D. Jones v. PA DOC
201 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- Dwayne Jones, an inmate, filed a pro se petition seeking a declaratory judgment that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) must treat mail from district attorney offices as privileged and open it only in the inmate’s presence.
- Jones alleged that correspondence from the District Attorney’s Appeals Unit (received Nov. 30, 2015) was opened outside his presence. He filed an internal grievance which the DOC denied.
- The DOC denied the grievance because the envelope lacked a DOC-issued control number required for privileged attorney mail under DOC policy DC-ADM 803 and because mail from a district attorney is not per se privileged.
- Jones argued district attorney mail is privileged regardless of a control number; he did not allege the envelope bore a control number or that DOC opens attorney mail bearing control numbers outside inmates’ presence.
- The DOC filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, asserting Jones failed to state a cognizable claim; the Commonwealth Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC violated inmate’s constitutional right by opening mail from a district attorney outside inmate’s presence | Jones: Mail from a district attorney is privileged and must be opened only in the inmate’s presence even without a DOC control number | DOC: Policy requires a DOC control number to treat incoming attorney mail as privileged; absent it, DOC may inspect outside inmate’s presence for security | Court: No constitutional violation; DOC may require control number and inspect unmarked incoming attorney mail outside inmate’s presence |
| Whether DOC’s control-number requirement is unconstitutional as applied to district attorneys | Jones: Control-number rule cannot be applied to district attorney correspondence | DOC: Same rules apply; most DA communications are adversarial and not confidential; security justifies rule | Court: Control-number requirement is constitutionally permissible and may apply to DA offices |
| Whether outgoing-mail privilege language (re: elected officials) requires the same treatment for incoming DA mail | Jones: DC-ADM 803’s privilege for inmate-to-elected-official mail shows DA communications should be privileged incoming as well | DOC: Incoming mail poses contraband/security risks and may be inspected; outgoing-mail provision does not control incoming mail treatment | Court: Incoming/outgoing distinctions matter; DOC may require identification for privileged treatment of incoming mail |
| Whether Jones alleged facts sufficient to survive demurrer | Jones: Alleged mail was opened outside his presence (sufficient) | DOC: Jones failed to allege the mail bore a control number or that DOC treats marked attorney mail the same way; legal conclusions insufficient | Court: Accepting facts alleged, Jones still failed to state a cognizable claim and petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 932 A.2d 316 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (legal mail may be opened only in inmate’s presence absent security justification; DOC may require identification)
- Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2006) (inmate right to confidential legal mail may be restricted by legitimate penological interests)
- Fontroy v. Beard, 559 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2009) (upholding requirement that confidential mail be clearly identified for privileged treatment)