCL test (suboxone). The results revealed a positive test for
suboxone. Inmate Tillery was placed in the RHU Annex pending outcome
of misconduct hearing.
88.

Plaintiff was immediately removed from general population and put into

RHU Annex, BC42 cell pending the outcome of a misconduct hearing.

89.

There was no investigation. Security didnt even question Tillery about the

envelope or whom the letter was supposedly from. There was no independent
testing of the material alleged to be a controlled substance. There was no attempt
to show that Plaintiff had solicited or had any knowledge of suboxone being sent
to him.
90.

In his 32 years in prison Tillery had no misconduct for drugs or dirty urine.

91.

Additionally, it is well known that the stamps on letters to prisoners at SCI

Mahanoy and SCI Frackville are removed from the envelopes in the mailroom
before delivering mail to prisoners, so it would be an act of gross stupidity to even
try such a thing.
92.

A misconduct hearing was held on May 7, 2015. No evidence was

presented that Plaintiff had any knowledge of the attempt to send suboxone into
the prison. No information was presented as to who first examined the letter or the
details of the testing. The testing was not done by an independent laboratory.
93.

Tillery was found guilty by Luquis who said during the hearing that she

didnt need any proof and given sanctions of 90 days in the RHU on each
disciplinary charge, totaling 180 days, until October 26, 2015. (Exhibit V)

20

94.

Non-contact visiting restrictions were imposed against Tillery. (Exhibit W)

95.

Plaintiff filed a Misconduct Hearing Appeal to the Program Review

Committee (PRC) the same day, May 7, 2015, on the grounds that the punishment
is disproportionate to the offense and the evidence insufficient to support the
decision. Tillery denied any knowledge or involvement in this. (Exhibit X)
96.

Tillery wrote in his appeal:

This is a cold blooded set up, not even a good one on the evidence.
1. Ive been in prison for 32 years. Never had one misconduct for drugs or
dirty urine.
2. Every prison Ive been in he DOC for the last 7 to 10 years has a
standard policy of removing all stamps and stickers from the mail (before)
delivering letter to the prisoner. So what bone had would instruct somebody
to do so. Every DOC has a policy of tearing the stamps off, so you would
have no chance of getting anything. But if you wanted to get someone set
up you would have a hundred percent of doing that. The reason I know this
institution is out to get me is the so call incident happened on 4/30/15 and I
got a misconduct on 4/30/15 without any investigation.
3. Theres no evidence that I told, ordered or asked anyone to mail me
anything to do with drugs. I dont use drugs and Ive been tested for 32
years!!! This is not the first time the mail has been used to set someone up.
And youll know that. According to the DOC records youll say Im one of
the so-called intelligent manipulators in prisons and get other to do things
for me. Now you say Im dumb enough to have a letter sent with my name
on it no less with drugs behind a small stamp. How much could that that be
worth except for to lock me up.
Prisoner Tillery has not had a class one misconduct in 12 years yet the
hearing examiner gave me the max because she states my reputation
precedes me. I never knew that was a charge. I was given six months DC
time and my visits were taken per DC ADM 812. Again no evidence I had
possession or used any dangerous drugs. In fact the urine test shows no
drugs. Ill take a blood test. In fact Ill waive my legal rights and signed an
affidavit that I am willing to take a lie detector test that I have no
knowledge of who or anyone sending me drugs. I may not be the brightest
bulb in the box. But I was never that dumb.

21

97.

On May 13, 2015 Plaintiff filed a DC 135A Inmates Request to Staff

Member to Tritt challenging the lack of evidence and lack of legitimate testing of
the alleged controlled substance. He requested To be arrested for said crime by
the state police. I will waive all rights to take a lie detector test that that I had no
knowledge or requested anyone to send anything illegal to this prison or any other
prison. He also complained when I went to my hearing I was given the max and
its under appeal. The hearing examiner explained to me that her and her
coworkers (CO) dont need evidence. [They] just have to believe its something
there. Supt. Tritt answered: the testing was quite clear and valid. (Exhibit Y)
98.

On May 14, 2105, the PRC upheld the Hearing Examiners Verdict, which

stated:
Considering the type of substance and the fact that the substance was
concealed in a manner that visual inspection alone would not have detected
its presence; it is apparent that you were aware of the delivery system of the
contraband and willing to facilitate its delivery into the facility. (emphasis
added)
(Exhibit Z)
99.

