F. Minor v. Sgt. D. Kraynak
155 A.3d 114
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Minor, an inmate at SCI-Frackville, alleged that on Feb. 24, 2015 correctional officers handcuffed him in a cell, ignored his breathing distress, then forcibly removed, restrained, and beat him for 4–5 minutes; officers muffled his pleas by pulling a wool hat over his face. Minor conceded he kicked one officer in self-defense and was later charged with misconduct.
- Minor filed grievances and a misconduct appeal; he claims staff told him he could not file a grievance about the assault because of the misconduct charge. Defendants produced a grievance packet and a records declaration suggesting Minor did not complete the three-step grievance process.
- Minor sued in state court alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and common-law assault and battery against four officers in their individual capacities. Defendants filed preliminary objections (POs) asserting sovereign immunity for tort claims and failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- The trial court sustained both POs, dismissing Minor’s complaint for sovereign immunity and for not exhausting administrative remedies after relying on the grievance documents attached to the POs.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed in part and vacated in part: it held the demurrer based on sovereign immunity was improper at that stage because, accepting Minor’s allegations, the alleged force could be "deliberate and unjustified" and thus outside the scope of employment; and it remanded for further fact-finding on exhaustion because the documentary record was contested and the record suggested the grievance process may have been unavailable to Minor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are protected by sovereign immunity for assault/battery claims | Minor: officers acted outside scope of employment (deliberate, unjustified force) so immunity does not apply | Defendants: actions occurred on-duty, within prison walls and duties; therefore within scope and immune | Reversed trial court — immunity not clearly applicable on the face of the complaint; demurrer improper; factual questions remain |
| Proper standard to determine scope-of-employment for on-duty excessive force | Minor: extreme/unjustified force can be "totally divorced" from need to control inmate and thus outside scope | Defendants relied on cases finding violent acts may still be within scope if related to custodial control | Court adopted Velykis formulation: force "deliberate and unjustified" and "totally divorced" from need to exert control falls outside scope; applied that standard at pleading stage |
| Whether the trial court may consider factual explanations attached to a demurrer (speaking demurrer) | Minor: grievance exhibits are manipulated; factual disputes exist so PO inappropriate | Defendants: relied on attached grievance packet and records to show non-exhaustion | Court: trial court erred by considering external factual explanations on demurrer; cannot resolve disputed facts without taking evidence |
| Whether Minor exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA/PA PLRA | Minor: was prevented from grieving because told misconduct charge barred grieving; thus remedy was not "available" | Defendants: grievance records show Minor filed but did not pursue final appeal; thus he failed to exhaust | Vacated dismissal for failure to exhaust; remanded for additional fact-finding (interrogatories, depositions, or evidentiary hearing) because genuine factual dispute about availability and authenticity of grievance records |
Key Cases Cited
- Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (describing DOC grievance process and standard for reviewing POs)
- Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (prisoner excused from exhaustion where officials made grievance procedure unavailable)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (purpose of PLRA exhaustion rule to allow prison officials to address complaints internally)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (requirement of proper exhaustion — using all steps the agency holds out)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (defendant bears burden to plead and prove failure to exhaust; plaintiffs need not plead exhaustion)
- Natt v. Labar, 543 A.2d 223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (scope-of-employment test for sovereign immunity determination)