Opinion
88 M.D. 2019
10-06-2021
Mr. Antonio Sierra, PH.D., Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Respondent
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Submitted: May 14, 2021
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) seeks summary relief through "Respondents' [sic] Motion for Summary [Relief]" (Motion for Summary Relief), which requests that this Court dismiss Antonio Sierra's (Petitioner) filing entitled "Petition for Review (In the Nature of Appeal & Remedial Writ of Injunction)" (Petition for Review). For the reasons set forth below, we grant the Motion for Summary Relief and dismiss the Petition for Review.
Petitioner initiated this suit by filing the Petition for Review in this Court on February 11, 2019. The Petition for Review seeks review of two prisoner grievances filed by Petitioner and denied at all stages of review by various DOC personnel. See generally Petition for Review. The grievances are Grievance Nos. 758538 and 750153. See Exhibits A-B to the Petition for Review. In Grievance No. 758538, Petitioner challenged the DOC's inmate mail policy. See Exhibits A to Petition for Review. Grievance No. 750153 challenged the alleged loss of $25.00 from a copy card used by Petitioner in the prison library. See Exhibit B to Petition for Review. The Petition for Review further appears to raise an objection to the DOC's new inmate mail policy, which objection the DOC acknowledged and responded to in its brief. The Petition for Review also alleges denial of access to the courts in relation to the inmate mail policy. See Petition for Review; DOC's Br. at 9-16.
Petitioner also attached as Exhibit C to the Petition for Review a Final Appeal Decision relating to Grievance No. 760951. See Exhibit C to the Petition for Review. We note that Grievance No. 760951 pertains not to Petitioner, but a different inmate named Junior Villanueva. See Exhibit C to the Petition for Review; see also Petition for Review at 8, ¶ 36.
DOC filed preliminary objections to the Petition for Review, which this Court overruled by order dated April 29, 2019. See Order dated April 29, 2019. The DOC then filed an answer to the Petition for Review on June 18, 2019, which denied Petitioner's claims and alleged in New Matter that, while some delay in inmate mail delivery resulted from the lockdown and the use of a third-party contractor to handle prison mail, Petitioner's rights were not violated. See Respondent's Answer to Petition for Review with New Matter filed June 18, 2019. Petitioner filed an answer to the DOC's New Matter on July 25, 2019. See "Petitioners [sic] Answers II." DOC deposed Petitioner on October 11, 2019. See Notes of Testimony, October 11, 2019 (N.T.). After deposing Petitioner, the DOC filed the Motion for Summary Relief on January 9, 2020, claiming that the DOC's employees are immune from suit as Commonwealth employees and otherwise demurring to Petitioner's claims. See Motion for Summary Relief at 6-7.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1532(b) provides that "[a]t any time after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original jurisdiction matter the court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant thereto is clear." Pa.R.A.P. 1532(b); see also Summit Sch., Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 108 A.3d 192, 195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). In deciding a request for summary relief, "this [C]ourt must determine whether it is clear from the undisputed facts that either party has a clear right to the relief requested." Bell Atl.-Pa., Inc. v. Tpk. Comm'n, 703 A.2d 589, 590 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), aff'd, 713 A.2d 96 (Pa. 1998). "The record, for purposes of the motion for summary relief, is the same as a record for purposes of a motion for summary judgment." Summit, 108 A.3d at 195-96. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.1, the record in a motion for summary judgment includes any: "(1) pleadings, (2) depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits, and (3) reports signed by an expert witness that would, if filed, comply with [Pa.R.Civ.P. 4003.5(a)(1)], whether or not the reports have been produced in response to interrogatories." Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.1. "In ruling on applications for summary relief, [this Court] must view the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and enter judgment only if there is no genuine issue as to any material facts and the right to judgment is clear as a matter of law." Eleven Pa., LLC v. State Bd. of Cosmetology, 169 A.3d 141, 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (internal brackets omitted).
Initially, to the extent Petitioner challenges the process he received regarding his various prison grievances, such a claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The DOC's internal grievance procedure provides constitutionally adequate and meaningful legal remedies to inmates. See Fennell v. Goss (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1198 C.D. 2015, filed Oct. 2, 2015); Silo v. Ridge, 728 A.2d 394, 399 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).
