Mr. C. Rice v. PA DOC ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Mr. Carvell Rice,                              :
    : No. 169 M.D. 2015
    Petitioner       : Submitted: October 9, 2015
    :
    v.                      :
    :
    Pennsylvania Department                        :
    of Corrections,                                :
    :
    Respondent       :
    BEFORE:      HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
    HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
    HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN                                       FILED: January 5, 2016
    This case arises out of a pro se petition for review filed by Carvell Rice
    naming as respondent the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC). In his
    petition for review, Rice, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional
    Institution (SCI) at Frackville, seeks an order remanding his grievance to DOC to
    explain its censoring of Rice’s outgoing mail and compelling DOC to dismiss the
    misconduct charge against him.             Presently before this court are the preliminary
    objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by DOC seeking dismissal of Rice’s
    petition for review.        We sustain DOC’s preliminary objections and dismiss the
    petition for review.
    In his petition for review, Rice alleges that he filed a grievance on June
    20, 2014, because DOC employees made racial comments. Rice further alleges that
    due to the grievance, DOC employees have retaliated against him by seizing and
    censoring his mail. Specifically, Rice alleges that on July 18, 2014, he sent a letter to
    his sister that was seized and censored without probable cause or DOC authority, and,
    as a result, he received DOC Misconduct Report (Report) No. B400079. The Report
    states that on July 18, 2014, in violation of DC-ADM 803, Rice, without permission
    and against a direct written order, attempted to mail correspondence to his sister,
    which gave explicit directions on how to covert the mail system to allow Rice to
    correspond with a former inmate. (Report, 7/18/14, at 1.) Due to this violation, DOC
    issued Report No. B400079 for: (1) using abusive, obscene, or inappropriate language
    to or about an employee; (2) refusing to obey an order; and (3) unauthorized use of
    the mail. (Id.)
    On July 24, 2014, the hearing examiner conducted a misconduct hearing
    at which Rice stated that no rule violation was cited in the Report and, therefore, he
    had no way of knowing what violation to defend against. The hearing officer found
    that Rice committed the alleged misconduct.1
    On July 26, 2014, Rice filed a second grievance stating that the seizure
    and censorship of his mail violated his rights.               This second grievance was
    subsequently denied by the grievance officer as frivolous, and Rice appealed to the
    1
    Rice appealed to the Program Review Committee (PRC) and, on August 9, 2014, the PRC
    denied his appeal. Thereafter, Rice appealed to the facility manager, who, on August 18, 2014,
    upheld the PRC’s decision. Rice then appealed to the chief hearing examiner for final review. On
    September 8, 2014, the chief hearing examiner denied Rice’s appeal.
    2
    facility manager. On September 25, 2014, the facility manager remanded the second
    grievance for a revised response. On October 7, 2014, the grievance officer again
    dismissed the second grievance as frivolous.
    On October 12, 2014, Rice again appealed the second grievance to the
    facility manager, questioning his mail surveillance. On October 29, 2014, the facility
    manager denied the grievance, and Rice appealed to the Secretary’s Office of Inmate
    Grievances and Appeals (Secretary’s Office), requesting that the reason for his mail
    surveillance be addressed. On December 19, 2014, the Secretary’s Office remanded
    the second grievance for a revised response.
    On January 6, 2015, the facility manager denied Rice’s second grievance
    as frivolous and issued a revised response. Rice appealed to the Secretary’s Office
    asking why DOC was monitoring his mail. On March 4, 2015, the Secretary’s Office
    denied Rice’s appeal due to his failure to provide any new information and
    determined that Rice’s issues had been properly addressed.
    Before this court, Rice seeks an order: (1) stating that DOC failed to
    provide a response to Rice’s question as to why his mail was seized, opened, and
    censored; (2) remanding the second grievance to DOC to answer Rice’s question as
    to whether DOC was justified in opening and reviewing Rice’s outgoing mail and
    whether such seizure of the mail was the result of retaliation; (3) stating that DOC
    violated Rice’s due process rights in refusing to permit Rice to review evidence
    against him at the misconduct hearing and failing to advise him of the specific rule
    that was violated; (4) finding that Rice was denied his due process rights during the
    3
    misconduct hearing as a result of DOC’s failure to advise him of a specific rule
    violation and its failure to permit Rice to review the evidence against him; and (5)
    dismissing the misconduct charge against Rice as a result of the constitutional
    violations.
    On July 6, 2015, DOC filed its preliminary objections in the nature of a
    demurrer to Rice’s petition for review.2 DOC contends that Rice’s petition for review
    should be dismissed because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over prison
    misconducts and grievances.
    To the extent Rice seeks to invoke this court’s original jurisdiction to
    review his misconduct and grievance decisions, this court has stated “that those
    claims could only be brought if the prisoner presented substantial constitutional
    issues, the prisoner had filed an inmate grievance, and he or she had exhausted
    internal administrative appeals.” Iseley v. Beard, 
    841 A.2d 168
    , 172 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2004).
    Rice contends that his “First and Fourth Amendment Constitutional”
    rights were violated during his disciplinary proceedings. However, Rice fails to
    supply any legal support for this argument, only stating that his mail was “censored
    2
    In ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, this court must accept as
    true all well-pled allegations of material fact, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible from
    those facts. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. Department of Public Welfare, 
    67 A.3d 160
    ,
    170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc). We are not required to accept as true legal conclusions,
    unwarranted factual inferences, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. 
    Id. 4 and
    seized in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments” to the United States
    Constitution. (Pet. for Review, at ¶ 11.)
    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits
    unreasonable searches and seizures. The First Amendment to the United States
    Constitution includes a general right to communicate by mail. Richardson v. Wetzel,
    
