Sanchez v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

1

Carlos Sanchez, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; George M. Little, Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Jamie Sorber, Superintendent; Kelly Long, Mail Room Supervisor; and Amina McCown, H-Unit Manager, Respondents

No. 451 M.D. 2023

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

September 25, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Submitted: August 9, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE LORI A DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ANNE E. COVEY, JUDGE

Before this Court are the preliminary objections (Preliminary Objections) filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), DOC Secretary George M. Little (Little) Superintendent Jamie Sorber (Sorber), Mail Room Supervisor Kelly Long (Long), and H-Unit Manager Amina McCown (McCown) (collectively, Respondents) to Carlos Sanchez's (Sanchez) pro se Petition for Review (Petition) filed in this Court's original jurisdiction.^[1] After review, this Court sustains the Preliminary Objections in part and overrules them in part.

Sanchez is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Phoenix (SCI-Phoenix). On April 8, 2021, Sanchez submitted a DOC ADM-815-A Outside Purchase Approval Form, and a DOC ADM-DC-135 $200.00 Cash Slip seeking permission to purchase orthopedic sneakers (Request). On April 8, 2021, McCown approved Sanchez's Request, checking a box on the form directly following the statement: "This approval is conditional. If the article is not authorized, disapproved, or fails to meet the requirements of [DOC] policy . . . it will be returned to the sender at the inmate's expense." Petition, Appendix B-1. On April 15, 2021, DOC deducted $200.00 from Sanchez's inmate account. On July 21, 2021, McCown notified Sanchez that his sneakers had arrived at SCI-Phoenix's mail room. Notwithstanding, Long withheld the sneakers from Sanchez.

On July 26, 2021, Sanchez filed Grievance No. 938127, requesting that Respondents provide the sneakers to Sanchez or otherwise reimburse him for their cost. On August 12, 2021, a grievance officer denied Grievance No. 938127, reasoning that Sanchez had purchased the sneakers through an unauthorized vendor. The grievance officer acknowledged that McCown had approved Sanchez's outside purchase request, but explained that the vendor was not an authorized vendor, and that final approval is made upon inspection when the item is received. Because the vendor was unauthorized, Long was required to deny the non-approved item and did so in compliance with DOC's policy. On August 20, 2021, Sanchez filed an appeal which the Facility Manager denied on September 10, 2021. On September 18, 2021, Sanchez filed an appeal for final review to the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals (OIGA). On December 6, 2021, the OIGA upheld the prior responses denying Grievance No. 938127.

On April 15, 2022 and May 20, 2022, Sanchez submitted a DC-138A Cash Slip to Long requesting to have Respondents mail the sneakers to his home. On July 4, 2022, Sanchez filed Grievance No. 988247, alleging that SCI-Phoenix's mail room threw away the sneakers without providing him sufficient time to provide a cash slip to have them sent to his home. Following several appeals, on September 4, 2022, DOC issued a Final Appeal Decision denying Grievance No. 988247. On January 27, 2023, Sanchez filed the Petition in the trial court seeking compensatory and punitive damages for negligence and assumpsit. On September 7, 2023, the trial court transferred the matter to this Court. On November 14, 2023, DOC filed the Preliminary Objections challenging the Petition's legal sufficiency.

Initially, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1516(b) authorizes any party to file preliminary objections to an original jurisdiction petition for review for the reasons specified in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure (Civil Rule) 1028. See Pa.R.A.P. 1516(b). Civil Rule 1028(a) authorizes any party to file preliminary objections based on "legal insufficiency" (demurrer). Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4).

In ruling on preliminary objections, [this Court] must accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the petition for review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. Th[is] Court need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. In order 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.

A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits every well-pleaded fact in the [petition for review] and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to the [petition for review].

McNew v. E. Marlborough Twp., 295 A.3d 1, 8-9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (quoting Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citations omitted)). "'[C]ourts reviewing preliminary objections may not only consider the facts pled in the [petition for review], but also any documents or exhibits attached to it.' Allen v. Dep't of Corr., 103 A.3d 365, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)." Foxe v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 214 A.3d 308, 310 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).

