Scott J. Binsack has asked a federal judge for a temporary stay in his pending lawsuit against city and state officials.
Currently jailed on a parole violation in SCI-Rockview, Centre County, the Shamokin resident says he can't "effectively pursue" the lawsuit until after his release May 5, so he's seeking a 90-day stay.
He says in a motion filed Wednesday that he is legally blind and disabled and has limited access to the law library, and that he cannot access "mounds" of electronic and video evidence until his release as the location of the materials is known only to himself and an unnamed private investigator.
Binsack says there is also the matter of evidence discovered after his arrest, which he describes as "fabricated," that would lead him to file an amended complaint naming additional defendants. They are not named.
The motion was made by Binsack himself after attorney Frank E. Kepner Jr., Berwick, was granted withdrawal from the case last month. Kepner told the court that Binsack, who did not file opposition to Kepner's withdrawal, dropped him as a client and owed "substantial" bills for his legal services.
Binsack, co-creator of a series of Web videos titled "Something's Smokin' in Shamokin," says he is seeking counsel from attorneys either from New York or Philadelphia. If he does not retain an attorney, he said in his motion that he is "highly experienced in law" and would continue the lawsuit serving as his own attorney.
Kepner filed a lawsuit in November on Binsack's behalf claiming his client's constitutional rights were violated by city and state parole officials. Tens of thousands of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages are sought.
Defendants named in the suit are the City of Shamokin, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Shamokin City Clerk Steve Bartos, Shamokin Councilman R. Craig Rhoades, Shamokin Code Officer Rick Bozza, Chief of Police Ed Griffiths and state parole agents Susan Stout and David Frederick. Their attorneys have petitioned the court to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing it lacks merit.