H. Huertas, pro se v. L. Fiscus, 555 M.D. 2023

Background

Hector Huertas, an inmate at SCI Houtzdale, was found guilty of misconduct involving controlled substance possession after a hearing overseen by Lisa Fiscus, whom he alleges was involved in a prior romantic relationship with him.
Huertas claimed a conflict of interest and requested a different hearing examiner from the prison superintendent Gina Clark, but no action was taken.
After being found guilty, Huertas was placed in the Restricted Housing Unit for approximately 90 days, transferred to SCI-Forest, lost contact visits for six months, and was removed from college courses.
Following the disciplinary outcome, Huertas communicated his complaints about Fiscus to successive levels of prison administration, including appeals to Clark, Chief Hearing Examiner Moslak, and Secretary Harry, but received no relief.
Huertas filed a pro se petition in Commonwealth Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of his constitutional rights, including removal of his misconduct record.
The Department of Corrections and named officials filed preliminary objections asserting the court lacked jurisdiction and that Huertas' claims were barred by sovereign immunity.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court jurisdiction over inmate misconduct appeals	Huertas argued the court had original jurisdiction due to alleged constitutional violations from conflict of interest and lack of impartiality.	Respondents asserted the court lacked jurisdiction, as prison misconduct decisions do not create judicially reviewable rights unless there is a protected liberty or property interest.	Court quashed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; no protected interest was sufficiently alleged.
Existence of a protected liberty or property interest under due process	Huertas claimed his disciplinary segregation and related sanctions amounted to significant hardship violating due process.	Respondents argued Huertas did not allege facts showing an atypical and significant hardship compared to ordinary prison life.	Court found no specific, protected interest was stated; procedural due process not triggered.
Remedy for internal disciplinary process allegedly tainted by bias/conflict	Huertas sought to vacate the misconduct decision based on examiner bias.	Respondents contended internal prison grievances and misconduct findings are not subject to court review except in narrow circumstances, not met here.	Court agreed with respondents; declined to review internal disciplinary decisions.
Jurisdiction over appeals of prison grievance decisions	Huertas suggested appellate jurisdiction could provide relief.	Respondents noted established law barring appellate review of internal prison grievances and misconduct appeals.	Court confirmed it also lacked appellate jurisdiction.

Key Cases Cited

Feliciano v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 250 A.3d 1269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (original jurisdiction in inmate misconduct only arises where a specific, constitutionally protected interest is affected)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (due process limited to liberty interests imposing an atypical and significant hardship relative to ordinary incidents of prison life)
Bronson v. Cent. Off. Rev. Comm., 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (court does not review internal prison grievance or discipline decisions)
Portalatin v. Dep’t of Corr., 979 A.2d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (Sandin's fact-based approach governs what constitutes a protected liberty interest)