Pursuant to Commonwealth Court Internal Operating Procedure Section 414(a), 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), unreported panel decisions of this Court issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their persuasive value.
Further, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition for Review to the extent that it seeks review of the denial of Petitioner's grievances. In Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998), our Supreme Court agreed with this Court that "internal prison operations are more properly left to the legislative and executive branches, and that prison officials must be allowed to exercise their judgment in the execution of policies necessary to preserve order and maintain security free from judicial interference." Id. at 358 (citing Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980)). In Bronson, the Supreme Court held that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review inmate appeals of decisions by intra-prison disciplinary tribunals:
Unlike the criminal trial and appeals process where a defendant is accorded the full spectrum of rights and protections guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, and which is necessarily within the ambit of the judiciary, the procedures for pursuing inmate grievances and misconduct appeals are a matter of internal prison administration and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal prosecution is not necessary in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the [C]ommonwealth [C]ourt does not have appellate jurisdiction, under 42 Pa.C.S § 763, over inmate appeals of decisions by intra-prison disciplinary tribunals.Id. at 358-59 (internal citations and quotations omitted). That Petitioner brought this Petition before this Court in our original jurisdiction makes no difference, as our Supreme Court further explained in Bronson that this Court cannot entertain such matters in our original jurisdiction, except in very limited circumstances. As the Supreme Court explained:
Prison inmates do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protections afforded to non-incarcerated citizens . . . . [I]ncarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. Unless an inmate can identify a personal or property interest . . . not limited by [DOC] regulations and which has been affected by a final decision of the [DOC] the decision is not an adjudication subject to the court's review.Id. at 359 (internal citation, quotations, and brackets omitted). Thus, to the extent the Petition for Review challenges the denial of Petitioner's grievances regarding internal prison administrative determinations, we do not have jurisdiction to consider these claims. See id. at 358-59.
To the extent the Petition for Review raises a challenge to the Department's mail policy as violative of his due process rights, his ability to communicate with others, and his right to privacy, we agree with the DOC that Petitioner abandoned such a claim. See DOC's Br. at 11-12. During his deposition, Petitioner acknowledged that the entry of illegal drugs into prisons represents a problem to be addressed. See N.T. at 13-14. Petitioner further acknowledged the Secretary of Corrections' prerogative to order lockdowns to combat increased sickness resulting from the entry of illicit drugs into the prison. See id. at 36-37. Regarding the mail policy specifically, Petitioner testified that he has no problem with the requirements that inmate mail be opened, copied, and scanned for drugs, or the requirement that legal mail have an attorney identification number printed on the envelope. See id. at 21-24. In fact, during his deposition Petitioner expressly stated: "I believe that the [DOC mail] policy is the prerogative of the Secretary of Corrections, and I have no quarrel with him or with the policy whatsoever." Id. at 53. Further, in his brief to this Court, Petitioner expressly stated:
In [the Petition for Review], at no time had [Petitioner] ever raised an objection to or against [the] D[OC] mail policy as it is understood by Respondent[], rather, he asserted that Mr. Wetzel was in a concealed [2 million] dollar contract with Florida while every [p]rison in Pennsylvania was on lockdown on allegations of drugs entering the prison through mails and visits.
Petitioner's Br. at 4. We agree with the DOC that Petitioner cannot maintain a challenge to the DOC's inmate mail policy where Petitioner concedes that the prisoner mail policy is the province and prerogative of the DOC and expressly states that he has no problem with the policy.
Additionally, to the extent Petitioner alleges denial of access to the courts, we agree with the DOC that Petitioner is not entitled to relief because he cannot demonstrate that he has suffered an actual injury to his right to assert a non-frivolous legal claim. The right to access the court is infringed when official acts "cause[] the loss or inadequate settlement of a meritorious case, the loss of an opportunity to sue, or the loss of an opportunity to seek some particular order of relief[.]" Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 414 (2002) (internal citations omitted). The right of a prisoner to access the courts is derived from multiple provisions of the United States Constitution and an express provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Thus, the Petition for Review may be read as asserting a claim under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.
See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12 (2002) (discussing the Petition Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. I, and the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, as sources of prisoners' right to access the courts).
