A.D. Brown v. DOC
1959 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Requestor (Alton D. Brown), an inmate at SCI‑Greene, filed a Right‑to‑Know Law (RTKL) request for the prison’s prior Ramadan menu and a 2015 settlement agreement.
- The Department of Corrections refused to process the request, asserting Requestor owed $6.32 in copy fees from an earlier RTKL request (RTKL 0354‑16).
- Requestor appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), denying he owed the fee and asserting the Department produced no proof.
- The Department submitted an affidavit by its Agency Open Records Officer (AORO Filkosky) stating records had been copied for RTKL 0354‑16 and the $6.32 remained unpaid.
- The OOR denied Requestor’s appeal based on the unpaid fee; Requestor sought judicial review in this Court.
- The Court (Pa. Cmwlth.) affirmed that RTKL requests are not "prison conditions litigation" under the PLRA (so Requestor’s in forma pauperis status could not be revoked on that basis), but remanded because the AORO’s affidavit lacked sufficient detail about which documents/pages generated the $6.32 charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an RTKL appeal by a prisoner is "prison conditions litigation" under the PLRA so as to permit revocation of IFP status | Brown: RTKL appeal is not subject to PLRA restrictions; he should retain IFP status | DOC: RTKL request seeks prison‑administration records (Ramadan menu, settlement) and thus is prison conditions litigation subject to PLRA | Held: RTKL requests are not "prison conditions litigation"; IFP status revocation denied |
| Whether the Department met its burden to withhold records because Requestor owed prior RTKL fees | Brown: AORO affidavit is conclusory; Department failed to prove the $6.32 debt | DOC: AORO affidavit attests records were copied for RTKL 0354‑16 and the balance is $6.32 | Held: Affidavit insufficiently detailed (did not identify reproduced documents or page counts); remand to OOR for a more detailed affidavit and opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Department of Corrections, 58 A.3d 118 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (prisoner previously declared an "abusive litigator")
- Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia v. Bagwell, 155 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (agency affidavits must not be conclusory to meet RTKL burden)
- McGowan v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 103 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (affidavits must be detailed, nonconclusory, and made in good faith)
- Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc) (veracity of an agency’s explanatory submissions generally accepted absent bad faith)
- Pennsylvania Department of Education v. Bagwell, 114 A.3d 1113 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (conclusory affidavits do not suffice under RTKL)
- Department of Transportation v. Drack, 42 A.3d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (agencies may withhold processing if requester owes fees from prior fulfillment when current request fee is under $100)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review for RTKL appeals)