D. Price v. CO Simcox
307 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Donnell Price, a state inmate, filed an IFP petition and complaint alleging Corrections Officer Simcox (and supervisory officials Glunt and Garman) converted/confiscated ten books during a temporary transfer and that the property could not be located after return. He sought $380.26 plus punitive damages.
- Price signed an inventory sheet showing personal property; he alleges the books had been previously inventoried and sealed but were re-inspected and confiscated on return to SCI-Rockview.
- Price pursued administrative grievances; the property room reported never receiving the books and they could not be located.
- The trial court denied IFP and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as frivolous under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j)(1), concluding Price alleged an intentional tort (conversion) and did not plead facts showing defendants acted outside the scope of their duties.
- On appeal, Price argued the trial court applied a too-stringent pleading standard and that sovereign immunity did not bar his claim because defendants acted outside the scope of employment; he relied on Williams v. Stickman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint was frivolous and dismissal proper under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j)(1) | Price argued dismissal was erroneous and court applied a higher pleading standard | Trial court: complaint, on its face, failed to state a valid cause of action; dismissal under Rule 240(j)(1) appropriate | Affirmed: complaint facially frivolous because it alleged an intentional tort barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars conversion claim against Commonwealth employees | Price: sovereign immunity inapplicable because defendants acted outside scope of employment | Defendants: conversion is intentional; sovereign immunity applies when acting within scope of duties | Held: conversion is intentional; absent facts showing they acted outside scope, sovereign immunity bars the claim |
| Whether alleged deviation from procedure removes scope-of-employment protection | Price: property was already inventoried/sealed; re-inspection/confiscation exceeded authority | Defendants: regulating/confiscating inmate property is within a corrections officer’s duties; slight deviations do not remove immunity | Held: regulating/confiscation is of the same general nature as authorized duties; minor departures do not defeat immunity |
| Whether court should have allowed amendment or treated complaint as negligence to invoke exceptions to immunity | Price: court should have allowed amendment or construed claim as negligence (personal property exception) | Defendants: complaint alleges intentional conversion only; no facts pled to support negligence; Price did not seek leave to amend | Held: court properly declined to re-cast or sua sponte create a negligence claim where facts were not pled and no amendment was sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (intentional tort by Commonwealth employees barred by sovereign immunity; negligent mishandling of property may fit the personal-property exception)
- Norriton East Realty Corp. v. Central-Penn National Bank, 254 A.2d 637 (Pa. 1969) (definition of conversion as willful interference with chattel without lawful justification)
- La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (Commonwealth employees acting within scope of duties immune from intentional tort liability)
- Kull v. Guisse, 81 A.3d 148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (scope-of-employment analysis: conduct must be of same general nature as authorized or incidental thereto)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (prison officials’ mere receipt/response to grievances does not establish personal liability)