J.P. Kollock, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bruce R. Beemer, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
24 M.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Petitioner Jason P. Kollock, a convicted sex offender incarcerated at SCI‑Houtzdale, refused to complete a DOC sex‑offender treatment program because it requires participants to admit guilt for their offenses.
- Kollock, asserting he is wrongfully convicted and that admitting guilt would violate his sincerely held Episcopal beliefs, exhausted DOC’s grievance process and sought removal of the admission‑of‑guilt requirement.
- DOC denied his grievance at all levels; Kollock then filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court seeking injunctive relief (exemption from the admission requirement).
- Respondents (DOC and PBPP officials) and former Attorney General Beemer filed preliminary objections challenging service, jurisdiction, and legal sufficiency; Beemer also argued the petition lacked specific averments against him.
- The court considered First Amendment (Free Exercise and Free Speech), Pennsylvania constitutional, RLUIPA, and Pennsylvania RFPA claims; the central legal question was whether the admission‑of‑guilt requirement unlawfully burdened Kollock’s religious/speech rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — original jurisdiction over constitutional challenge | Kollock argued his constitutional rights were violated so original jurisdiction applies | Respondents argued petition is merely an appeal of an inmate grievance and not reviewable | Court: Original jurisdiction proper because claim alleges protected constitutional rights and is not a routine grievance appeal |
| Sufficiency of pleading against Attorney General Beemer | Kollock named Beemer as respondent | Beemer argued there are no specific factual or legal averments directed at him | Court: Sustained Beemer’s preliminary objection; pleadings lacked specific averments against him |
| First Amendment (Free Exercise / Speech) — requirement to admit guilt | Kollock argued the admission requirement coerces speech and conflicts with his religious tenet against bearing false witness | Respondents argued the requirement is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests (rehabilitation, recidivism reduction) | Court: Dismissed claim under federal and state constitutions; McKune precedent supports requirement as reasonably related to penological interests |
| RLUIPA and RFPA — substantial burden on religion | Kollock argued requiring admission (as condition of parole recommendation) substantially burdens his religious exercise | Respondents argued Kollock did not allege a substantial burden and, under RFPA §5(g), the policy is reasonably related to penological interests | Court: Pleadings failed to establish a prima facie RLUIPA substantial burden; RFPA claim barred by statutory exception for policies reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (upholding admission‑of‑guilt requirement as reasonably related to penological interests)
- Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (limits on Commonwealth Court jurisdiction over inmate grievance appeals)
- Meier v. Maleski, 648 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (pleading standards for preliminary objections)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (Turner factors for evaluating prison regulations that impinge constitutional rights)
- Mobley v. Coleman, 65 A.3d 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (application of Turner factors in Pennsylvania prison cases)