J. Tillman v. PA DOC
J. Tillman v. PA DOC - 327 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 9, 2017Background
- Petitioner Jeffrey Tillman, a state inmate, alleged DOC counselor Melissa Urbanick repeatedly watched him while he showered (voyeurism) in 2011–2012 and retaliated when he tried to avoid her.
- Tillman filed a PREA complaint (2015); DOC investigated, interviewed him in Dec. 2015, and in March 2016 concluded the allegation was "unfounded."
- Tillman additionally alleged the counselor falsified his criminal history to force sex-offender treatment and that DOC staff (Joseph, Brothers, Barnacle, PREA Coordinator) failed to correct or concealed that information in violation of CHRIA and committed fraud/official oppression.
- DOC filed preliminary objections arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to review the PREA determination or to order criminal charges, that PREA creates no private right of action, and that Commonwealth employees are immune from intentional-tort suits when acting within the scope of employment.
- The majority sustained DOC’s preliminary objections and dismissed Tillman’s petition; Judge McCullough dissented only on the sovereign-immunity ruling as to the intentional-tort (intrusion upon seclusion) claim against the counselor, arguing the scope-of-employment question should survive pleading-stage review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review PREA finding | Tillman sought court review and reopening of PREA investigation | DOC: PREA/grievance decisions are nonreviewable here; PREA provides no private right of action | Court: No jurisdiction; PREA does not create private cause of action; preliminary objection sustained |
| CHRIA (inaccurate criminal-history record) | DOC staff failed to correct fabricated convictions and failed to follow CHRIA appeals process | DOC: Grievance process used; no timely appeal to AG shown; DOC decision treated as final grievance-level action | Court: Plaintiff did not timely pursue CHRIA appeal to Attorney General; claim not properly before court |
| Intentional tort / fraud by counselor and staff | Counselor fabricated convictions; staff conspired/failed to correct records — intentional tort/fraud | DOC: Sovereign immunity bars intentional-tort claims for employees acting within scope of employment | Court: Majority found allegations concern duties as DOC employee and are barred by sovereign immunity; claim dismissed; dissent would have allowed intrusion-upon-seclusion claim to proceed |
| Mandamus / criminal relief / official oppression | Tillman requested mandamus to reopen PREA investigation, have state police investigate, expunge records, and criminal charges | DOC: Mandamus not available to compel criminal prosecutions; court lacks authority to sua sponte initiate criminal charges | Court: Writ of mandamus unavailable for requested criminal enforcement; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bronson v. Central Office Review Comm., 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (grievance-like agency determinations are generally nonreviewable in this Court's original jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 913 A.2d 301 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (limits on judicial review of DOC grievance decisions)
- Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (sovereign immunity bars intentional-tort claims for employees acting within scope of employment)
- LaFrankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (scope-of-employment analysis for sovereign-immunity protection)
- Aviles v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr., 875 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (court accepts petition allegations as true at preliminary-objection stage)
- Kull v. Guisse, 81 A.3d 148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (commonwealth employee liable for willful misconduct and intentional torts committed outside scope of employment)
- Natt v. Labar, 543 A.2d 223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (tests for whether conduct falls within scope of employment)
- Orr v. William J. Burns Int’l Detective Agency, 12 A.2d 25 (Pa. 1940) (question of scope of employment ordinarily one for jury)