    74 A.3d 353
    , 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). However,
    [p]rison inmates do not enjoy the same level of
    constitutional protections afforded to non-incarcerated
    citizens. . . . ‘[I]ncarceration brings about the necessary
    withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a
    retraction justified by the considerations underlying our
    penal system.’ Unless ‘an inmate can identify a personal or
    property interest . . . not limited by [DOC] regulations and
    which has been affected by a final decision of the [DOC]’
    the decision is not an adjudication subject to the court’s
    review.
    Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 
    721 A.2d 357
    , 359 (Pa. 1998) (citations
    omitted). Prison inmates do not have the right to correspond with another inmate,
    either directly or through a third party. DOC directives specify with whom an inmate
    may correspond and sets forth DOC’s right to open, inspect, and reject certain mail.
    See DC-ADM 803. In light of the limitations placed on inmate correspondence by
    DOC, Rice does not have a constitutional rights claim and, therefore, this court lacks
    original jurisdiction.
    Rice also asserts that this court has appellate jurisdiction over the matter.
    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
    5
    carry out those policies free from judicial interference in order to preserve order and
    maintain security within its facilities. 
    Bronson, 721 A.2d at 358
    . DOC policies,
    including DC-ADM 803, “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.
    In his brief in response to DOC’s preliminary objections, Rice contends
    that this court has jurisdiction because a formal grievance response is an official
    agency decision.3 Rice further asserts that he “remain[s] adamant that [his] complaint
    is about a misconduct.” (Rice’s Br. at 9.) Rice is essentially asking this court to
    review DOC’s prison misconduct proceedings, which, barring exceptional
    circumstances, are not subject to judicial review.
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has consistently held that “an internal
    administrative tribunal that reviews the grievances and disciplinary sentences of those
    already confined” is not “a government agency whose final decisions are appealable.”
    
    Bronson, 721 A.2d at 358
    . Bronson further states that “the [C]ommonwealth [C]ourt
    does not have appellate jurisdiction, under 42 Pa. C.S. §763, over inmate appeals of
    decisions by intra-prison disciplinary tribunals.”            
    Id. at 359.
         The Pennsylvania
    3
    Rice, in his petition for review before this court, claims that this court has jurisdiction
    pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §726, which gives the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extraordinary
    jurisdiction over issues of “immediate public importance.” This rule, however, applies only to the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court and not this court.
    6
    Supreme Court could not be more clear. Therefore, we conclude that we do not have
    appellate jurisdiction over Rice’s misconduct violation or his grievance.4
    Accordingly, we sustain DOC’s preliminary objections and dismiss
    Rice’s petition for review.
    ___________________________________
    ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
    4
    DOC also contends that Rice’s petition for review should be dismissed because it fails to
    set forth any viable legal claim against the respondent for which relief may be granted. However,
    because we agree that we lack jurisdiction, we need not address DOC’s remaining issue. See Brown
    v. Department of Corrections, 
    601 A.2d 1345
    , 1346 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (stating that we do not
    need to address the remaining issues because we lack jurisdiction).
    7
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Mr. Carvell Rice,                            :
    : No. 169 M.D. 2015
    Petitioner         :
    :
    v.                       :
    :
    Pennsylvania Department                      :
    of Corrections,                              :
    :
    Respondent         :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2016, we hereby sustain the
    Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ preliminary objections and dismiss the
    petition for review filed by Carvell Rice.
    ___________________________________
    ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 169 M.D. 2015

Judges: Friedman, Senior Judge

Filed Date: 1/5/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/5/2016