J. Page v. Hon. T.P. Rogers
324 A.3d 661
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2024Background
- Joseph Page, incarcerated for life plus 40-80 years, filed a pro se Petition for Review in Commonwealth Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged constitutional violations by Judge Rogers, Secretary Harry (Department of Corrections), and Attorney Gottlieb.
- Page’s underlying claims concern access to legal materials, the withholding of legal documents and CDs by the prison, removal of legal forms from the prison law library, and alleged unsafe prison conditions regarding COVID-19 risk and overcrowding.
- He also alleged that Judge Rogers lacked jurisdiction to sentence him and that Attorney Gottlieb violated attorney-client privilege when withdrawing as PCRA counsel via a "Turner letter."
- Respondents filed Preliminary Objections, arguing official immunity, lack of personal involvement, jurisdictional bars, and failure to plead actual injury or valid constitutional claims.
- The Court sustained Respondents' Preliminary Objections and dismissed Page’s Petition against Judge Rogers, Secretary Harry, and Attorney Gottlieb. The case proceeds only against the remaining respondent, the district attorney, who had not yet responded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenging criminal sentence in civil court | Judge Rogers’ sentencing order unlawful; seeking new constitutional ruling | Court lacks jurisdiction; Judge is immune and challenges must be made in PCRA | Collateral attacks to be made under PCRA, not via civil petition |
| Attorney’s Turner letter and confidentiality | Gottlieb's withdrawal via Turner Letter violated privilege and strategy | Court lacks jurisdiction; only trial court reviews Turner Letters | Commonwealth Court lacks jurisdiction; must be raised in trial court |
| Withholding of legal documents, library forms | Denied First/Sixth Amendment access to courts, prejudice to PCRA efforts | No actual injury alleged; policies justified for penological interests | No cognizable First Amendment claim stated; policy rational |
| Unsafe conditions (COVID19/overcrowding) | Eighth Amendment violation: risk to health and life from COVID-19, overcrowding | No actual harm, no deliberate indifference shown, Secretary not personally liable | Complaint fails to show deliberate indifference or personal involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (sets requirements for counsel’s withdrawal via "no-merit" letters in PCRA petitions)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 479 A.2d 568 (Pa. Super. 1984) (basis for the Turner/Finley letter withdrawal standard)
- Commonwealth v. Bethea, 828 A.2d 1066 (Pa. 2004) (courts of common pleas have statewide subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for prison conditions)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoners’ constitutional right of access to courts)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (actual injury requirement for denial of court access claims)
- Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (Eighth Amendment standards for prison condition claims)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (prisoner right to petition government for grievances)