D. Gregor v. Com.
D. Gregor v. Com. - 1381 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Daniel Gregor, an inmate at SCI‑Dallas, sued the Commonwealth (alleging DOC was the real defendant) claiming a false misconduct report, denial of a witness at a disciplinary hearing, retaliatory placement in disciplinary RHU for 43 days, and related torts and constitutional violations. He sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- The sheriff served the complaint on the Office of Attorney General and on SCI‑Dallas (return showing service on "Robin Lucas, Corrections Supt. Asst., the person for the time being in charge at SCI‑Dallas").
- The Commonwealth filed preliminary objections asserting improper service (DOC not served at headquarters), failure to name proper parties, legal insufficiency under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4), §1983 inapplicability to the Commonwealth, and sovereign immunity.
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections for lack of personal jurisdiction (finding service on SCI‑Dallas improper) and dismissed; Gregor appealed.
- This Court concluded service on SCI‑Dallas satisfied 42 Pa. C.S. §8523 (local office service) so dismissal for improper service was error, but affirmed on alternate grounds: Gregor failed to state a claim because (1) he sued the Commonwealth/officials only in official capacity (not a "person" under §1983), (2) 43 days in RHU was not pled as an "atypical and significant hardship" to trigger a liberty interest, and (3) alleged intentional torts by employees were barred by sovereign immunity and the individual employees were neither named nor served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper service on Commonwealth/DOC | Gregor: service on SCI‑Dallas (local DOC office) and AG satisfied Pa. R.C.P. and 42 Pa. C.S. §8523 | Commonwealth: service on institution was improper; must be at DOC principal office/headquarters | Court: Service on SCI‑Dallas was proper as the local office under §8523, so dismissal solely for improper service was erroneous |
| Verification of preliminary objections | Gregor: Commonwealth’s preliminary objections were unverified and thus defective | Commonwealth: objections raise legal issues and facts of record (return of service) so verification not required | Court: Verification not fatal because return of service is of record and objections presented legal issues; objections considered |
| Viability of §1983/due process claim | Gregor: DOC staff denied due process at misconduct hearing and violated his federal and state constitutional rights | Commonwealth: Commonwealth and officials sued in official capacity are not "persons" under §1983; sovereign immunity bars monetary relief | Court: Dismissed for failure to state a §1983 claim — no individual defendants sued in their personal capacities; Commonwealth/officials in official capacity are not §1983 persons |
| Liberty interest / sufficiency of factual allegations | Gregor: 43 days in RHU deprived him of liberty, triggering due process protections | Commonwealth: 43 days not an "atypical and significant hardship" absent factual allegations showing atypical conditions | Court: 43 days in RHU, without pleading atypical conditions, fails to show deprivation of protected liberty interest; due process claim inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (proper service is prerequisite to personal jurisdiction)
- Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Servs., 700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997) (service rules must be strictly followed)
- City of Phila. v. Berman, 863 A.2d 156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (return of service must demonstrate conformity with rules)
- Flagg v. Int’l Union, Sec., Police, Fire Prof’ls of Am., Local 506, 146 A.3d 300 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (state and officials in official capacities are not "persons" under §1983)
- Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (prisoner must show an "atypical and significant hardship" to establish a liberty interest)
- Piehl v. City of Phila., 987 A.2d 146 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (technical failure to name agency may be cured when agency is clear in complaint and properly served)
- Robles v. Dep’t of Corr., 718 A.2d 882 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (intentional tort claims against Commonwealth employees are generally barred by sovereign immunity)
- Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (Commonwealth employees are protected by sovereign immunity for intentional torts when acting within scope of duties)
- Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (when considering preliminary objections, courts accept well‑pled facts and reasonable inferences)