D.R. Stief v. S. Glunt, Superintendent
477 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Nov 18, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Dennis Richard Stief, a state inmate convicted of sex offenses, refused to enter the Department of Corrections’ Sexual Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) because it requires admitting guilt.
- After refusal, Stief was denied parole and later transferred to S.C.I. Rockview where he worked in the laundry; prison officials removed him from the job for non‑participation in SOTP and withheld GLP compensation per DC‑ADM 816.
- Stief filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights and challenged denial of his grievance.
- Defendants (superintendent, program manager, grievance officers) filed preliminary objections/demurrer arguing Stief has no constitutional property right in his prison job, that refusal to participate in SOTP may carry adverse consequences, and that defendants lacked personal involvement.
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint; on appeal the Commonwealth Court affirmed, principally because Stief failed to preserve his appellate arguments in a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal from prison job and loss of GLP for refusing SOTP violated due process/property rights | Stief: termination and forfeiture were unconstitutional and deprived him of property/liberty without due process | Defs: inmate has no constitutional property right in a prison job; DC‑ADM 816 authorizes removal and forfeiture for noncompliance | Held: No preserved challenge; but law states an inmate has no protected property interest in a prison job, so §1983 claim fails |
| Whether mandating SOTP participation (despite pending appeals) violated due process/equal protection | Stief: superintendent’s post‑incident policy effectively forced participation, stripping recommended status and denying due process/equal protection | Defs: inmates may decline SOTP but may suffer adverse consequences; policy application not a constitutional violation | Held: Issue waived on appeal for failure to raise in Rule 1925(b); court affirmed dismissal |
| Whether grievance officers/superintendent are liable absent personal involvement | Stief: grievance denials and supervisory action make them liable | Defs: lack of personal involvement; mere grievance review or supervisory position insufficient for §1983 liability | Held: Court agreed defendants lacked the requisite personal involvement to state §1983 claims (as a basis for dismissal) |
| Whether pro se status or sovereign immunity arguments alter review | Stief: his pro se status demands liberal construction; Department lacks sovereign immunity | Defs: procedural rules and legal standards still apply; sovereign immunity not waived here | Held: These arguments were not preserved in the concise statement and are waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) concise‑statement requirement and waiver doctrine)
- Miles v. Wiser, 847 A.2d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (no property right in a prison job)
- Weaver v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 688 A.2d 766 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (inmate may refuse SOTP but can face adverse consequences)
- Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2003) (supervisory official not liable under §1983 absent personal involvement)
- Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (pleading requirements for a §1983 complaint)