Bundy, K., Aplt v. Wetzel
184 A.3d 551
Pa.2018Background
- Appellant, an inmate at SCI-Benner Township, alleged the PA Dept. of Corrections deducted 20% of deposits to his inmate account under 42 Pa.C.S. §9728(b)(5) (Act 84) to satisfy court-ordered financial obligations from prior convictions.
- Deductions (totaling $681.19 at filing) were taken from monetary gifts sent by friends/relatives; Appellant is indigent and relies on these gifts, including to pursue post-conviction litigation.
- Appellant claims he received no pre-deprivation notice or hearing about the deductions or the total amount owed, asserting a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation (relying on Montanez).
- Defendants (DOC officials) relied on statutory authorization (Act 84) and prior Pennsylvania precedent (Buck, Danysh) to argue no pre-deduction hearing is required and gifts are not exempt.
- Commonwealth Court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed, holding that pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to object are required before the first deduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 84 deductions require pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to object | Bundy: Due process requires notice of total liability, DOC policy, and chance to object before first deduction (per Montanez) | Wetzel: Statute authorizes deductions; Buck and PA precedent do not require pre-deduction ability-to-pay hearing | Court: Agrees with Montanez — DOC must provide pre-first-deduction notice of total liability and an opportunity to object (informal process sufficient) |
| Whether gifts placed in inmate accounts are exempt from Act 84 deductions | Bundy: Gifts should be immune; deductions impair donors’ intent and target funds not belonging to the inmate at sentencing | Wetzel: No statutory exception for gifts; upon receipt gifts belong to inmate and are subject to Act 84 (per Danysh) | Court: Gifts belong to inmate and are not exempt under Act 84; no statutory basis to carve out gifts |
| Whether DOC must provide a judicial ability-to-pay hearing before deductions | Bundy: Entitled to ability-to-pay hearing because deductions affect his ability to litigate PCRA petition | Wetzel: Buck says no judicial ability-to-pay hearing is required pre-deduction | Court: Buck controls that DOC need not provide a judicial ability-to-pay hearing before deductions; however, procedural pre-deprivation protections (notice/objection) are required; possible extension of George/Ingram concerns could be relevant if deductions stymie appellate/post-conviction review |
| Whether Commonwealth Court properly sustained demurrer | Bundy: Complaint alleges failure to provide pre-deprivation process and adverse effects; remedies sought include injunction, return of funds, declaratory relief | Wetzel: Statutory authority and precedent bar relief | Held: Demurrer wrongly sustained; complaint states claims that, if proven, could entitle Appellant to relief; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Montanez v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 773 F.3d 472 (3d Cir. 2014) (pre-first-deduction notice and opportunity to object required under due process)
- Buck v. Beard, 879 A.2d 157 (Pa. 2005) (Act 84 notice by sentencing and no requirement for judicial ability-to-pay hearing before DOC deductions)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor balancing test for what process is due)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (preference for pre-deprivation process where state can provide it)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (permissible post-deprivation remedy when pre-deprivation process infeasible)