Commonwealth Department of Corrections v. Tate
133 A.3d 350
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Amos Tate, an inmate at SCI-Benner, challenged Department of Corrections (DOC) deductions from his inmate account under Act 84 (42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)) to satisfy court-imposed costs, fines, and a $60 Crime Victim Fund assessment from two Erie County convictions.
- Tate exhausted DOC grievance procedures and sought return of amounts deducted (Aug. 2012–Mar. 2015) and $200,000 in emotional-distress damages; he filed an amended petition in this Court’s original jurisdiction.
- DOC filed preliminary objections asserting (1) Tate received required process and (2) Act 84 authorizes deductions regardless of the funds’ source.
- The court reviewed only the pleadings, accepting well-pleaded facts as true but not legal conclusions, and evaluated whether Tate’s amended petition stated a claim.
- The court concluded Act 84 and related statutes authorize the deductions, Tate cannot attack the sentence via injunction against DOC, no pre-deduction judicial hearing is required under the statutes, and sovereign immunity bars his damages claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing/order was entered "in absentia" or without opportunity to object | Tate: he was ordered to pay costs/fines/CVF without opportunity to object at sentencing | DOC: substance of the sentence is not challengeable here; challenges belong on direct appeal or PCRA | Court: Tate’s factual pleading insufficient; cannot challenge court’s order via injunction against DOC |
| Whether Crime Victim Fund deductions are statutorily authorized | Tate: CVF deductions not authorized from inmate account | DOC: Crime Victims Act and Act 84 authorize CVF/assessment deductions | Court: CVF deductions are statutorily authorized; claim fails |
| Whether DOC must provide a pre-deduction hearing or additional notice before first deduction | Tate: constitutional due process (Mathews) requires pre-deprivation hearing/meaningful opportunity to object | DOC: Act 84 / Buck permit deductions without prior judicial determination; grievance procedures and sentence notice suffice | Court: No pre-deduction judicial hearing required; Tate knew obligations and used grievance process; amended petition fails to state due process violation |
| Whether DOC may deduct from earned income, gifts, or source-specific funds | Tate: deductions improperly taken from earned income and gifts | DOC: Act 84 permits deductions from inmate personal account regardless of source; statutory exceptions inapplicable | Court: Source of funds irrelevant under precedent; deductions lawful |
| Whether petitioner may recover emotional-distress damages against DOC | Tate: seeks $200,000 for mental anguish from loss of commissary funds | DOC: sovereign immunity; statutory deductions were mandated | Court: Sovereign immunity bars damages; taking money pursuant to statute not covered by care/custody exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 909 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections)
- Buck v. Beard, 879 A.2d 157 (Pa.) (Act 84 permits DOC to deduct court-ordered financial obligations without prior judicial ability-to-pay hearing)
- Montanez v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 773 F.3d 472 (3d Cir.) (Mathews balancing requires notice and opportunity to object before first deduction)
- Danysh v. Dep’t of Corr., 845 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (source of funds in inmate account—wages, gifts, benefits—is immaterial to DOC deductions)
- George v. Beard, 824 A.2d 393 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Section 9730(b) hearings apply to nonconfinement defaults; not to inmates already confined)
- Neely v. Dep’t of Corr., 838 A.2d 16 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (challenge to payment of criminal fines must be by direct appeal or PCRA)
- LeBar, Commonwealth v., 860 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Super.) (DOC authorized to deduct Crime Victim Act costs under Act 84)