Feliciano v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

250 A.3d 1269

Anthony FELICIANO, Petitioner

v.PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent

No. 588 M.D. 2019

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted on Briefs March 17, 2021

Decided April 13, 2021

Anthony Feliciano, Pro Se.

Vincent R. Mazeski, Assistant Counsel, Mechanicsburg, for Respondent.

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge, HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge, HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge, HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE CEISLER

Petitioner Anthony Feliciano (Feliciano), an inmate currently incarcerated within the Commonwealth's state prison system at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (SCI-Mahanoy), has filed a Petition for Review in this Court's original jurisdiction. He seeks a declaratory judgment establishing that Respondent, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department), violated his procedural due process rights during the course of punishing him for a positive drug test. In response, the Department has filed preliminary objections, demurring to the Petition for Review and challenging our jurisdiction to consider this matter. For the reasons explained infra , we sustain the Department's preliminary objection to our jurisdiction and dismiss the Petition for Review without prejudice.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In May 2019, Feliciano's urine was collected so that it could be tested for the presence of illicit substances. Pet. for Review, ¶5, Ex. A.¹ In August 2019, Phamatech Laboratories, located in San Diego, California, issued a report indicating that Feliciano's sample had tested positive for Buprenorphine² in the amount of 11 nanograms per milliliter. Id. , ¶6, Ex. A. As a consequence, Feliciano was placed in the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) at SCI-Mahanoy on August 6, 2019. Id. , ¶7. Contemporaneously, the Department issued Misconduct Report D 198445 (first misconduct report) and allegedly served it on Feliciano. Id. , Ex. B.

In response, Feliciano filed an Official Inmate Grievance, numbered 817513 (first grievance), with the Department. Id. , Ex. C. Hearing Examiner F. Nunez dismissed the first misconduct report without prejudice on August 9, 2019. Id. , ¶10, Ex. D.³ Despite Examiner Nunez's decision, the Department still rejected Feliciano's first grievance on August 12, 2019. Id. , Ex. C. Facility Grievance Coordinator Jane Hinman formally notified Feliciano that she had rejected the first grievance due to its nonconformance with the Department's administrative policies pertaining to "Inmate Discipline/Misconduct Procedures" and "Administrative Custody Procedures[.]" Id. , Ex. E. Coordinator Hinman directed Feliciano to discuss the grieved matter with SCI-Mahanoy's Program Review Committee (PRC). Id.⁴

Shortly thereafter, Feliciano filed a second Official Inmate Grievance on August 15, 2019, numbered 819156 (second grievance), which Coordinator Hinman appears to have rejected the following day. Id. , Ex. F.⁵ Feliciano promptly filed a third Official Inmate Grievance on August 20, 2019, numbered 820178 (third grievance). Id. , Ex. G. In his third grievance, Feliciano stated that he had not been given "any type of paperwork, misconduct, etc." regarding the disciplinary charges that had resulted in his placement in the RHU. Id. Feliciano claimed that the Department had consequently violated his due process rights pursuant to the United States Constitution's Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments⁶ and demanded "$30,000 for violated rights and pain and suffering." Id.

Five days later, Coordinator Hinman formally notified Feliciano that she had rejected his second grievance because it did not conform to the Department's administrative policies pertaining to "Inmate Discipline/Misconduct Procedures." Id. , Ex. H.

That same day, the Department issued Misconduct Report D 169129 (second misconduct report) and allegedly served it upon Feliciano. Id. , Ex. I. The second misconduct report stated, in relevant part:

MISCONDUCT CHARGE OR OTHER ACTION[:] A. Class I. Charge #22[:] Possession or use of a dangerous or controlled substance.

STAFF MEMBER'S VERSION[:]

On July 29, 2019[,] ... Feliciano ... submitted a urine test to detect the presence of drugs in his system. The test sample was sent to [Phamatech] Laboratories ... for analysis. On August 2, 2019[,] [Phamatech] Laboratories informed the institution that Feliciano's urine test was positive for the presence of Buprenorphine (11ng/mL). A [gas chromatography–mass spectrometry ] retest of the sample indicated a positive result for Buprenorphine.

Note: Date of report and date of incident differ due to original misconduct being dismissed without prejudice.

IMMEDIATE ACTION TAKEN[:] Misconduct warranted. Not considered for informal resolution due to seriousness of charge. Refer to Hearing Examiner for further review.