On May 18, 2015 Tillery appealed to Superintendent Tritt, challenging

the determination of his guilt in these misconducts as lacking a preponderance of

evidence. (Exhibit AA)
100.

Plaintiff included the following counter to the PRC finding that he

apparently knew how to get contraband into the facility:

I along with most of the population in the DOC are aware of the delivery
system of mail, and in SCI Frackville. But are the members of the PRC?
Because all mail before delivery to any inmate, stamps and stickers are

22

removed from all letters before delivery. So Ms. Tritt, any dummy
knows you have no shot getting anything behind a stamp.
101.

Tillery also stated in this appeal:

Ms. Tritt even you said you were surprised. So you can imagine what I
am. I was in isolation for 9 years without contact visits. You think for a few
bucks Im going to risk going back to isolation and losing my visit for
something so petty you can hide it behind a stamp?

102.

And then he requested again, So would you please call the state police

and have me arrested so I can prove my innocence and restore my visits. Ill take a
lie detector test that I never asked, ordered, or requested any drugs be sent to
Frackville.
103.

Tillery was not given a change in underwear until May 20, 2015after

20 days in the RHU. His family had to insist that his medication for his liver
problem be given to him. He didnt receive his legal papers until May 20, 2015.
104.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, attorney Wolkenstein investigated the address

shown on the envelope as indicated on the confiscation receipt. She spoke with the
man who lives at that address and he provided a declaration executed May 20,
2105 under penalty of perjury.
105.

Abdul H. Jamal declared that he resides at 2432 S. 72nd Street,

Philadelphia, PA, which is allegedly the return address on the envelope that tested
positive for suboxone. Mr. Jamal unequivocally states: I mailed a letter to Major
Tillery at the end of April 2015 but I did not put any drug, narcotic or controlled
substance on the envelope or under the stamp. (Exhibit BB)

23

106.

Mr. Jamal further explained that for him to have done this was so against

his own interests as to be simply unbelievable. In April 2015 Mr. Jamal (ne Larry
Francis) was on parole and about to have drug charges dismissed against him. Mr.
Jamal stated he was aware of the potential consequences if he were to be charged
with a criminal offense related to the allegation of a controlled substance on the
envelope and under the stamp.
107.

No investigation was conducted by the Philadelphia police or any other

state enforcement agency.

108.

Abdul H. Jamal stated he was willing to testify under oath in any

proceeding to investigate and/or adjudicate these false charges against Major

Tillery. He still is.
109.

The declaration of Abdul H. Jamal was sent to DOC Secretary John

Wetzel, DOC Legal Counsel Theron Perez, SCI Mahanoy Superintendent John
Kerestes and SCI Frackville Superintendent Brenda Tritt on May 27, 2015 by
attorney Wolkenstein. Her letter requested a full investigation by the DOC of
retaliatory conduct against Tillery, including the misconduct charges for
possession of a controlled substance. (Exhibit CC)
110.

On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a copy of the declaration of Abdul

H. Jamal to Superintendent Tritt as part of a DC 135A submission for

consideration in reviewing his appeal, stating again that there was no investigation
of the alleged misconduct by him and asking to be arrested on the drug charge.

24

111.

In her June 3, 2015 response, Tritt did not even acknowledge receipt of

the May 20, 2015 Abdul H. Jamal declaration, let alone that it totally exonerated
Plaintiff. Her response to Plaintiff was:
Mr. Tillery, You dont know me very well. I am fair and open-minded.
You are being treated no different than others in the same predicament. If
you want to be arrested you can contact the state police because that is
not our normal procedure.
(Exhibit DD)
112.

On June 10, 2015 an investigator from DOC Office of Special

Investigations (OSI), Lt. Brian Taylor, interviewed Tillery at length. The OSI
investigates staff corruption and inmate abuse. This investigation was conducted
on the authority of Secretary Wetzel in response to the letter sent to Wetzel
objecting to the retaliatory transfer and false misconduct charges and DC time
given to Tillery for his defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal and other exercises of his
First Amendment rights.
113.

Lt. Taylor conducted a full review of Tillerys history in the Pennsylvania

prison system. This included Plaintiffs medical complaints, including the lack of
care for his severe skin condition, lack of medical equipment and shoes. He also
reviewed the false separations and charges that are still kept in his files and are
used to incorrectly classify him.
114.

