Staple v. Commonwealth

Herman Staple, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,Department of Corrections, Respondent

No. 361 M.D. 2013

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Submitted: February 28, 2014

June 26, 2014

BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS

This case in our original jurisdiction arises out of a pro se amended petition for review filed by Herman Staple naming as respondents the Department of Corrections (DOC) and John E. Wetzel, Secretary of DOC.¹ In his amended petition for review, Staple, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Houtzdale, seeks an order compelling DOC to returnreligious books that DOC confiscated from Staple. Presently before this Court is a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer filed by DOC, seeking dismissal of the amended petition for review. We sustain DOC's preliminary objection and dismiss the amended petition for review.

In the amended petition for review, Staple alleges that on March 12, 2013 prison authorities at SCI Camp Hill, where Staple was then incarcerated, confiscated several religious books in his possession because those books had been altered. (Amended Petition for Review (Am. Petition) ¶¶4-5, Exhibit A.) Staple alleges that the confiscated books did not present a security issue as he had only removed a small number of blank pages from these books. (Id. ¶5.) Staple further alleges that the removal of his property was contrary to DOC policy and was based upon an erroneous assumption that the religious materials did not assist in Staple's rehabilitation. (Id. ¶¶5, 6.) Staple alleges that the confiscation of the books deprived him of his property rights and impaired his right to contract with booksellers. (Id. ¶7.)

On March 13, 2013, Staple filed a grievance challenging the confiscation. (Id. ¶4.) On June 20, 2013, the Chief Grievance Officer of the Secretary of DOC's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals issued a decision upholding the confiscation. (Id. ¶4, Exhibit B.) In the decision, the Chief Grievance Officer stated:

A review of the record shows that you are filing an appeal based on your claim that your religious books were confiscated based on a false pretense and you cannot replace them.

An investigation into the matter reveals that the 5 confiscated religious books each had their covers altered and the paper items were glued together with toothpaste.

Per policy DC-ADM 815, property items that are altered from their original state are considered to be contraband. Due to the fact that the book covers are altered, they are considered to be contraband. Your explanation of why you altered them does not negate the alteration itself and confirms that the confiscation was correct. There was no evidence to substantiate your claim that these books were yours and you failed to provide any written evidence such as a purchase receipt or Inmate Personal Property Sheet to show that you purchased them. Therefore, the Superintendent's response is upheld and your request to have the books returned is denied.

(Id. Exhibit B.)

Staple filed a petition for review in this Court on July 17, 2013, which he later amended on August 2, 2013. In the amended petition for review, Staple requested that this Court (i) enter an order requiring DOC to return the confiscated religious books, (ii) issue a declaratory judgment that DOC's actions were contrary to the law, and (iii) award damages pursuant to Section 8303 of the Judicial Code. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8303. On August 2, 2013, Staple also filed an Application for Summary or Special Relief, in which Staple sought judgment as a matter of law and an order requiring the return of the books; this Court denied the Application for Summary or Special Relief by order dated September 9, 2013.

On September 5, 2013, DOC filed its preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to the amended petition for review.² In its preliminary objection, DOC argues that Staple failed to state a claim because prison officialshave a legitimate penological interest in protecting institutional security and Staple, as an inmate, has no cognizable protected interest in possessing property that presents a security issue to other inmates or DOC personnel. As DOC policy provides that prison officials may seize as contraband any item altered from its original state and Staple concedes that the confiscated religious books were altered, DOC contends that Staple has not shown a clear legal right to the return of the books and thus Staple's claim may not stand. DOC further argues that Staple had an alternate remedy to address the confiscation of his religious books through the DOC grievance procedure. Finally, DOC argues that Staple was not entitled to money damages because such damages are barred by sovereign immunity.

In its preliminary objection, DOC treats the amended petition for review as an action in the nature of mandamus. While the amended petition does not describe itself as one of mandamus, to determine the nature of a claim asserted we must look beyond the terms used by the parties and examine the relief sought. Kretchmar v. Commonwealth, 831 A.2d 793, 797 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Here, Staple seeks an order requiring the return of his confiscated books and damages from DOC, citing a provision in the Judicial Code that allows for damage liability for any person who has failed or refused to perform a legal duty without justification. 42 Pa. C.S. § 8303. Thus, we agree with DOC that these claims are in the nature of mandamus, Kretchmar, 831 A.2d at 797; however, Staple's claim seeking a declaratory judgment that DOC's actions in seizing the books were illegal is distinct from the mandamus claim for the return of property, and this claim is treated separately below.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty when (1) the petitioner has aclear legal right to enforce the performance of an act, (2) the respondent has a corresponding duty, and (3) there is no appropriate remedy at law. Danysh v. Wetzel, 49 A.3d 1, 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Maute v. Frank, 670 A.2d 737, 739 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). The writ of mandamus is available only where the petitioner has a clear legal right and may not be used to establish a legal right or to require the respondent to exercise its discretion in a particular way. Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155, 159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Maute, 670 A.2d at 739. Therefore, for Staple to prevail on his claim and require the return of his religious books, he must show that his right to relief is so clear that DOC has no choice but to return those materials to him. Maute, 670 A.2d at 739.

In the amended petition for review, Staple alleges that DOC violated an internal DOC policy, DC-ADM 815, which provides that "any item altered from its original state (state issued or personal) may be considered contraband" and confiscated and destroyed by prison officials. Id. Procedures Manual § (3)(C)(1), (8). Staple asserts that the alteration of the religious books was minimal, and that the books did not create a security threat authorizing their confiscation. Staple further alleges that, by being denied access to his religious books, he was denied the rehabilitative and educational objectives of incarceration, citing a DOC regulation that provides that one of DOC's goals is to provide opportunities for rehabilitation for inmates, 37 Pa. Code § 91.2, and various provisions of the Administrative Code of 1929 that authorize DOC to enact regulations concerning the administration of correctional institutions, including regulations concerning the education and training for inmates.³

None of these provisions, however, provides Staple with the clear legal right that would permit him to prevail on a mandamus claim and allow this Court to grant an order requiring the return of the confiscated religious books. It is well-established that prison officials must be given wide latitude in the promulgation and enforcement of policies to govern internal prison operations and to carry out those policies free from judicial interference in order to preserve order and maintain security within its facilities. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546-48 (1979); Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357, 358 (Pa. 1998). Allegations that DOC failed to follow its regulations or internal policies cannot support a claim for mandamus because administrative rules and regulations, unlike statutory provisions, do not create rights in prison inmates.⁴ Tindell v. Department of Corrections, 87 A.3d 1029, 1035 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); Bullock v. Horn, 720 A.2d 1079, 1082 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). DOC policies, including DC-ADM 815 at issue here, "embody decisions that are inherently committed to the agency's discretion," Small v. Horn, 722 A.2d 664, 670 (Pa. 1998), and are not subject to judicial second guessing in a mandamus action. Furthermore, regulations and statutes that enshrine DOC's goals of providing for the rehabilitation, education and training of inmates do not establish a specific right in inmates to a particular form of rehabilitation, education and training that would be actionable in a mandamus claim; these goals must always be balanced against the countervailing objective of providing for a secure environment within DOC facilities.

In requesting that this Court enter an order requiring the return of his books, Staple cites two additional provisions in the amended petition for review that do touch upon his rights: Staple alleges that, because the confiscated books were religious in nature, the confiscation violated Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA)⁵ and that the confiscation of the books impaired his ability to contract in violation of the Contracts Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.⁶ While prison inmates do not enjoy the...