218 A.3d 519
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- DOC issued Dantzler a belt while at SCI‑Fayette; he was later transferred to SCI‑Houtzdale with a promotional transfer contingent on no infractions.
- DOC revised clothing/contraband rules so the DOC‑issued belt became impermissible, allegedly without notifying Dantzler.
- Officer Smith confiscated the belt, charged Dantzler with possession of contraband; Hearing Examiner Nunez found Dantzler guilty based on the officer’s report and imposed 30 days of cell restriction and confiscation of the belt.
- Dantzler appealed through DOC’s internal review: PRC and Superintendent Smith upheld the conviction; Acting Chief Hearing Examiner Moslak denied the final appeal.
- Dantzler filed a Petition in the Commonwealth Court asserting a violation of his due process rights under Article I, §25 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; Respondents filed preliminary objections arguing lack of jurisdiction and absence of a protected liberty interest.
- The Commonwealth Court sustained Respondents’ preliminary objections and dismissed the Petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has appellate jurisdiction to review DOC misconduct proceedings | Dantzler seeks review of his misconduct conviction and sanctions | DOC: inmate misconduct adjudications are internal prison management not subject to appellate review | No appellate jurisdiction; inmate misconducts are not appellate adjudications (demurrer sustained) |
| Whether the Court has original jurisdiction to hear a due process claim | Dantzler: DOC changed rules without notice and punished him for a DOC‑issued item, violating due process | DOC: Dantzler has no constitutionally protected liberty interest outside DOC regulations, so no due process claim | No original jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to plead a liberty interest not limited by DOC regulations |
| Whether DOC policy or regulation created an enforceable right to notice or continued possession of issued clothing | Dantzler: policy change without notice violated DOC directives and deprived him of rights | DOC: its policy expressly disclaims creation of enforceable rights; failure to follow policy does not create a cause of action | Policy disclaimer defeats reasonable expectation of enforceable right; compliance failures do not by themselves state a claim |
| Whether sanctions (30 days cell restriction, confiscation) imposed an "atypical and significant" hardship creating a liberty interest | Dantzler: sanctions and collateral consequences (loss of work, risk to promotional transfer) were significant | DOC: 30 days cell restriction and forfeiture mirror ordinary incidents of prison life and are not atypical | Sanctions did not impose an atypical and significant hardship under Sandin, so no protected liberty interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest arises only when punishment imposes an atypical and significant hardship)
- Hill v. Department of Corrections, 64 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (inmate misconducts are internal prison management and not subject to appellate review)
- Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (incarceration limits certain constitutional protections; DOC grievance process bars some judicial review)
- Weaver v. Department of Corrections, 829 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (policy disclaimer language negates reasonable expectation of enforceable rights)
- Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (discussing Sandin and when disciplinary segregation implicates liberty interests)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process protections for prisoners and the need to protect individuals from arbitrary government action)
- Benchoff v. Department of Corrections, 185 A.3d 979 (Pa. 2018) (concerns articulated regarding limited judicial review of DOC grievance decisions)