Lt. Taylor reviewed all Tillerys medical and security status grievances as

well as the those included in the letters sent by attorney Wolkenstein on April 8,
2015 detailing the errors in his security designation as an escape risk, and on
April 13, 2015 stating the retaliatory basis of MTs transfer to SCI Frackville
25

because of advocacy on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal and on May 27, 2015

providing new evidence with the declaration of Adbul A. Jamal that the
misconduct charges against Plaintiff were false and a set-up by prison officials
and in retaliation for Tillerys exercise of First Amendment rights.
115.

Lt. Taylor asked Plaintiff if he wanted to write another written statement

and Tillery responded that his grievances and attorney Wolkensteins letters
constituted his written statement. This was acknowledged by Lt. Taylor.
116.

Lt. Taylor told Plaintiff that Tritt and SCI Frackville prison officials have

no proof that he committed the misconducts, but that Tillery had no proof it was a
set up.
117.

On June 12, 2015 Tillery requested a legal call to his attorney. Tritt

responded that needed to be addressed to the PRC. The PRC denied the legal
phone call.
118.

On June 25, 2015 Plaintiff received a Response to appeal of Final

Review of Misconduct No. B723372, per DC-ADM 801, sec 5, (C.6), signed by
DOC Deputy Chief Counsel Randall N. Sears, stating:
In your appeal you raise no specific issue(s) but instead repeat your
version of events to support your claim of innocence. This, of course, is the
same version the Hearing Examiner rejected in finding you guilty of the
misconduct.
An appeal is a review for error. It is not an opportunity to receive a new
hearing on the merits. In your case, the findings made by the Examiner
are amply supported by the evidence presented at your hearing. Whether
this Office might reach a different result given the same evidence is not the
issue. It is sufficient that he Examiners findings are supported by ample
evidence to prevent this Office from altering those findings on appeal.
(Exhibit EE)
26

119.

This appeal decision ignored the requirement that a misconduct must be

based on a preponderance of evidence of guilt. It also ignored that there was

new evidence as provided in the Jamal declaration that was not even
acknowledged let alone considered by Tritt or in the DOC Final Review.
120.

On July 23, 2015 a 90-day review was conducted by the PRC. Tillery

was denied a reduction to half-time in DC. His DC time was continued until
10/26/15. He was denied attorney phone calls. He was also denied his orthopedic
boots. His good housing report was noted. (Exhibit FF)
121.

On August 6, 2015 Plaintiff wrote to Tritt to reduce his DC time and

appealed to her assertion of being fair minded. He repeated that the transfer to
SCI Frackville from SCI Mahanoy was retaliation. Tritt responded the next day,
stating, Dont blame us for mail received intended for you. (Exhibit GG)
122.

On September 2, 2015 Plaintiff was released from DC status by

Superintendent Tritt. According to a DC-141, Part 4 report, a Disciplinary Custody

review was held on August 27, 2015 and a decision made by PRC members to
release inmate Tillery to General Population effective the week of August 31st.
Tritt approved the release to population on September 7, 2015. (Exhibit HH)
123.

Until the retaliatory set up on April 30, 2015, Tillery didnt have a

misconduct in twelve years. In his 32 years in prison Tillery didnt have even one
misconduct for drugs or dirty urine.

27

124.

These set-up misconducts for possession of a controlled substance and

misuse of the mail are retaliatory. The immediately followed Tillerys continued
advocacy for Mumia Abu-Jamal and his own continued filing of grievances to
obtain medical treatment and to change a false security classification. The
misconducts now in Tillerys record threaten his continued housing in general
population. If a prisoner is believed to be introducing drugs into the institution, he
can be considered a danger to the security of the institution and be sued to place
the inmate in indefinite solitary confinement on the Restricted Release List.
125.

Although since September 2, 2015, Tillery is considered to be in general

population with yard-time, commissary, TV, phone calls and contact visits, he is
actually housed in the RHU Annex. This is a restricted housing unit cellblock
that now has one tier of cells with general population prisoners. The tier above has
DC prisoners who are not allowed any privilegesno phone or contact visits, no
TV, no commissary. These men are distraught and loud.
126.

