Bussinger v. Department of Corrections
29 A.3d 79
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Petitioner Bussinger, an inmate at SCI-Forest, challenges a Department of Corrections policy using DC-155 that revokes all mail privileges if an inmate refuses to grant a POA to endorse checks and deposit funds.
- DOC regulation and policy (Mail Regulation and DC-ADM 803) govern inmate mail handling, including limits, inspection, and handling of negotiable instruments, but do not reference DC-155 or POA.
- Bussinger sought partial summary judgment alleging the Challenged Policy unconstitutionally interferes with First Amendment rights to mail and access the courts.
- Bussinger notified DOC of revocation of DC-155 regarding endorsement and deposit of checks; DOC treated this as total revocation and suspended all mail privileges.
- The court employed a two-step Turner framework to assess whether the policy violates First Amendment rights and, if so, whether the policy is reasonable related to penological interests.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Bussinger on the constitutional challenge, enjoining DOC from enforcing the Challenged Policy against Bussinger; the order also dissolved a prior preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does DC-155 violate Bussinger's First Amendment rights? | Bussinger argues the policy unconstitutionally deprives mail rights and access to courts. | DOC asserts a legitimate penological interest in security and mail administration; POA needed to handle checks. | Yes; policy unreasonably infringes First Amendment rights. |
| Does the Challenged Policy have a valid rational connection to a legitimate penological interest under Turner factor one? | No rational connection; policy is overbroad and unnecessary given existing mail controls. | POA enables safe, efficient handling of mail and funds; safeguards workers and operations. | No valid rational connection; policy is unreasonable. |
| Are there reasonable alternatives to accommodate Bussinger's rights under Turner factor four? | Return to sender all negotiable instruments if inmate does not sign DC-155; less restrictive option exists. | Administrative burdens justify the current approach; alternatives are impractical. | Yes; obvious de minimis alternative exists, making policy unreasonable. |
| Does the policy’s impact on guards, inmates, and resources render it reasonable under Turner factor three? | Policy adds no necessary burden beyond existing mail controls. | Policy prevents safety risks and streamlines processing. | Unreasonable; burden not shown to justify policy. |
| Should Bussinger's damages/fees hearing be scheduled, or defenses like qualified immunity apply? | Damages and fees should be considered following merits. | Qualified immunity may bar damages/fees; merits not fully resolved. | Hearing denied without prejudice; further proceedings deferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Dept. of Corrections, 932 A.2d 316 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (legal mail restrictions analyzed under Turner factors; access to courts)
- Brittain v. Beard, 601 Pa. 409, 974 A.2d 479 (2009) (Turner factor analysis; anti-pornography policy upholds penological interests)
- Ramirez v. Pugh, 379 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 2004) (Turner factors guiding reasonableness; deference to prison administrators)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (deference to penological interests; security and internal order as legitimate goals)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (establishes the four Turner factors for prison regulations)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (mail restrictions and attorney communications considerations)
- Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424 (3d Cir. 1990) (POA-related mail handling; distinguishable from current policy)
- Kutnyak v. Department of Corrections, 923 A.2d 1248 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007) (USPS regulation changes affected POA authority; context cited)