J. Logan v. DOC, J. Logan v. DOC

Background

Petitioner John Logan (pro se) filed a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request with the Department of Corrections seeking the judge-signed "Written Sentence Order" containing the statutory authorization and the statute he was sentenced under.
The Department’s Records Officer responded, provided a record at no charge, and later stated no other responsive records exist in its possession.
Logan appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), claiming the provided document lacked the statutory authorization, did not identify the statute, and was not judge-signed. He contended it was not a sentencing order.
The Department submitted a position statement and an attestation from the Records Supervisor that a search was conducted and no additional responsive records exist. Logan submitted no evidence disputing that attestation.
The OOR denied Logan’s appeal based on the Department’s attestation. Logan petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review. The Court affirmed the OOR’s final determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Department failed to produce a proper, judge-signed sentencing order showing statutory authorization	Logan: the document provided lacked statutory authorization, did not state the statute, and lacked a judge's signature, making his incarceration unlawful	Dept: it produced the responsive record and attested that no other responsive records exist in its custody, possession, or control	Court: RTKL appeal is not the forum to collaterally attack confinement; Department satisfied burden by attestation that no additional records exist, so OOR denial affirmed
Whether absence of additional records requires creation of a record by the Department	Logan: implies Department must produce or recreate a proper sentencing order	Dept: an agency cannot be required to create records that do not exist and attested none exist	Court: Agency need not create records; attestation of non-existence sufficed absent evidence of bad faith
Whether this RTKL process can resolve collateral attack on sentence legality	Logan: seeks relief that amounts to challenging his continued confinement and sentence validity	Dept: framed dispute as RTKL request for records; did not concede further relief is proper via RTKL	Court: Collateral challenges to confinement belong in Post Conviction Relief Act proceedings, not RTKL appeals; such challenges are improper here
Burden of proof for nonexistence of records	Logan: no evidence presented to rebut Department attestation	Dept: burden is to prove nonexistence; may do so with attestation or affidavit	Court: Department met its burden with the Records Supervisor's attestation; absent competent evidence of bad faith, attestations accepted as true

Key Cases Cited

Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (agency cannot be required to create a record that does not exist; RTKL is not forum for collateral attack)
Hodges v. Pennsylvania Department of Health, 29 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (agency may satisfy burden of proving nonexistence with attestation or affidavit)
McGowan v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 103 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (in absence of evidence of bad faith, agency affidavits/attestations are accepted as true)
Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review under RTKL is de novo with plenary scope)