Plaintiff has been seen by a psychologist, Ms. Smith for his depression

and anxiety who recommended he be moved to a regular cellblock within General

Population. This was denied by Downs and Miller for no reason except to penalize
and continue retaliation against MT. (Exhibit II)
Retaliatory Medical Neglect and Mistreatment at SCI Frackville
127.

When Tillery was transferred to SCI Frackville April 8, 2015 he was

denied his extra mattress, orthopedic shoes and back brace. He had orthopedic
shoes and a back brace for over ten years, in prisons in NJ as well as Pennsylvania.
28

His potassium supplement tablets were not refilled. On May 9, 2015 Plaintiff filed
Gr #566793. These grievances were denied by Stanishefsky and Newberry with
false statements and without legitimate medical reasons. (Exhibit JJ)
128.

On April 30, 2015 Tillery was put into disciplinary custody in the

restricted housing unit (RHU) on the false and retaliatory misconducts. He was
denied his medications; put on reduced food rations, mostly slop, denied
commissary and contact visits, and allowed very limited outdoor exercise time.
129.

In another act of harassment and retaliation, on May 22, 2015 the guard

put a dirty toilet brush in his food tray, to be used to clean his cell. Tillery filed
Grievance #567683 stating this is a violation of his health and safety. This was
denied by Newberry. (Exhibit KK)
130.

On May 28, 2015 Tillery filed grievance #569706 after Pandya refused to

help with his severe back pain and pain when walking, continuing to deny Tillery
his back brace and order another mattress. Pandya complained that Tillery was
not cooperating by creating unnecessary work and money by complaining with
grievances. This was denied by Stanishefsky and Newberry. (Exhibit LL)
131.

But on May 29, 2015, Tillery was given a medical work-up including

radiology of his spine, hips and feet. On June 10, 2015, the same day as the visit
by Lt. Taylor from central office Plaintiff got his back brace. This was two months
after this retaliatory transfer to SCI Frackville.
132.

On June 16, 2015, Tillery filed Grievance #571661, on July 2, 2015 he

filed Grievance #574084, Tillery repeated again and again the failure to treat his
29

painful skin rash for over nine months that had now developed open inflamed
sores on his legs, with pus running onto his sheets. He stated this was deliberate
indifference to Tillerys health and needed medical care. The prison refused to
prescribe an ointment that was helping because it cost too much. [betamethasone
dipropionate ointment]. (Exhibit MM)
133.

On June 17, 2015 Grievance # 571661 was denied by Newberry and on

July 27, 2015 Grv. #574084 was denied by Stanishefsky. (Exhibit NN)
134.

On July 29, 2015 Tillery submitted a special request for treatment to

Pandya followed by another Grievance #580695 on August 4, 2015 citing

violations of the Americans with Disability Acts and Eight Amendment claims of
deliberate indifference to his medical condition, stating in part:
[I] still have open soreslegs itch and burn so bad.. no dermatologist,
no follow-up by medical director for 8 months. .Dr. Pandya said he
doesnt know what causes the rash and why it wont go away.
Also that contrary to the prison responses to his grievances, Ms. Stanishefski
never saw me. (Exhibit OO)
135.

On July 31, 2015 Tillery filed an appeal of the denial of Grv. #574084 to

Tritt, stating Stanishefski misstates his medical condition he has sores on his legs
and the rash has spread over 8 months. On August 6, 2015 Tritt denied this appeal,
unequivocally supporting Stanishefskis false report. (Exhibit PP)
136.

A surgical skin biopsy from Tillerys left shin was done and the results

dated August 20, 2015 reveals a rare fungal organism, that is otherwise not

30

diagnosed. (Exhibit QQ) This is not being treated by medical staff at SCI
Frackville.
137.

On August 27, 2015 Stanishefski denied Grv. 580695 complaining of g

the number of medical requests made by Tillery and that denial of Grv #574084
was based on clinical diagnosis that is confirmed by a skin biopsy. However, there
is no reference that that skin biopsy referred to a rare fungal organism that was
not being treated. (Exhibit RR)
138.

Plaintiff still suffers from a skin rash that is so itchy he cant sleep and is

periodically inflamed and infected.

139.

From April 30, 2015 through August 12, 2015 doing DC time, Tillery

went from 205 pounds down to 185 pounds.

140.

