E. Myrick v. R. Torres, E. Myrick v. R. Torres

Eugene Myrick, a Seventh-day Adventist inmate at SCI-Graterford, sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and several employees alleging religious discrimination and due process violations after choir practices were reduced and "Latin" ushers replaced other ushers.
He filed to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the trial court denied the IFP petition under Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j) as frivolous, which effectively dismissed the complaint.
Myrick appealed the dismissal to the Commonwealth Court, arguing he stated viable First Amendment free-exercise and discrimination claims and that the court improperly evaluated merits at the IFP stage and refused leave to amend.
The trial court and majority concluded Myrick did not allege that he was prevented from worshipping or that choir frequency or usher identity materially burdened his religious exercise; officials provided alternatives and offered penological justifications for resource allocation.
The majority affirmed dismissal as frivolous under Rule 240(j) and noted the PLRA likewise mandates dismissal of frivolous prison-conditions litigation; it also held denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint stated a viable First Amendment free-exercise claim	Myrick: reduction of choir practices and replacement of ushers burdened his SDA worship and constitute religious discrimination	DOC: changes were administrative, related to limited time/resources, did not bar worship and alternatives remained available	Held: Complaint did not allege a burden on ability to worship; claim frivolous and dismissed under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j)
Whether trial court could dismiss case at IFP stage	Myrick: court should only evaluate IFP status, not merits; dismissal denied access to courts	DOC: Rule 240(j) permits dismissal of frivolous actions when ruling on IFP petition	Held: Court properly applied Rule 240(j); merits may be considered to determine frivolousness
Applicability of PLRA to dismissal	Myrick: invoked PLRA but argued it should not alter result	DOC: PLRA requires dismissal of frivolous prison-conditions litigation regardless of fees paid	Held: Claim qualifies as prison-conditions litigation; PLRA supports dismissal
Whether leave to amend should have been allowed	Myrick: was denied opportunity to amend and develop claim	DOC: amendment would be futile because complaint lacks necessary allegations	Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying leave; plaintiff did not identify additional facts that would cure defects

Jones v. Doe, 126 A.3d 406 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition of frivolous action under Rule 240(j))
Bennett v. Beard, 919 A.2d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (action frivolous if it does not set forth a valid cause of action on its face)
Wise v. Dep’t of Corr., 690 A.2d 846 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (inmates retain limited First Amendment rights consistent with incarceration)
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1974) (prisoners retain only rights not inconsistent with incarceration or penological objectives)
Mobley v. Coleman, 65 A.3d 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (prison resource limits and allocation are legitimate considerations for religious programming)
Meggett v. Dep’t of Corr., 856 A.2d 277 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (threshold for free-exercise protection: sincerely held and religious in nature)
DeHart v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47 (3d Cir.) (state not required to provide every inmate the religious services of his choice; alternatives can suffice)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness test for prison regulations affecting constitutional rights)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (distinguishing frivolous claims from claims that fail on the merits)