Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-4363 CivilKEITH GANT, Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo CIVIL ACTION - LAW JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Respondent NO. 02-4363 CIVIL TERM IN RE: RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER and GUIDO, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., December 5, 2003. In this civil action, a state prisoner has sued the Commonwealth's Secretary of Corrections, the Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, and the Assistant Superintendent and Facility Grievance Coordinator of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview. ~ This tort action2 is premised upon the institution's failure to preserve certain personal property of the prisoner which was confiscated from his cell.3 ~ Petition for Review, paras. 3-5; Respondents' Answer to Petition for Review with New Matter, paras. 3-5. : This action was initially filed in the Commonwealth Court as a petition for review. It was transferred to this court by the Commonwealth Court pursuant to the following per curiam order: NOW, July 25, 2002, upon consideration of petitioner's pro se complaint, and it appearing that petitioner seeks money damages from respondents for an alleged violation of petitioner's constitutional rights, and it further appearing that this court lacks jurisdiction over tort actions for money damages whether based on common law trespass or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because such actions are in the nature of trespass in that they seek money damages as redress for an unlawful injury and are properly commenced in the court of common pleas, see Fawber v. Cohen, 516 Pa. 353, 532 A.2d 429 (1987); Balshy v. Rank, 507 Pa. 384, 490 A.2d 415 (1985), this matter is transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Gant v. Beard, No. 505 M.D. 2002 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 25, 2002). ~ Petition for Review, paras. 1-20. For disposition at this time is Respondents' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the motion will be granted. STATEMENT OF FACTS "A motion for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a demurrer in which all of the opposing parties' well-pleaded allegations are viewed as true, but only those facts specifically admitted by the objecting party may be considered against him." Ithier v. City of Philadelphia, 137 Pa. Commw. 103, 105, 585 A.2d 564, 565 (1991). "In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, [the court] must limit [its] review of the facts to those appearing in the pleadings themselves, keeping in mind that the moving party admits the truth of all allegations of his adversary and the untruth of his own allegations that have been denied." K/ine v. Pennsy/vaniaMines Corp., 120 Pa. Commw. 7, 9, 547 A.2d 1276, 1277 (1988). Viewed in this light, the facts of the case may be summarized as follows: Petitioner is Keith Gant, a state prisoner presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.4 Respondents are Jeffrey A. Beard,5 Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, R.W. Myers, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, and Jeffrey A. Rackovan, Assistant Superintendent and Facility Grievance Coordinator at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview.6 On September 29, 2001, Petitioner, while an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, was cited for misconduct by the institution 4 Petition for Review, para. 2. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 126 (liberal construction and application of rules of procedure), the court will, for purposes of the motion for judgment on the pleadings, regard the Petition for Review filed in this case as a complaint, Petitioner as a plaintiff, and Respondents as defendants. s Secretary Beard's name is incorrectly given in the Petition for Review as Bread. 6 Petition for Review, paras. 3-5. 2 for having items in his cell worth $181.00, in excess of the permitted value of $45.00.7 The items were confiscated by the institution.8 Petitioner pled not guilty to the misconduct, and received a hearing on the issue on October 2, 2001, before a hearing examiner named Carol Baker.9 The hearing resulted in a finding of guilt, a reprimand/warning, and a direction that the "excess commissary" be destroyed, l0 Petitioner was notified of his right to request a formal review of the matter within 15 days. ~ Petitioner neither requested a formal review of the matter nor advised the institution as to which items, if any, within the permitted value, he wished to retain.~2 Nor does Petitioner, for present purposes, challenge the proposition that his possession of the items of personalty, which exceeded in total value $45.00, was properly found a misconduct.~3 On May 16, 2002, more than seven months after the decision of the hearing examiner, Petitioner filed a grievance regarding the confiscated items.TM He was advised that the items had been destroyed in the absence of (a) an appeal from the hearing examiner's decision and (b) any advice from Petitioner as to his wishes 7 Petition for Review, paras. 7-9. 8 Petition for Review, para. 9. 9 Respondents' Answer to Petition for Review with New Matter, paras. 23-24. These paragraphs in Respondents' new matter do not appear to be factually disputed in Petitioner's Response to Respondents Answers to Petition for Review. l0 Petition for Review, para. 9; Respondents' Answer to Petition for Review with New Matter, para. 24 and Ex. A. ~ Respondents' Answer to Petition for Review with New Matter, para. 25. This paragraph in Respondents' new matter does not appear to be factually disputed in Petitioner's Response to Respondents Answers to Petition for Review. ~2 Respondents' Answer to Petition for Review with New Matter, paras. 25, 29, and Ex. C. These allegations in Respondents' new matter do not appear to be factually disputed in Petitioner's Response to Respondents Answers to Petition for Review. ~ See Petitioner's Response to Respondents Answers to Petition for Review. 14 Respondents' Answer to Petition for Review with New Matter, para. 28 and Ex. B. These allegations in Respondents' new matter do not appear to be factually disputed in Petitioner's Response to Respondents Answers to Petition for Review. 3 with regard to preservation of the confiscated property within the permissible valuation limit. ~5 The instant tort action was filed by Petitioner on July 23, 2002.~6 Relief requested in the petition is "declaratory relief in the full amount of $181.00''~? or "return [of] said property for shipping allowing $45.00 worth to be retained.''~8 By order of court dated September 17, 2002, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley permitted Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion of Respondents sub judice for judgment on the pleadings was filed on September 24, 2003. The grounds for judgment advanced by the motion are sovereign immunity, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and failure to present a claim upon which relief can be granted. 19 DISCUSSION It is well settled in Pennsylvania that a motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted only in cases where there are no issues of material fact and which are so free from doubt that a trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise. 3 Goodrich Amram 2d § 1034(b):2 (1998). In the present case, the pleadings do not, in the court's view, support a legally sufficient claim against Respondents. Just as there is a "too bad category" of contracts,2° there is conduct of a non-contractual nature which may occasion some misfortune to another person but is not sufficiently careless, willful or otherwise inappropriate as to rise to the level of a legally cognizable civil wrong. The eventual destruction of items confiscated from Petitioner's cell as a ~5 Respondents' Answer to Petition for review with New Matter, para. 29 and Ex. C. The receipt of this information does not appear to be factually disputed in Petitioner's Response to respondents Answers to Petition for Review. 16 As noted previously, the initial filing was in the Commonwealth Court. See note 2 supra. ~7 Petition for Review, para. 20. ~8 Petition for Review, para. 19. 19 Respondents' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, para. 6. 2°Muhammadv. Strassburger, 526 Pa. 541,547-48, 587 A.2d 1346, 1349 (1991). 4 consequence of his misconduct, under the circumstances recited above, falls within that category of conduct. For this reason, the following order will be entered:2~ ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2003, after careful consideration of Respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, the motion is granted and Petitioner's petition for review is dismissed. BY THE COURT, Keith Gant, DD-8972 SCI-Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 Petitioner, Pro Se Raymond W. Dorian, Esq. Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Respondent J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. :~ As a result of the disposition of Respondents' motion on this ground, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised by Respondent. 5 6 KEITH GANT, Petitioner IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vo CIVIL ACTION - LAW JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Respondent NO. 02-4363 CIVIL TERM IN RE: RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER and GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2003, after careful consideration of Respondents' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and for the reasons stated in this opinion, the motion is granted and Petitioner's petition for review is dismissed. BY THE COURT, Keith Gant, DD-8972 SCI-Camp Hill P.O. Box 200 Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200 Petitioner, Pro Se Raymond W. Dorian, Esq. Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 55 Utley Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Respondent J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.