See Pa. Const. art. I, § 11 ("All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.").
As this Court has recently observed, cases involving the right of prisoners to access the courts under Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution have followed federal law and follow the same analysis. See Young v. Wetzel (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 792 C.D. 2020, filed Mar. 16, 2021), slip op. at 8.
To succeed with an access to courts claim, a petitioner must demonstrate an actual injury suffered. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-52 (1996). Therefore, in a denial of access claim, "the named [petitioner] must identify a 'nonfrivolous,' 'arguable' underlying claim" lost to him as a result of the alleged interference with his access to the courts. Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415. Therefore, to prosecute an access to courts claim a petitioner must, at a minimum, (1) allege that he has a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim, and (2) describe how the DOC, through the challenged policy, frustrated his ability to pursue that claim. See id. at 416 ("Like any other element of an access claim, the underlying cause of action and its lost remedy must be addressed by allegations in the [petition for review] sufficient to give fair notice to a defendant."); see also Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351 ("[T]he inmate therefore must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim."). Additionally, this Court has determined that when a petitioner fails to allege an "actual injury" in the nature of a loss or rejection of a legal claim regarding sentencing or the conditions of confinement by asserting that he either missed any court deadlines or was otherwise prohibited from filing any particular pleading as a result of the implementation of a challenged prison policy, the petitioner fails to state a claim for denial of access to courts. See Hackett v. Horn, 751 A.2d 272, 276 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
While Petitioner claims that he is missing mail pertinent to ongoing litigation, he does not claim to have missed any deadlines or been prevented from filing any particular pleadings. See generally Petition for Review. Additionally, during his deposition, Petitioner could not identify any court deadlines he missed or any instance where he was otherwise prevented from filing documents as a result of the allegedly missing mail. See N.T. at 28-33. Because Petitioner failed to offer any facts as to the specific harm he suffered in terms of the loss of nonfrivolous claims pertaining to his sentence or the conditions of his confinement, Petitioner has failed to state a viable access to courts claim under either the United States Constitution or the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Petitioner claims he is also missing non-legal mail from relatives. See Notes of Testimony, October 11, 2019 at 20-22. While regrettable, such mailings do not relate to cases involving challenges to Petitioner's sentence or conditions of confinement. As such, these mailings cannot support a denial of access to courts claim. See Lewis.
For the above reasons, we grant the Motion for Summary Relief and dismiss the Petition for Review.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2021, the "Respondents' [sic] Motion for Summary [Relief]" filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is GRANTED. Petitioner Antonio Sierra's filing entitled "Petition for Review (In the Nature of Appeal & Remedial Writ of Injunction)" is DISMISSED.
CONCURRING OPINION
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge.
I join in the Majority and its analysis of established precedent regarding an "access to courts" claim. I write separately to note Petitioner's claim in his Petition for Review (Petition) that the Department of Corrections' (Department) mail policy has also impacted the ability of other inmates to pursue causes of action in court. See Petition ¶36 (averring that mail policy has had the effect of "subverting and impeding cause[s] of action[] and process" sought by both Petitioner and other incarcerated individuals). As the Majority notes, Petitioner supports this averment by attaching affidavits from those affected, bringing into question the scope of the challenged policy's impact.
Inquiry regarding a policy's impact upon access to courts does not necessarily end with an individual assessment of damage or injury, but can include consideration of the impact a policy has upon the general population and the need for remediation. As noted by Justice Scalia in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), "[a]s to remediation of the inadequacy . . . a further question remains: Was that inadequacy widespread enough to justify systemwide relief?" Id. at 359 (discussing Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979); Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 417 (1977)).
Although precedent requires Petitioner to demonstrate an actual injury suffered, i.e., a nonfrivolous claim lost as a result of interference with access to courts, see Hackett v. Horn, 751 A.2d 272, 276 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000), and he has not done so here, the allegations and affidavits do raise a red flag. As a word of caution, if the Department has implemented a mail policy in response to drug issues or COVID-19 that results in a pattern of repeated and systemwide delays to timely receipt of legal mail, it is encouraged to re-visit same to preemptively minimize unwarranted effects, whether intentional or not.