A. Feliciano v. PA DOC ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Anthony Feliciano,                        :
    Petitioner              :
    :
    v.                                  : No. 588 M.D. 2019
    : SUBMITTED: December 17, 2021
    Pennsylvania Department of                :
    Corrections,                              :
    Respondent               :
    BEFORE:      HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge1
    HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
    HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE CEISLER                                         FILED: January 26, 2022
    Petitioner Anthony Feliciano (Feliciano), an inmate currently incarcerated
    within the Commonwealth’s state prison system at the State Correctional Institution
    at Mahanoy (SCI-Mahanoy), has filed an amended petition for review (Amended
    Petition) in this Court’s original jurisdiction. Therein, Feliciano seeks a declaratory
    judgment establishing that Respondent Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
    (Department) violated his procedural due process rights during the course of
    administratively punishing him for a positive drug test. In response, the Department
    has filed preliminary objections, through which it demurs to the Amended Petition
    and challenges our jurisdiction to consider this matter. After thorough consideration,
    we sustain the Department’s preliminary objection to our jurisdiction and dismiss
    the Amended Petition with prejudice.
    1
    This matter was assigned to the panel before January 3, 2022, when President Judge
    Emerita Leavitt became a senior judge on the Court.
    I. Background
    This matter again comes to us for consideration, the better part of a year after
    we sustained the Department’s jurisdictional preliminary objection to Feliciano’s
    original Petition for Review (Petition) and dismissed that Petition without prejudice.2
    In sustaining the Department’s preliminary objection, we noted that “the
    Department’s decisions regarding inmate misconduct convictions generally fall
    outside the scope of our original jurisdiction, even where a prisoner’s constitutional
    rights have allegedly been violated.” Feliciano I, 250 A.3d at 1274. We also made
    clear, though, that “[t]here is a narrow exception [to this rule in instances where] an
    inmate can identify a personal or property interest not limited by [Department]
    regulations and affected by a final [Department] decision. . . . If one of these interests
    is involved, the inmate is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id. at
    1275 (quoting Hill v. Dep’t of Corr., 
    64 A.3d 1159
    , 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)). With
    regard to procedural due process, we made clear that an inmate must be afforded this
    constitutional right in the context of prison disciplinary matters only where “the
    punishment imposed upon him as a result of his [misconduct] constituted an
    ‘atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
    life.’” 
    Id. at 1279
     (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 
    515 U.S. 472
    , 484 (1995)). Moving
    on, we stated that each case of this nature “requires a fact-specific inquiry” regarding
    whether the affected inmate has suffered such a hardship. Accordingly, we adopted3
    the multifactor test created by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
    Columbia Circuit, which we concluded “articulates the proper method for
    2
    The details of Feliciano’s situation and the particulars of his Petition are discussed at
    length in Feliciano v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 
    250 A.3d 1269
     (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2021) (Feliciano I), and, as such, we need not recount them here.
    3
    Feliciano I was a unanimous en banc published opinion and thus binding case law.
    2
    determining whether an inmate is entitled to procedural due process in the context
    of an administrative determination that affects his carceral housing situation[.]” 
    Id.
    Under this test,
    the proper methodology for evaluating [procedural due
    process] deprivation claims [of this type] . . . is to consider
    (i) the conditions of confinement relative to administrative
    segregation, (ii) the duration of that confinement
    generally, and (iii) the duration relative to length of
    administrative segregation routinely imposed on prisoners
    serving similar sentences.
    
    Id.
     (quoting Aref v. Lynch, 
    833 F.3d 242
    , 255 (D.C. Cir. 2016)). We also stressed
    “that a liberty interest can potentially arise under less-severe conditions when the
    deprivation is prolonged or indefinite.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Aref, 833 F.3d at 255).
    Upon review of Feliciano’s Petition, we concluded that he had failed to make
    averments therein that satisfied the requirements of this test and consequently
    determined that we lacked jurisdiction to consider his action; however, we did so
    without prejudice, and gave Feliciano 30 days to submit an Amended Petition in
    which he had corrected the deficiencies contained in his original filing. Id. at 1279-
    80. Feliciano availed himself of this opportunity through his aforementioned
    Amended Petition. In response, the Department submitted the preliminary objections
    that are currently before us for disposition.
    3
    II. Discussion4
    Feliciano’s Amended Petition suffers from the same jurisdictional defects that
    plagued his original Petition and, as such, we lack jurisdiction to consider his action.
    The Amended Petition is devoid of averments that would allow us to compare the
    conditions of Feliciano’s misconduct penalty to that experienced by inmates during
    normal carceral confinement. In addition, Feliciano’s Amended Petition is silent
    about whether the administrative punishment levied against him in this instance was
    more severe than the penalties imposed upon similarly situated inmates, or whether
    the length of that punishment is such that his liberty interests are implicated. See
    Am. Pet. ¶¶2-23. Therefore, Feliciano has failed to identify a personal or property
    interest that would obligate the Department to afford him adequate procedural due
    process in this situation. It follows, then, that we do not have original jurisdiction
    over Feliciano’s action and, in light of this, sustain the Department’s preliminary
    objection to that effect and dismiss the Amended Petition with prejudice.5
    __________________________________
    ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
    4
    In ruling on preliminary objections, this Court accepts as true all
    well-pled allegations of material fact, as well as all inferences
    reasonably deducible from those facts. Key v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr.,
    
    185 A.3d 421
     (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). However, this Court need not
    accept unwarranted inferences, conclusions of law, argumentative
    allegations, or expressions of opinion. 
    Id.
     For preliminary objections
    to be sustained, it must appear with certainty that the law will permit
    no recovery. 
    Id.
     Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-
    moving party. 
    Id.
    Dantzler v. Wetzel, 
    218 A.3d 519
    , 522 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).
    5
    Given our disposition of this matter on jurisdictional grounds, it is unnecessary for us to
    address the Department’s remaining demurrer-based preliminary objection.
    4
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Anthony Feliciano,                 :
    Petitioner       :
    :
    v.                           : No. 588 M.D. 2019
    :
    Pennsylvania Department of         :
    Corrections,                       :
    Respondent        :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2022, it is hereby ORDERED that
    Respondent Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ (Department) preliminary
    objection to our jurisdiction over Petitioner Anthony Feliciano’s (Feliciano)
    Amended Petition for Review is SUSTAINED. Feliciano’s Petition for Review is
    DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
    __________________________________
    ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 588 M.D. 2019

Judges: Ceisler, J.

Filed Date: 1/26/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/26/2022