D v. Jordan v. PA DOC, SCI Camp Hill, SCI Forest
416 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Petitioner David V. Jordan, an inmate at SCI-Forest, filed an amended petition for review alleging the DOC and SCI-Camp Hill/Forest retaliated against him for filing lawsuits and grievances by confiscating, destroying, or denying access to legal materials and refusing extra legal storage.
- Petitioner alleged the conduct occurred from October 2015 through June 2016 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief; he served respondents and they filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.
- Respondents argued the amended petition failed to plead sufficient facts to support a First Amendment retaliation claim or other civil claims (including official oppression), and attached grievance responses addressing the complaints.
- The Court applied the Yount four-prong test for retaliation (protected conduct; adverse action; causal link; lack of legitimate penological purpose) and accepted well-pleaded facts as true for demurrer purposes.
- The Court found Petitioner pleaded protected conduct but failed to plead adverse action sufficient to deter exercise of rights, failed to plead facts showing causation between specific grievances/lawsuits and the alleged actions, and failed to rebut that the DOC actions advanced legitimate penological goals (e.g., limits on property/storage; officer reports; documented refusals by Petitioner to accept exchanges).
- The Court also dismissed other asserted causes of action: official oppression is not a civil cause of action under Pennsylvania law, and remaining claims lacked sufficient factual support. The amended petition was dismissed and preliminary objections sustained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC retaliated in violation of First Amendment by seizing/withholding legal materials | Jordan: DOC confiscated/destroyed legal boxes, denied access and extra legal storage in retaliation for lawsuits/grievances | DOC: Pleading lacks facts showing adverse action, causation, or that actions were not justified by penological goals; grievance responses show unauthorized conduct or inmate refusal | Dismissed — Jordan pleaded protected conduct but failed to plead adverse action, causation, or to negate legitimate penological purpose under Yount |
| Whether denial of extra legal boxes/limited exchanges violated policy or constitutional rights | Jordan: Policies permit additional exchanges/extra boxes; denial was retaliation | DOC: Policies are permissive (discretionary); no violation shown and rules limiting property serve security/penological goals | Dismissed — discretionary policies and security rationales negate claim |
| Whether Petitioner suffered actual injury to access-to-courts (implied) | Jordan: Loss/withholding of materials interfered with litigation | DOC: No specific link to any lost or dismissed case; grievance records show requests approved or refused by inmate; no actual injury pled | Not reached as a standalone claim; facts insufficient to show actual injury |
| Whether official oppression or other civil claims are actionable | Jordan: alleges campaign of harassment/official oppression | DOC: Official oppression is a criminal offense, not a civil cause of action; other claims lack factual detail | Dismissed — official oppression not a civil claim; other claims inadequately pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Yount v. Department of Corrections, 966 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (establishes four-prong test for First Amendment retaliation by prisoners)
- Stilp v. General Assembly, 974 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2009) (standard for reviewing demurrers; de novo and accept well-pleaded facts)
- Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (pleading requirements in Pennsylvania fact-pleading system)
- Bush v. Veach, 1 A.3d 981 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (filing nonfrivolous lawsuits/grievances is protected conduct invoking access-to-courts)
- Hackett v. Horn, 751 A.2d 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (limits on inmate materials rationally related to penological goals)
- Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2008) (some-evidence standard: disciplinary action supported by officer report can satisfy penological justification)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1998) (retaliation claims require more than general attacks; affirmative evidence of retaliation needed)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (defines adverse action as one likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness)
- Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1981) (prisoner's right to petition the courts)