Toland v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole

311 A.3d 649

Christopher TOLAND, Petitioner

v.PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent

No. 315 M.D. 2018

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued September 11, 2023

Decided February 14, 2024

Original Jurisdiction

Christopher Toland, Petitioner, Pro Se

Alan M. Robinson, Harrisburg, for Respondent.

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER

Sitting in our original jurisdiction, we must decide two questions in the present civil discovery dispute: First, whether this case is moot (and corollary to that, whether a mootness exception applies), and second, whether the arguments raised by a Commonwealth agency to resist discovery—namely an agency regulation, a criminal history statute, and boilerplate objections—prevent the disclosure of in- formation and documents sought by a petitioner.

The underlying dispute giving rise to the discovery issues before the Court involves Petitioner Christopher Toland’s (Toland) pro se Amended Petition for Review/Mandamus (Amended Petition), seeking a writ of mandamus against the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board).¹ In short, Toland alleges that the Board violated his constitutional rights by applying the incorrect parole guidelines and relying on incorrect information in denying him parole in 2017, 2018, and 2019. This Court previously overruled the Board’s preliminary objections to the Amended Petition, and since then, the case has proceeded to discovery. See Toland v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 263 A.3d 1220 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (Toland I). As part of discovery, Toland now seeks documents from his parole file, along with answers to interrogatories, to substantiate the allegations from the Amended Petition. The Board has objected to many interrogatories and requests for production of documents, citing the Board’s confidentiality regulation, 37 Pa. Code § 61.2 (Regulation), and Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 9101-9183, as bars to disclosure. The Board also objects to most of the discovery requests on the basis that they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence; Toland asks this Court to dismiss the Board’s objections. Finally, the Board now argues that the case is moot and should be dismissed because it has denied Toland parole again since the filing of the Amended Petition, specifically in November 2022. Toland opposes dismissal on the basis of mootness and moves to strike a declaration the Board attached in support of its filing.

Before this Court are: (i) the Board’s Suggestion of Mootness/Application for Stay filed on March 6, 2023 (Suggestion), and Toland’s response thereto; (ii) Toland’s Motion to Strike the declaration of the Board Secretary, a document the Board filed along with its Suggestion (Motion to Strike); (iii) Toland’s Motion to Dismiss the Board’s Objections to Toland’s Discovery Requests (Toland’s Motion to Dismiss) filed on May 2, 2022, and the Board’s Response to Toland’s Motion to Dismiss Board’s Objections to Toland’s Discovery Requests filed on June 20, 2022 (Board’s Response); and (iv) Toland’s Application to Leave to Supplement the Record filed on August 21, 2023 (Application to Supplement). After careful review, we deny the Board’s Suggestion, and, accordingly, dismiss Toland’s Motion to Strike and Application to Supplement as moot. Further, we grant Toland’s Motion to Dismiss in part except as to five interrogatories discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND

Toland is currently serving an 11-to 40-year sentence in state prison; his minimum sentence having expired in 2004. Toland I, 263 A.3d at 1225. As of the time of the filing of the Amended Petition, Toland had been denied parole 15 times. Id. In this litigation, Toland specifically challenges the parole denials from 2017, 2018, and 2019. Id. In our prior reported decision in this matter overruling the Board’s preliminary objections to the Amended Petition, we allowed three claims to move forward, namely Toland’s contentions that

(1) the [Board] violated [Toland’s] due process rights by relying on false information in denying [Toland] parole;

(2) the Board violated [Toland’s] due process rights by exercising its discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner; and

(3) the Board’s application of the standards for parole of [the Parole Code] violated the ex post facto prohibitions of both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

Id. at 1224 (reformatted for readability) (footnotes omitted).

