D. Gentilquore v. Dept. of Corrections
D. Gentilquore v. Dept. of Corrections - 495 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Petitioner Darren R. Gentilquore, an inmate, filed a grievance under DOC policy DC-ADM-804 alleging Department staff lost, stole, or damaged his personal property; he later filed an Amended Petition in this Court claiming bad faith in the grievance process.
- The Unit Manager who responded to the grievance was listed in Block B of the grievance form (staff the inmate contacted); SOIGA concluded mere mention in Block B does not disqualify that staff member from responding.
- Gentilquore received conflicting written accounts about where his property went, was denied review of video footage and a hands-on inspection, and when reunited with his property found items missing and some damaged.
- He seeks an order directing the Department to return/replace missing property and reimbursement for postage and copying, and alleges bad faith for failing to follow the Grievance Policy.
- The Department filed a demurrer arguing (1) sovereign immunity bars intentional-tort claims; (2) negligence is inadequately pleaded; and (3) there is no due process claim from alleged violations of grievance procedures.
- The Court sustained the demurrer: intentional-tort and grievance-policy/due-process claims dismissed with prejudice; negligence claim dismissed but Plaintiff granted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intentional-tort claims (theft/destruction) can proceed against DOC | Gentilquore alleges staff intentionally stole/damaged property and acted in bad faith | DOC asserts sovereign immunity bars intentional-tort claims by Commonwealth employees acting within scope of employment | Dismissed with prejudice: sovereign immunity bars intentional torts against Commonwealth employees acting within scope of duties |
| Whether negligence claim for lost/damaged property is sufficiently pleaded | Gentilquore contends property was lost/damaged by DOC and seeks recovery | DOC contends the petition lacks factual pleading of duty, breach, causation, and damages | Negligence claim dismissed for failure to plead elements, but leave granted to amend to attempt to cure pleading defects |
| Whether alleged violation of DOC grievance policy gives rise to due process or other relief | Gentilquore argues DOC violated DC-ADM-804 (named party responding) and ignored requests (video, inspection), amounting to bad faith and due process violation | DOC argues administrative rule violations do not create constitutional rights and strict adherence to grievance rules is not required by Constitution | Dismissed with prejudice: failure to follow grievance procedures alone does not state a due process claim |
| Scope of available remedy sought (return/replace property; reimbursement) | Requests order to return/replace missing property and reimburse costs | DOC maintains legal barriers (sovereign immunity, deficient pleading) prevent relief | Court denied relief on intentional-tort and grievance-policy bases; left open potential negligence-based relief if properly pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Danysh v. Dep’t of Corr., 845 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (standard for demurrer: accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences)
- Tate v. Dep’t of Corr., 133 A.3d 350 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Sovereign Immunity Act bars intentional takings/damage claims against Commonwealth employees)
- Kull v. Guisse, 81 A.3d 148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (state employees retain immunity for intentional torts when acting within scope of employment)
- Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (explains Section 8522 exceptions to sovereign immunity must be strictly construed)
- McCulligan v. Pa. State Police, 123 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (pleader must allege all facts necessary to support a negligence claim in a fact-pleading jurisdiction)
- Luckett v. Blaine, 850 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (prison grievance procedures do not create constitutional rights and noncompliance does not automatically equal due process violation)