G. Xavier v. PA DOC
331 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 8, 2017Background
- Petitioner Gustavo Xavier, an inmate at SCI‑Albion, had 37 photographs and two flyers detained by the mailroom as potentially nude on January 28, 2016; he requested a courtesy review.
- The SCI‑Albion Incoming Publication Review Committee and facility officials determined the materials violated DC‑ADM 803 for showing genital/vaginal areas; some images appeared altered to conceal areas.
- Xavier filed grievances up the Department chain; the Chief Grievance Officer affirmed the denial on April 25, 2016.
- Xavier filed a petition for review in this Court on June 11, 2016, asserting (1) the materials were not nude because opaque coverings had been applied, (2) staff applied subjective moral benchmarks beyond DC‑ADM 803, and (3) the policy/procedures denied due process by preventing inmate or court review of the materials.
- The Department filed preliminary objections arguing (a) improper service on individually named respondents and (b) lack of jurisdiction because Xavier challenges internal prison grievance/committee decisions subject to Department regulations.
- The Court dismissed the seven individual respondents for failure to serve and sustained the Department’s objection for lack of jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individually named staff must be dismissed for improper service | Xavier failed to serve only the Department admits he did not serve the individuals | Service required by Pa. R.A.P. 1514(c) by certified mail; individuals not served | Individuals dismissed for lack of service |
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over challenges to internal prison mail/publication reviews | Xavier contends policy/procedure and denial implicate due process and warrant original review | Department argues decisions are internal, non‑final agency orders and regulated by DC‑ADM 803 and 37 Pa. Code §93.2(g) | No original or appellate jurisdiction; internal prison proceedings not reviewable here |
| Whether DC‑ADM 803 unlawfully restricts receipt of altered/partially covered images or denies review | Xavier argues coverings remove prohibited nudity and process denies inmate/court review | Department defends its policy restricting obscene material and committee review authority; officials entitled to deference | Court declines to reach merits due to lack of jurisdiction (notes precedent gives deference to prison administrators) |
| Whether grievance exhaustion/final decision requirement satisfied to invoke court review | Xavier pursued Department grievance and appeal to Chief Grievance Officer | Department maintains even final internal decisions about inmate mail are governed by regulations limiting inmate interests | Court finds regulations limit inmate rights and thus Bronson standard bars original jurisdiction absent an unregulated property/personal interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (inmate challenges to internal prison grievance decisions are not reviewable unless a protected interest outside DOC regulations is affected)
- Brittain v. Beard, 974 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2009) (courts defer to prison administrators on policies restricting obscene material possession)
- Payne v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections, 813 A.2d 918 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (upheld regulatory authority to bar obscene incoming publications)