On October 26, 2015, after days ignoring Plaintiffs complaints that he

was suffering from a bowel obstruction, he was taken to a Geisinger Medical

Center facility, Wyoming Valley Medical Center. Tillery knew the symptoms of
bowel obstruction since he had this three times before.
141.

Attempts to obtain direct medical information about Tillerys condition

or to speak with him via telephone by Tillerys daughter Kamilah Iddeen who has
MTs medical authorization was denied by Tritt who said Tillerys hospitalization
for this serious gastrointestinal problem was just a "routine admission."
142.

Ms. Iddeen made repeated calls to the nurse at SCI Frackville to obtain

medical updates. And when she was able to reach the nurse, the reports were
partial. On information and belief, while at the hospital Tillery had a catscan, was
31

on IV fluids and had a nasogastric tube going into his stomach to help suck
anything out of stomach and to keep the stomach empty so the bowels could rest.
The last report on a Friday morning was that surgery might be necessary.
143.

Plaintiff was discharged after five days of hospitalization on Saturday

evening. He was taken to SCI Dallas and put in the hole. Officially, Tillery was
sent to SCI Dallas infirmary, but in fact he spent a night and a day without any
medical attention, in a drafty cell without adequate blankets.
144.

Plaintiff was transported back to SCI Frackville Monday evening,

November 2, 2015. SCI Frackville gave Tillery a urine test for drugs when he
returned but was not given a post-hospitalization diet or any follow-up medical
treatment.
145.

Plaintiff remained in pain, was nauseous and vomited up what he ate

over the next several days. But Tillery was not seen by any medical personnel until
November 4, 2015.
146.

Tillery is a chronic clinic patient and is entitled to medications and tests

without cost. His leg rash has been extremely itchy and often inflamed for over a
year. He has not been properly treated and been forced to pay for medications that
should be provided to him in retaliation of his First Amendment rights.
Interference with access to courts by obstructing attorney visitation and
consultation:
147.

In September 2014, after Tillerys release into general population at SCI

Mahanoy, he resumed efforts to overturn his conviction and sought legal

32

assistance. Consultation with legal counsel was obstructed and delayed by Clark
who refused to immediately process Tillerys request to put attorney Wolkenstein
on his legal visitors list in violation of explicit DOC regulations.
148.

Tillerys access to phone calls and visits with counsel was interfered with

and obstructed after he was transferred from SCI Mahanoy to SCI Frackville in
April 2015 and then falsely charged with misconducts and put into Disciplinary
Custody in retaliation for his filing grievances and advocating on behalf of Mumia
Abu-Jamal.
149.

This interference and obstruction included: (1) denying attorney calls while

Plaintiff was in Disciplinary Custody, (2) denying a confidential legal visit on May
12, 2015 in the Adminstrative Custody visiting room, (3) restricting attorney visits
to one hour on May 22, 2015 and July 31, 2015 even though specific requests
were made by the attorney for visits of two hours and the attorney traveled from
NYC for the visit, and (4) being initially denied permission to bring even a pen
and pad into a legal visit on November 3, 2015 after Tillerys return to SCI
Frackville after emergency hospitalization.
150.

These acts of interference and attempted obstruction were carried out under

the authority of Tritt and Miller.

151.

Tillery filed Grievance #580308 objecting to the restrictions in attorney

visitation on May 22, 2015 and July 31, 2015. This was denied August 8, 2015 by
Lt. Reichart.

33

152.

On August 12, 2015 Tillery submitted Inmate Appeal to Final Review:

According to the First and Sixth Amendment to the United States of America, it
is unconstitutional to hinder or deny a person access to the court. By limiting my
legal visit to one hour a week presents Government interference to my legal access
to court.
153.

On August 13, 2015 Facility Manager Response (B. Tritt) upheld the denial

of the grievance denial while confirming that DOC regulations give authority to
prison officials to grant legal visitation longer than one hour. (Exhibit SS)
154.

Tritt reversed the denial of allowing counsel to bring a pad and pen into

the legal visit prior to attorneys arrival at SCI Frackville.

Exhaustion of Adminstrative Remedies:
155.

Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies by filing grievances

through the appeal process as set forth by DOC regulations. Additionally, Tillery is
in substantial compliance in that all issues existing prior to June 10, 2015 and are
raised in this complaint were discussed directly with a representative of the DOC
Office of Special Investigation, Lt. Taylor on June 10, 2015 and no remediable
action was taken by the DOC. The decision of Deputy Chief Counsel, Randall
Sears on June 25, 2015 rejected the Plaintiffs objections to the set-up retaliatory
disciplinary charges.

