Brown v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 318
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Brown, pro se, sues the Department of Corrections, PHS, and multiple PHS employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged cruel conditions, retaliation, and inadequate medical care tied to confinement at SCI-Graterford.
- Plaintiff alleges dust, dirt, and tobacco smoke in the ventilation system worsened his Hepatitis C and respiratory condition, and that medical care was denied or inadequate.
- Brown filed in forma pauperis; trial court granted IFP and later dismissed the complaint under section 6602(f) of the PA PLRA with prejudice.
- The court applied the three-strikes rule but allowed a preliminary injunction/credible allegation analysis; Brown did not attach extrinsic evidence supporting a credible imminent-danger claim.
- Key issue is whether Brown credibly alleged imminent danger under PA PLRA, and whether PHS falls within prison conditions litigation.
- On appeal, the Superior Court vacated dismissal for failure to pay fees on remand and remanded to give Brown an opportunity to pay costs; the court affirmed dismissal of the IFP status for lack of credible danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown credibly alleged imminent danger under PA PLRA | Brown contends imminent danger due to ventilation/dust and ongoing respiratory risk. | Department argues Brown has failed to provide credible, extrinsic evidence of imminent danger. | Brown failed to credibly allege imminent danger under PA PLRA. |
| Whether PHS is covered by the PA PLRA prison conditions litigation | PHS’s actions relate to medical care under confinement and thus fall within prison conditions. | Defense disputes applicability; notes disjunctive definition but argues merits-based dismissal. | PHS falls within prison conditions litigation under PA PLRA. |
| Effect of Lopez on dismissal under three-strikes rule | Lopez requires opportunity to pay fees before dismissal if plaintiff pays costs. | Lopez allows dismissal if fees are not paid, despite three-strikes status. | Lopez requires remand to permit payment before dismissal; vacate and remand instructed. |
| Remand remedy after partial reversal | Brown should be given chance to pay fees, then proceed if possible. | If fees are not paid, case should be dismissed with prejudice. | Remand ordered for fee disclosure and payment; dismissal with prejudice if Brown fails to pay. |
| Standard difference between PA PLRA and Federal PLRA | Federal standard may be more lenient in pleading imminent danger. | PA PLRA imposes a stricter, credible-allegation requirement. | Pennsylvania PLRA requires credible allegation; not identical to Federal standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs v. Cross, 160 F.3d 962 (3d Cir. 1998) (imminent danger evaluated with liberal pro se standard, disregard fantasies)
- Lopez v. Haywood, 41 A.3d 184 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (remand for paying fees when imminent danger absent; three-strikes context)
- McCool v. Department of Corrections, 984 A.2d 565 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (prison conditions litigation includes medical care challenges)
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 555 U.S. 1166 (2009) (supreme court citation on recurrent abuse of the court's process)