A. Brown v. Dept. of Corrections, A. Brown v. Dept. of Corrections

Petitioner Alton D. Brown, an inmate at SCI‑Greene, sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) before the Pennsylvania Board of Claims alleging multiple breaches of oral agreements and sought $28,390,000 in damages.
Brown claimed agreements concerning storage/return of personal property, permission to keep property in his cell, conditions for ceasing grievances, participation in misconduct hearings, and provision of a special diet in exchange for hospital treatment.
Brown filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis; the Board dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied in forma pauperis status under Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1).
The Board reasoned Brown failed to allege facts establishing valid contracts and, alternatively, that any alleged contracts did not fall within the Board’s jurisdiction under the Commonwealth Procurement Code.
This appeal challenges the Board’s frivolity determination; the Court of Common Pleas (Commonwealth Court) affirmed the Board’s dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown stated nonfrivolous contract claims against the Department	Brown: Department breached multiple oral contracts and promised exchanges entitling him to damages	Department: Claims lack any factual or legal basis and are frivolous	Held: Frivolous—no valid contract alleged; dismissal affirmed
Whether Department policies/procedures create enforceable contracts	Brown: Policies and alleged promises gave rise to contractual obligations	Department: Policies are unilateral rules, not contracts with inmates	Held: Policies do not create contractual relationships with inmates (Oatess)
Whether Brown’s alleged promises had valid consideration	Brown: Performed or agreed to perform acts in exchange for Department promises	Department: Brown only promised/performed duties already required by incarceration, so no consideration	Held: No consideration; agreements invalid (Cohen)
Whether Board has jurisdiction under the Commonwealth Procurement Code	Brown: Impliedly argues Board can adjudicate his claims	Department: Alleged agreements are not procurement contracts within the Code	Held: Alleged agreements are not procurement/disposal contracts; Board lacks statutory jurisdiction for them

Oatess v. Beard, 576 A.2d 398 (Pa. Super. 1990) (department policies do not create contractual relationships with inmates)
Cohen v. Sabin, 307 A.2d 845 (Pa. 1973) (performance of an act one is already legally obligated to perform is not sufficient consideration)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (a frivolous action lacks an arguable basis in law or fact; courts may dismiss such suits)