34

CAUSES OF ACTION
As and for a First Cause of Action:
Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
Association and Access to Courts Challenging Medical and Psychological
Treatment at SCI Mahanoy
156.

Plaintiff Tillery re-alleges paragraphs 1- 155 as if fully stated herein.

157.

Defendants Wetzel, Kerestes, Steinhart, Lisiak, Holly, Damore, Clark and

Griffin violated Tillerys First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,

Association and Access to Courts by retaliation against Tillery for filing
grievances while imprisoned at SCI Mahanoy against the denial of psychological
care following his release into general population from years on the RLL and in
solitary confinement, and for filing grievances and objecting to prison officials,
including the medical staff and Kerestes, for denying and/or delaying medical
treatment for a skin rash affecting himself and other prisoners including Mumia
Abu-Jamal.
158.

In retaliation for Plaintiffs exercise of his First Amendment rights

Defendants further delayed or denied medical treatment and medical equipment to

Major Tillery, subjected Tillery to cell searches, tossed his property and seized his
legal paperwork, terminated his job as a peer specialist, and transferred Plaintiff
from SCI Mahanoy to SCI Frackville without legitimate penological reason
thereby causing Tillery to suffer physical and psychological pain, and loss of
income.

35

As and for a Second Cause of Action:

Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
Association and Access to Courts for Filing Grievances Objecting to Cell
Searches and Tossing of his Personal Property, Termination of his Job and
Erroneous Security Status at SCI Mahanoy
159.

Plaintiff Tillery re-alleges paragraphs 1- 155 as if fully stated herein.

160.

Defendants Wetzel, Kerestes, Damore, Clark and Griffin violated Plaintiffs

First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech, Association and Access to Courts

by retaliation against Tillery for filing grievances while imprisoned at SCI
Mahanoy objecting to the search and tossing of his cell and removing legal papers
without legitimate cause or authority; for filing a grievance against the termination
of his job as peer specialist without cause and transfer to a different cell block; and
for challenging his erroneous security status as an escape risk.
161.

In retaliation for this exercise of his First Amendment rights Defendants

transferred Tillery from SCI Mahanoy to SCI Frackville without legitimate

penological reason thereby causing Tillery psychological pain and suffering.
As and for a Third Cause of Action:
Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
Association and Access to Courts For Communicating His Advocacy for
Mumia Abu-Jamal and Kerestes Neglect of Mumia Abu-Jamals Illness
162.

Plaintiff Tillery re-alleges paragraphs 1- 155 as if fully stated herein.

163.

Defendants Wetzel, Kerestes, Tritt, Damore, Clark and Downs violated

Tillerys First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech, Association and Access

36

to Courts for Tillerys communication to attorneys, advocacy organizations and

individuals of his advocacy for Mumia Abu-Jamal and Kerestes neglect of AbuJamals illness.
164.

In retaliation Defendant Kerestes and Tritt with the assistance of of

Damore, Clark and Downs precipitously transferred Tillery from SCI Mahanoy to
SCI Frackville without legitimate penological purpose, thereby causing Tillery to
suffer adverse action intended to deter Plaintiff from exercising his First
Amendment Rights.
As and for a Fourth Cause of Action:
Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
Association and Access to Courts at SCI Frackville For Challenging his
Erroneous Security Status and Continuing to Publicly Advocate for Mumia
Abu-Jamal
165.

Plaintiff Tillery re-alleges paragraphs 1- 155 as if fully stated herein.

166.

Defendants Wetzel, Sears, Tritt, Miller, Newberry, Downs, violated

Tillerys First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech, Association and Access

to Courts to file grievances at SCI Frackville and directly with the Department of
Corrections to challenge his erroneous security status as an escape risk.
167.

Defendants Wetzel, Sears, Tritt, Miller, Newberry, Downs violated Tillerys

First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech, Association and Access to Courts

in retaliation for Tillerys continued communication to attorneys, advocacy
organizations and individuals about his advocacy for Mumia Abu-Jamal and
Kerestes neglect of Abu-Jamals illness.
37

168.

