Court Tosses Poorman Suit against City

LOCK HAVEN — Clinton County Judge Michael Salisbury this week dismissed a Lock Haven resident’s court effort to force the City of Lock Haven to enforce its ordinances on a variety of topics, from parking tickets to noise levels in the downtown.

City businessman Steve Poorman had gone into court in May of this year seeking judicial redress to nine different areas of his concern about city operations from weed control to downtown speeding.

Judge Salisbury, in an eleven page opinion and order, determined that Poorman had no standing to bring his case into court, siding with the view of city solicitor Justin Houser. The city had argued that the Poorman allegations were legally insufficient and that Poorman lacked proper standing. The court did determine that Poorman’s action against the city was not “vexatious” and therefore dismissed a city request to hold Poorman responsible for city legal fees in defending the suit.

Judge Salisbury’s ruling went through Poorman’s nine complaints one by one and sustained the city’s preliminary objections in each instance. Poorman had filed a litany of grievances against city council, city manager Richard Marcinkevage, the city codes office and city police department. He had asked the court to tell the city to:

1) Use mailing, element-protected envelopes for parking tickets or tie tickets to wiper blades or mirrors.
2) Institute a certified mail notification if any vehicle fine amount is greater than $5 and “cease booting vehicles” for reasons pertaining to parking tickets.
3) Erect street signs where required.
4) Enforce the city weed ordinance.
5) Issue citations for abandoned vehicles.
6) Enforce health and code regulations relative to the Fallon Hotel on E. Water Street and order a second engineering study regarding its safety.
7) Produce a more understandable accounting format.
8) Enforce state sound levels and vehicular noise limits.
9) Enforce speed limits, especially those areas with high pedestrian traffic.

Poorman was seeking a writ of mandamus to force the city to remedy his allegations but Judge Salisbury wrote that such writs “will not be issued to interfere with a public official’s exercise of discretion.”

Back to top button