With respect to his first due process claim, Toland alleges the Board not only erroneously believed he had more than one rape conviction, but also that he had a history as a domestic violence offender. Id. at 1227. Citing Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 555 Pa. 285, 724 A.2d 319 (1999), and Reider v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 100 Pa.Cmwlth. 333, 514 A.2d 967 (1986), Toland raises another due process claim, specifically that the Board failed to exercise its discretion at all in denying parole simply because he is a sex offender and not looking to the factors required under the Parole Code.² Id. at 1228-29. With respect to his ex post facto claim, Toland specifically avers that he would have been paroled under the pre-1996 Guidelines.³ Id. at 1227-28.⁴ We explained in Toland I that "[Toland] is not challenging the Board’s exercise of discretion in denying parole, but the Board’s failure to follow the law in denying [Toland]’s parole by relying on incorrect or false information and making its decision solely based on the fact that [Toland] is a sex offender while ignoring other factors relevant to that de- cision." Toland I, 263 A.3d at 1283.⁵ The Board filed preliminary objections to the Amended Petition, which were overruled in Toland I. The pleadings have since closed, and the parties are presently engaged in discovery.

On December 27, 2021, Toland served a first set of interrogatories and a request for production of documents on the Board. (See Notice of Service 12/27/2021.) The Board answered Toland’s requests on February 6, 2022, and February 7, 2022, respectively, responding to some of Toland’s discovery requests and objecting to most. (See Toland’s Motion to Dismiss, appendices (apps.) A, B.) Subsequently, on March 7, 2022, Toland served a second set of interrogatories on the Board. (See Notice of Service received 3/9/2022.) On April 2, 2022, the Board answered Toland’s second set of interrogatories again responding to some requests and objecting to several others. (See Toland’s Motion to Dismiss, app. C.)⁶

The Board’s objections to Toland’s first set of interrogatories, first request for production of documents, and second set of interrogatories prompted him to file his Motion to Dismiss, asking this Court to dismiss the Board’s objections and compel it to provide the requested information or produca the responsive documents. On September 15, 2022, this Court ordered Toland and the Board to file memoranda of law in support of their respective arguments.

The Board filed the Suggestion on March 6, 2023, which this Court denied in part on April 25, 2023, insofar as the Board requested a stay, setting the mootness question for argument. In response to the Suggestion, Toland filed his Motion to Strike. Most recently, the Board requested a stay of discovery on July 13, 2023. This Court granted the stay of discovery on August 15, 2023, pending resolution of the matters scheduled for argument and discussed herein.

II. DISCUSSION

A The Board’s Suggestion of Mootness

1. Parties’ Arguments

Because it is potentially dispositive, we begin with the Board’s mootness argument. The Board asks the Court to dismiss Toland’s Amended Petition, reasoning that it is now moot due to the most recent parole interview and resulting denial rendered in 2022. (Suggestion ¶¶ 19-26.) The Board relies on Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, a United States Supreme Court decision regarding mootness as a matter of federal law, and unpublished federal district court opinions involving inmates seeking habeas corpus relief in federal courts due to adverse parole decisions. (Suggestion ¶¶ 19-20.) The Board reasons that "the only appropriate remedy [for Toland] would arguably be to order a new parole interview," and thus, "[i]f Toland believes he is aggrieved by this new [2022] parole refusal decision, he has the right to file another petition … or he can file an amended petition." (Id. ¶¶ 21, 25.)

To support its mootness argument, the Board attached to its Suggestion a Declaration of Board Secretary Deborah Carpenter (Board Secretary). (Suggestion Ex. A (Declaration).) In it, she explains that the Board used the pre-1996 Guidelines in its 2022 decision, and she enumerates the reasons the interviewers denied parole in 2022. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.) She also indicates Toland’s next parole interview is slated for 2024. (Id. ¶ 13.)

Toland responds that "[w]hile all previous parole decisions may be moot, the false information … claim[ed] in the Amended Petition remains part of his parole file …. The [B]oard can not [sic] just claim that since Toland had a new interview and decision that this false information is no longer relevant." (Toland’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Objections to Petitioner’s Discovery Requests (Toland’s Memorandum) ¶¶ 21, 26, 31, 39.)

2. Analysis

[1] As a threshold matter, instead of citing to Pennsylvania mootness caselaw, the Board begins its argument by referring to Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (Arizona), for the proposition "that a justiciable case or controversy must remain extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." (Suggesti...