E. Ball v. PA DOC, E. Ball v. PA DOC

Petitioner Edward Ball, an inmate, submitted a Right to Know Law (RTKL) request on Aug. 4, 2016 seeking his "written judgment of sentence order."
The Department of Corrections mailed Ball a copy of his October 13, 2017 sentencing order from the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas and a response letter; Ball appealed claiming it was not the proper document.
The Department submitted a sworn declaration that it conducted a reasonable search and that no other responsive records existed in its possession, custody, or control.
The Office of Open Records (OOR) issued a final determination on Sept. 20, 2016 concluding the Department met its burden and was not required to take any further action; OOR noted judicial records could be obtained from the issuing court.
Ball appealed to the Commonwealth Court, but did not challenge OOR’s legal conclusion; instead he asked the court to issue or transfer a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his continued confinement based on the alleged absence of a signed judgment of sentence.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed OOR, holding the RTKL appeals process is not the proper forum to collaterally attack the legality of incarceration and that habeas claims must be brought as an original action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department failed to produce the requested "written judgment of sentence" or conduct a reasonable search	Ball contended the produced document was not the proper record and that the Department lacked his judgment of sentence	Department asserted it produced the sentencing order it had and, via sworn declaration, that no other responsive records existed after a reasonable search	Held: Department met its burden; reasonable search shown and no additional responsive records in its possession, custody, or control
Whether an RTKL appeal is a proper vehicle to challenge the legality of continued confinement (request for writ of habeas corpus/transfer)	Ball asked the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus or transfer the appeal so he could challenge his incarceration because the Department lacks a signed judgment	Department/OOR argued the RTKL only provides access to public records and is not a forum to challenge incarceration; habeas must be brought in an appropriate court	Held: RTKL appeals cannot be used to challenge confinement; petitioner must file an original habeas action in a court of competent jurisdiction; no transfer warranted

Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL appeal is not proper forum to challenge legality of confinement)
Sturgis v. Department of Corrections, 96 A.3d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (similar RTKL-route attempts to attack sentence rejected)
Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review under RTKL is plenary and de novo)