G. Fox v. SCI Greene and Warden L. Folino
561 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- Gerald Fox, an inmate at SCI‑Greene, sued SCI‑Greene and Warden Lewis Folino for negligence after a March 1, 2010 cellmate altercation in which Fox lost part of his ear.
- Fox alleged he had requested a cell/cellmate change before the attack but the request was denied.
- Defendants raised sovereign immunity and, as to Folino, common‑law official immunity in preliminary objections; the trial court denied those preliminary objections.
- Defendants later filed a motion for summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity and official immunity; the trial court granted the motion before Fox filed a response and before the scheduled oral argument.
- The Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded, holding the lower court failed to (1) state reasons for its disposition as required by Pa. R.A.P. 1925 and Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(e)(2) and (2) afford Fox a fair opportunity to respond as required by Pa. R.C.P. 1035.3(e)(1) and local rule G211(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could grant summary judgment without allowing plaintiff to file a written response or present oral argument | Fox: Rule 1035.3 requires a written response; local rule requires oral argument; denial prejudiced Fox | Defendants: Court has discretion to rule without briefs or argument where no prejudice; prior denial of preliminary objections shows merits resolved | Court: Vacated and remanded — trial court must give Fox a full and fair opportunity to respond (Pa.R.C.P.1035.3(e)(1)) and hear argument under local rule G211(a) |
| Whether trial court satisfied obligation to state reasons for granting summary judgment | Fox: Trial court failed to issue required written opinion explaining disposition | Defendants: No opinion necessary; record shows basis (sovereign immunity); judicial economy favors affirmance | Court: Vacated — trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.A.P.1925(a)(1) and Pa.R.C.P.1035.3(e)(2); remand required for an opinion |
| Whether trial court could treat earlier denial of preliminary objections as operative on a later summary judgment motion | Fox: Preliminary‑objections briefing is not a substitute for summary‑judgment opposition based on developed discovery | Defendants: Prior rulings and briefs justified summary disposition without further response | Court: Denied — different standards apply (pleadings vs. evidentiary record); plaintiff must be allowed to oppose summary judgment |
| Whether sovereign or official immunity defeat merits without factual development | Fox: Exceptions to sovereign immunity may apply; genuine factual disputes exist | Defendants: Immunity bars claim; no exception applies | Court: Did not decide merits on appeal — remanded so trial court can allow response and state grounds before resolving immunity issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Myszkowski v. Penn Stroud Hotel, Inc., 634 A.2d 622 (Pa. Super. 1993) (trial court has discretion to require or dispense with briefs/oral argument)
- Wright v. Misty Mountain Farm, LLC, 125 A.3d 814 (Pa. Super. 2015) (trial court may deny preliminary objections and later grant summary judgment on same grounds)
- Majorsky v. Douglas, 58 A.3d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2012) (upholding grant of summary judgment after preliminary‑objections denial under certain circumstances)
- Cmwlth. v. Pate, 617 A.2d 754 (Pa. Super. 1992) (remand required where trial court fails to provide reasons required by Pa.R.A.P.1925)
- Herczeg v. Hampton Twp. Mun. Auth., 766 A.2d 866 (Pa. Super. 2001) (distinguishing scope of review for preliminary objections from summary judgment)
- Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)