In retaliation, Defendants set-up Tillery and upheld the false misconduct

charges of possession of a controlled substance and misuse of the mail, and found
him guilty of the misconducts and gave him of six months in Disciplinary
Custody. Tillery was held in solitary confinement for 126 days without a change in
underwear for twenty days, denied commissary, phone calls, and contact visits and
attempted obstruction of his attorney visits, and deprived of medicines and
medical equipment to help and treat his chronic medical problems including high
blood pressure, liver disease, and arthritis as well as continuing severely itchy skin
rash thereby causing Tillery extreme physical and psychological pain and
suffering.
As and for a Fifth Cause of Action:
Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
Association and Access to Courts To File Grievances at SCI Frackville
Objecting the Set-Up Misconducts and the 180 Day Penalty of DC Time by
Delaying and Denying Adequate Medical Care
169.

Plaintiff Tillery re-alleges paragraphs 1- 155 as if fully stated herein.

170.

Defendants Wetzel, Tritt, Miller, Newberry, Pandya, Stanishefsky violated

Tillerys First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech, Association and Access

to Courts to file grievances at SCI Frackville challenging the false misconducts
and giving him a penalty of 180 days of DC time.
171.

In retaliation Defendants caused further delay and/or denial of medical

treatment and medical equipment to Tillery for his chronic illnesses and painful

38

skin condition that continues for a year, thereby causing him physical and
psychological pain and suffering.
As and for a Sixth Cause of Action:
Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
Association and Access to Courts To File Grievances at SCI Frackville
Objecting to the Lack of Adequate Medical Care and Denying Him Medical
Equipment and Medication
172.

Plaintiff Tillery re-alleges paragraphs 1- 155 as if fully stated herein.

173.

Defendants Wetzel, Tritt, Miller, Newberry, Pandya, Stanishefsky violated

Tillerys First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech, Association and Access

to Courts to file grievances at SCI Frackville for the denial of medical care,
prescriptions and medical equipment to him. In retaliation Defendants caused
further delay and/or denial of medical treatment and medical equipment to Tillery
thereby causing him physical and psychological pain and suffering
As and for a Seventh Cause of Action:
Retaliation for Exercise of First Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech,
Association and Access to Courts at SCI Frackville by Restricting and
Obstructing his Access to Counsel.
174.

Plaintiff Tillery re-alleges paragraphs 1- 155 as if fully stated herein.

175.

Defendants Wetzel, Tritt, Miller, Newberry violated Tillerys First

Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech, Association and Access to consult with

an attorney and obtain legal assistance by interfering with and obstructing attorney
visitation.

39

176.

In retaliation for Tillerys filing of grievances, objecting to inadequate

medical care for himself and other prisoners, including Mumia Abu-Jamal,
challenging his erroneous security designation, his retaliatory transfer to SCI
Frackville and the false misconducts and discipline of 180 days in DC, Defendants
have interfered with and attempted to obstruct attorney visitation in violation of
Plaintiffs constitutional rights and DOC regulations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the following relief:
A.

B.

Declare the following acts of retaliation by Defendants unconstitutional:

1.
2.
3.

Each act of retaliation involved in this litigation.

Denial of medical treatment for Tillerys skin rash.
Denial of psychological care to Tillery after release into General

4.

Population.
Cell searches, tossing of Tillerys personal property and seizing legal

5.
6.
7.
8.

papers.
Terminating Tillerys job as peer specialist.
Transferring Tillery from one cell block to another at SCI Mahanoy.
Transferring Tillery from SCI Mahanoy to SCI Frackville.
Charging Tillery with false misconduct charges and 180 days in DC.

Issue an injunction ordering Defendants and their agents to:

1.

Cease retaliation against plaintiff for the filing of grievances for medical
treatment, prison conditions and security status and advocacy for other

2.
3.
4.

prisoners, including Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Remove the misconduct charges from Tillerys record.
Reinstate Tillerys job as a peer specialist.
Cease interference with Tillerys access to counsel.
40

5.

Transfer Tillery out of SCI Frackville and to another prison in the

eastern portion of Pennsylvania.

C.

Award compensatory damages;

D.

Award punitive damages;

E.

Trial by jury; and

F.

Such other relief as this Court determines to be just.

_______________________
MAJOR GEORGE TILLERY
AM 9786
SCI Frackville
1111 Altamont Blvd.
Frackville, PA 17931
Dated: January

, 2016

41