PREHEARING CONFINEMENT[:] "No."^[7]

Id. The second misconduct report also stated that a hearing regarding Feliciano's misconduct citations would potentially be held on or after August 24, 2019. Id.

On August 26, 2019, Examiner Nunez convened a disciplinary hearing regarding Feliciano's positive drug test. Id. , Ex. J. Feliciano pled not guilty. Id. However, Examiner Nunez determined that the allegations of the second misconduct report were supported by a preponderance of the evidence and found Feliciano guilty of misconduct. Id. As punishment, Examiner Nunez ordered Feliciano to serve 30 days in disciplinary custody, retroactive to August 6, 2019. Id.

The next day, Coordinator Hinman formally notified Feliciano that she had rejected his third grievance. Id. , Ex. K. Coordinator Hinman explained she had done so due to the third grievance's nonconformance with the Department's administrative policies pertaining to "Inmate Discipline/Misconduct Procedures" and "Administrative Custody Procedures[.]" Id. Coordinator Hinman again directed Feliciano to discuss the grieved matter with SCI-Mahanoy's PRC. Id.

Feliciano then filed his Petition for Review with our Court. In his Petition for Review, Feliciano claims he was punished for allegedly testing positive via urinalysis for Buprenorphine use. Pet. for Review, ¶¶5-17. Feliciano alleges that, prior to the August 26, 2019 misconduct hearing, he was not provided with the relevant misconduct paperwork or the urinalysis test results. Id. , ¶¶4, 18. He maintains that this withholding of critical evidence, as well as of the particulars regarding the violation for which he had been charged, deprived him of sufficient notice and "[prevented] him from marsha[l]ling the facts and prepar[ing] ... a defense." Id. , ¶19. Feliciano seeks a judicial declaration that the Department was obligated to provide him with "copies of the misconduct [paperwork] and urine test results prior to the [August 26, 2019 misconduct] hearing" and that he be awarded "such other relief as may be just under the circumstances." Id. , Wherefore Clause, ¶¶1-3.

The Department filed preliminary objections and Feliciano responded in opposition. The matter is now ripe for our disposition.

II. Standard of Review

In ruling on preliminary objections, this Court accepts as true all well-pled allegations of material fact, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible from those facts. Key v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. , 185 A.3d 421 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). However, this Court need not accept unwarranted inferences, conclusions of law, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. Id. For preliminary objections to be sustained, it must appear with certainty that the law will permit no recovery. Id. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

Dantzler v. Wetzel , 218 A.3d 519, 522 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).

III. Discussion

The Department asserts two arguments in support of its preliminary objections. First, the Department argues this Court lacks either appellate or original jurisdiction to consider the claims raised in Feliciano's Petition for Review. Second, the Department demurs to Feliciano's claims, contending he did not identify a liberty interest that was affected by the misconduct proceedings, and therefore, the Department was not obligated to afford him due process. Department's Br. in Support of Prelim. Objs at 7-8. We address these arguments in turn.

A. Appellate Jurisdiction

We agree with the Department that this Court does not have appellate jurisdiction to consider Feliciano's Petition for Review. It is well settled that "[i]nmate misconducts are a matter of internal prison management and, thus, do not constitute adjudications subject to appellate review." Hill v. Dep't of Corr. , 64 A.3d 1159, 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). To the extent that Feliciano seeks appellate review of the Department's misconduct proceedings pertaining to his urine test and the related punishment imposed upon him, we sustain the Department's preliminary objection to our jurisdiction.

B. Original Jurisdiction

It is true that the Department's decisions regarding inmate misconduct convictions generally fall outside the scope of our original jurisdiction, even where a prisoner's constitutional rights have allegedly been violated. "Prison inmates do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protections afforded to non-incarcerated citizens." Bronson v. Cent. Off. Rev. Comm. , 554 Pa. 317, 721 A.2d 357, 359 (1998). As we have noted in the past, "incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Robson v. Biester , 53 Pa.Cmwlth. 587, 420 A.2d 9, 13 (1980).

However, "[t]here is a narrow exception if an inmate can identify a personal or property interest not limited by [Department] regulations and affected by a final [Department] decision. ... If one of these interests is involved, the inmate is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard." Hill , 64 A.3d at 1167 (...