Brown v. Levy
621 Pa. 1
| Pa. | 2013Background
- Prothonotary Levy appealed a Commonwealth Court reversal of a trial court order dismissing appellee’s mandamus petition.
- Appellee, an inmate, had previously filed numerous prison-conditions lawsuits and other actions that were dismissed under the three-strikes rule.
- The prothonotary had refused to file a civil complaint for missing defendants’ addresses, prompting a mandamus petition.
- The Commonwealth Court in Brown I held the “three strikes” rule applied to the underlying civil-action filing, not to the mandamus relief.
- Brown II later addressed whether mandamus petitions themselves could be prison-conditions litigation under the PLRA and the three-strikes rule.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether mandamus actions related to civil filings fall within prison-conditions litigation under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6601 et seq.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a mandamus petition to compel filing of a civil complaint constitute prison-conditions litigation under the PLRA? | Brown contends mandamus is not a civil action and thus not prison-conditions litigation. | Levy contends mandamus can be prison-conditions litigation if it seeks relief related to confinement conditions. | Yes; mandamus to compel filing can be prison-conditions litigation. |
| Is the prothonotary a government party for PLRA purposes to satisfy the second criterion? | Brown argues the prothonotary is a clerk, not a government party. | Levy asserts the prothonotary, as Commonwealth government officer, is a government party. | Yes; the prothonotary is a Commonwealth government officer and satisfies the second criterion. |
| Must the mandamus petition have an effect on the inmate’s life in prison to be prison-conditions litigation? | Brown contends the petition only concerns access to the court and has no life-in-prison effect. | Levy contends the petition has an effect because it is a collateral filing related to prison conditions and seeks relief that impacts the inmate. | Yes; the petition has an effect on life in prison, satisfying the third criterion. |
| Are mandamus actions excluded from or exempted from the three-strikes rule as exceptions or exclusions? | Brown relies on certain exemptions/exclusions to avoid the three-strikes rule. | Levy notes no explicit exclusion for mandamus actions in the statute. | No explicit exclusion or exemption; mandamus actions fall within the PLRA scheme as applied here. |
| Overall, did the petition qualify as prison-conditions litigation and thus subject to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)? | Brown argues it does not qualify if not a proper civil-action-like filing under PLRA. | Levy argues it does qualify as prison-conditions litigation. | Yes; the petition constitutes prison-conditions litigation, and the lower court’s dismissal was proper absent the three-strikes analysis being applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Beard, 11 A.3d 578 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (prison conditions litigation dismissed as frivolous)
- Brown v. Department of Corrections, 913 A.2d 301 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (three-strikes and mandamus under PLRA dismissed)
- Brown v. James, 822 A.2d 128 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (three-strikes; dismissal for failure to state claim)
- Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74 (3d Cir.1996) (mandamus related to civil rights action treated as civil action; PLRA applicability)
- In re Nagy, 89 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.1996) (mandamus petitions related to civil claims subject to PLRA deterrent effect)
- In re Smith, 114 F.3d 1247 (D.C.Cir.1997) (mandamus predicated on underlying civil claims within PLRA scope)
- Payne v. Commonwealth Dept. of Corrections, 871 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (PLRA patterned after federal counterpart)
- Brown v. Levy, 993 A.2d 364 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (initial three-strikes/filing issue in Brown I)
- Brown v. Levy, 25 A.3d 418 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (Brown II: mandate to consider three-strikes applicability)
- Thornburgh, 508 Pa. 11, 493 A.2d 1355 (1985) (mandamus framework for ministerial duties)
- Minehart, 203 A.2d 476 (Pa.1964) (mandamus when officials’ misinterpretation of law)
- 1 Pa.C.S. § 1924, (statutory rule cited) (N.A.) (expressions in statute; exceptions exclusion rule)