Faulk v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts
116 A.3d 1183
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Requester, an inmate, requested certified sentencing orders from the Philadelphia Clerk of Courts under RTKL; Clerk allegedly failed to respond within five business days, creating a deemed denial and an appeal to OOR.
- OOR dismissed the appeal with prejudice, concluding Clerk is a judicial agency not subject to OOR jurisdiction.
- Requester contends Clerk is subject to RTKL and records are public judicial records; he also argues due process required transfer to a proper appeals officer.
- OOR’s lack of jurisdiction is based on RTKL provisions designating appeals for judicial agencies to be handled by the agency-designated appeals officer, not OOR.
- Court concludes OOR lacked jurisdiction and affirms dismissal; also distinguishes RTKL access limits for judicial records and rejects a liberty-interest claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| OOR jurisdiction over Clerk as a judicial agency | Faulk argues Clerk is a RTKL judicial agency subject to OOR. | Faulk. Clerk is a judicial agency; RTKL restricts to designated appeals officer. | OOR lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed. |
| Proper appeal path for deemed denials against judicial agencies | Requester should have direct review by this Court for deemed denial. | Appeals must go to the judicial agency’s designated appeals officer first. | Direct review by Commonwealth Court is improper; process requires appeal to designated officer. |
| RTKL access to sentencing orders as public records | Sentencing orders are public judicial records accessible via RTKL. | RTKL access to court records is limited to financial records; sentencing orders may be public only by other means. | Sentencing orders are not RTKL public records; may be accessed through other means. |
| Liberty interest in non-existence of sentencing order | Non-existence supports relief from incarceration. | RTKL cannot collaterally attack conviction; DOC non-existence does not entitle relief. | No liberty interest recognized; non-existence evidence rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. Phila. Cnty. Office of Prothonotary, 58 A.3d 858 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (courts restrict RTKL appeals for judicial agencies to designated officers)
- Sturgis v. Dep’t of Corr., 96 A.3d 445 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (rejects liberty-interest arguments in similar context)
- Commonwealth v. Long, 922 A.2d 892 (Pa. 2007) (public judicial access under common law)
- Gates v. Dep't of Corr., — Pa.Cmwlth.— (2014) (unreported; discussed nonexistence arguments in RTKL context)
- Pa Gaming Control Bd. v. Office of Open Records, (Schneller), 103 A.3d 1276 (Pa. 2014) (agency review process for RTKL requests)
- Hearst Television, Inc. d/b/a WGAL-TV v. Norris, 54 A.3d 23 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for RTKL jurisdiction is plenary)