J.S. Deeter v. PA BPP, J.S. Deeter v. PA BPP

Petitioner Jeffrey S. Deeter, an inmate, requested from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole the "official version of his case."
The Board denied the request, citing confidentiality under Board regulation 37 Pa. Code §61.2, the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), and RTKL exemptions for criminal and noncriminal investigative records (65 P.S. §§67.708(b)(16), (17)).
Deeter appealed the Board’s denial to the Office of Open Records (OOR). OOR notified him his appeal was deficient because he did not include a copy of his original request and ordered him to file it.
Deeter did not provide the requested copy; OOR issued a final determination dismissing his appeal for failure to comply with the order and because the appeal failed to address the Board’s asserted exemptions.
Deeter appealed OOR’s dismissal to the Commonwealth Court, which considered only whether OOR properly dismissed the appeal under the RTKL.
The Court affirmed OOR, holding that Deeter’s appeal failed to sufficiently specify why the records were public or to rebut the Board’s claimed exemptions, so dismissal was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OOR properly dismissed appeal for failure to state grounds addressing agency exemptions	Deeter sought identification of records composing his "official version" and implied entitlement to access; he did not articulate why exemptions did not apply	Board asserted records are nonpublic under Board regs, CHRIA, and RTKL investigatory exemptions	Held: OOR properly dismissed because Deeter’s appeal did not state why records were public or rebut the Board’s exemption claims
Whether OOR properly dismissed for failure to comply with OOR order to file a copy of the request	Deeter did not provide the copy despite OOR’s instruction; he argued generally for access but did not comply	OOR argued dismissal was warranted because the record was incomplete and would be insufficient for appellate review under RTKL §1303(b)	Held: Court affirmed dismissal (noting OOR’s order was unmet and that procedural deficiencies supported dismissal)

Department of Corrections v. Office of Open Records, 18 A.3d 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (discusses requester’s duty to file a minimally sufficient appeal)
Padgett v. Pennsylvania State Police, 73 A.3d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (appeal dismissal proper when requester fails to address agency’s exemption grounds)
Saunders v. Department of Corrections, 48 A.3d 540 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (affirming dismissal where requester did not address exemptions cited by agency)
Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (appellate courts may consider grounds beyond OOR’s rationale)
Hunsicker v. Pennsylvania State Police, 93 A.3d 911 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (standard of review for OOR determinations is de novo)
Stein v. Plymouth Township, 994 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of review limited to RTKL appeals and procedural sufficiency)
Kutnyak v. Department of Corrections, 748 A.2d 1275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (courts may affirm on alternate grounds supporting dismissal)