Dougherty v. PA. Dept. of Corrs.

1

Ian M. Dougherty, Petitioner v. PA. Dept. of Corrections, et al., Respondent

No. 131 M.D. 2022

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

January 16, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: October 10, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE LORI A DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, PRESIDENT JUDGE EMERITA

Ian M Dougherty (Dougherty), pro se, has filed a petition for review in this Court's appellate and original jurisdiction. He contends that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) violated his due process rights and subjected him to inhumane treatment as punishment for a positive drug test. In response, the Department has filed preliminary objections, demurring to the petition for review and challenging our appellate jurisdiction to consider this matter.^[1] For the reasons to follow, we quash the petition for review to the extent it is addressed to our appellate jurisdiction and sustain the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the extent it is addressed to our original jurisdiction.

Dougherty's petition for review alleges the facts that follow. Dougherty is an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution - Houtzdale. In December 2021, the Department collected urine for drug testing and thereafter notified him that he had tested positive for Buprenorphine.^[2] Petition for Review at 2. Consequently, the Department issued a misconduct report (No. D504674) for possession/use of a controlled substance.

The petition alleges that at a disciplinary hearing on January 5, 2022, Dougherty pleaded not guilty to the misconduct report. He requested witness appearances, the lab report, and representation, all of which were denied by the hearing examiner, who stated, "I don't need to see the results. You are . . . guilty, put in an appeal."^[3] Petition for Review at 2-3. As a consequence, Dougherty was placed in the prison's Restricted Housing Unit for 30 days, which Dougherty believes will adversely affect his chances for parole.

Dougherty appealed the misconduct in accordance with the Department's inmate grievance system. In the grievance, Dougherty claimed that the hearing examiner did not follow "policy, procedure and/or due process laws" because Dougherty was not permitted to call witnesses or provided a copy of the urinalysis test result. Petition for Review at 3. Without the urinalysis test results, Dougherty claims he was deprived notice and prevented from "marshaling the facts and preparing a defen[s]e[.]" Id.

Dougherty's petition seeks a declaratory judgment that the Department's actions have violated his rights under the Fifth,^[4] Eighth^[5] and Fourteenth^[6] Amendments to the United States Constitution and a writ of mandamus. For relief, the petition requests the Court to "grant" his "petition for review and make a briefing for both parties." Petition for Review at 6.

The Department has filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. First, the Department argues that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review its inmate grievance process. Second, the Department argues that Dougherty has not stated a due process claim because the hearing examiner has discretion to determine what evidence is relevant and necessary, and an inmate does not have a liberty interest in remaining in general population. Third, the Department argues that Dougherty has not stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment because the use of restricted housing units is not cruel and unusual punishment. Fourth, the Department argues that the petition for review does not comply with Pa.R.Civ.P. 1022 because it is not divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively.

Dougherty did not file a brief in opposition to the Department's preliminary objections.^[7] "[T]he question presented in a demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law indicates with certainty that no recovery is possible." Stilp v. General Assembly, 974 A.2d 491, 494 (Pa. 2009). In ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, this Court must consider as true all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the petition and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts. Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). We "need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion." Id. To sustain preliminary objections, "it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain them." Id.

"When ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to the complaint." Torres, 997 A.2d at 1245. "Thus, the court may determine only whether, on the basis of the [petitioner's] allegations, he or she possesses a cause of action recognized at law." Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 5 by McNesby v. City of Philadelphia, 267 A.3d 531, 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). "[D]ocuments attached as exhibits [and] documents referenced in the complaint . . . may also be considered." Id. at 542.

The Department has promulgated regulations that give inmates the vehicle for reviewing and resolving inmate grievances. The Pennsylvania Code provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The Department will maintain an inmate grievance system which will permit any inmate to seek review of problems which the inmate experiences during the course of confinement. The system will provide for review and resolution of inmate grievances at the most decentralized level possible. It will also provide for review of the initial decision making and for possible appeal to the Central Office of the Department. An inmate will not be disciplined for the good faith use of the grievance systems. However, an inmate who submits a grievance for review which is false, frivolous or malicious may be subject to appropriate disciplinary procedures. A frivolous grievance is one in which the allegations or the relief sought lack any arguable basis in fact as set forth in DC-ADM 804--Inmate Grievance System, which is disseminated to inmates.

37 Pa. Code §93.9(a). See also Department of Corrections Policy Statement DC-ADM 801 (relating to inmate discipline), https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Documents/DOC%20Policies/801%20Inmat e%20Discipline.pdf (last visited January 16, 2024).

With this background, we address the Department's preliminary objections.

The Department first argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal of Dougherty's denial of a grievance. We agree.

"Inmate misconducts are a matter of internal prison management and, thus, do not constitute adjudications subject to appellate review." Hill v. Department of Corrections, 64 A.3d 1159, 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). As our Supreme Court explained in Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357, 358-59 (Pa. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted):

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.

Consequently, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review the Department's decision on Dougherty's grievance.

Accordingly, we quash the portion of Dougherty's petition for review addressed to this Court's appellate jurisdiction.

The Department next argues that the original jurisdiction portion of Dougherty's petition for review does not state a due process claim, whether in mandamus or declaratory judgment. The Department contends that Dougherty received all the process he was due on his misconduct, notwithstanding the denial of his witness request and a copy of his urinalysis test results. Further, Dougherty has no right to a hearing before being placed in the restricted housing unit as a sanction for his misconduct.

In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, procedural due process requires three components: (1) a written notice of the violation at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, (2) a written statement by the fact finder regarding the evidence relied upon and reasons for the disciplinary action, and (3) a qualified right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence where institutional safety or correctional goals will not be placed in hazard. See Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9, 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (citing to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)). Dougherty asserts that the Department did not comply with the third component.

This Court has explained that the first inquiry is whether the inmate is even entitled to procedural due process in the inmate's particular circumstances.

Procedural due process rights are triggered by deprivation of a legally cognizable liberty interest. For a prisoner, such a deprivation occurs when the prison "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 [] (1995). Lesser restraints on a prisoner's freedom are deemed to fall "within the expected perimeters of the sentence imposed by a court of law." Id. If a prisoner ha[s] no protected liberty interest in remaining free of disciplinary custody, then the state owes him no process before placing him in disciplinary confinement.

Feliciano...