Further,

[w]hile ordinarily a demurrer must be limited to facts appearing on the face of the challenged pleading, "a limited exception to the rule against speaking demurrers exists for documents filed in support of a demurrer where a plaintiff has averred the existence of certain written documents and premised his cause of action upon those documents."^[2]

Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353, 358 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Barndt v. Dep't of Corr., 902 A.2d 589, 591 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)). "Thus, th[is] [C]ourt may determine only whether, on the basis of the [petitioner's] allegations, he or she possesses a cause of action recognized at law." Fraternal Ord. of Police Lodge No. 5, by McNesby v. City of Phila., 267 A.3d 531, 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021).

Respondents first contend that Sanchez has failed to assert sufficient personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing with respect to Little, Sorber, and McCown. DOC further asserts that Sanchez does not make allegations of Little's actual personal involvement but, rather, attempts to apply a chain-of-command liability theory.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that a public employee is not vicariously liable for the actions of subordinates simply because the subordinate is in the employee's chain of command. DuBree v. Commonwealth, . . . 393 A.2d 293, 295-96 ([Pa.] 1978). . . . A public employee's participation in reviewing grievances and grievance appeals does not constitute personal involvement. If no personal involvement is averred, the public employee is immune from suit.^[3] DuBree, 393 A.2d at 296.

Moody v. Wenerowicz (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 376 C.D. 2021, filed May 31, 2023), slip op. at 16 (citation omitted).

With respect to Little, Sanchez alleges in the Petition:

24.On July 21, 2021[,] [] Little failed to create a policy, custom[,] or procedure to ensure the security, care[,] or safety of [Sanchez's] personal property during the course of the unusual confiscation of [Sanchez's] personal prop[]erty. This caused certain property item[]s of [Sanchez] valued in the sum of $200.[00] to get lost and or distroyed [sic] while in the hands of [Respondents] Long, Sorber, and McCown.

25.[] [Sanchez] made [] Little aware of the missing personal property item some[]time after the unusual confiscation, through the grievance system and the appeal to [OIGA].

26. At this point, [] Little had administrative involvement in the handling of [Sanchez's] personal property[,] but Little failed to correct the loss of [Sanchez's] personal property item listed in Missing Item and Sought Damages [sic], while in the hands of [] Sorber, Long, and McCown. This caused [Sanchez] to continue to suffer a loss of certain property item[]s valued at the cost of $200.[00.]

Petition at 3.

DOC avers that Sanchez's allegations regarding Sorber similarly lack reference to Sorber's personal involvement. Regarding Sorber, Sanchez avers:

27. On July 21, 2021[,] [] Sorber was the Facility Manager of SCI-Phoenix and was responsible for the care, custody or control of [Sanchez's] personal property.

28. [] [Sanchez] made [] Sorber aware of the missing personal property item some[]time after the unusual confiscation, by reporting the incident through the grievance system and the appeal to the Facility [M]anager.

29. At this point, Sorber filed [sic] to correct the loss of certain property item[]s listed in Section Missing Item and Sought Damages [sic], while in the hands of Long and McCown. This caused [Sanchez] to conti[nue] to suffer a loss of certain property item[]s valued at the cost of $200[.00].

30. On July 21, 2021[,] [] Sorber failed to intervene, supervise, and ensure that [] Long followed the relevant procedure mandated by [DOC] Policy . . ., despite [] Sorber being in the best position to correct the problem.

Petition at 4.

With respect to Little and Sorber, the Petition does not include facts averring personal involvement beyond their role in the chain of command. Accordingly, this Court agrees that Sanchez has not pled facts that would permit recovery as against Little and Sorber. Thus, this Court sustains Respondents' Preliminary Objections with respect to Little and Sorber and dismisses them from the instant action with prejudice.

Unlike Sanchez's references to Little and Sorber in the Petition, Sanchez's allegations regarding...