K.B. v. Delaware County Office of Judicial Support, and Mary J. Walk, in her official capacity as Director of the Delaware County Office of Judicial Support
446 M.D. 2023
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Petitioner K.B. received an unconditional gubernatorial pardon for a 2019 marijuana possession conviction and subsequently obtained a court expungement order for that conviction.
- The Delaware County Office of Judicial Support and its Director, Mary J. Walk (Respondents), refused to process the expungement order until K.B. paid outstanding court costs related to the conviction.
- K.B. filed a petition for review in Commonwealth Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, costs, and fees, alleging violations of the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- After K.B. filed suit, Respondents processed the expungement, but only after the litigation commenced.
- K.B. moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting entitlement to relief as a matter of law on all counts of his petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Respondents had a duty to process the expungement order without conditions | Respondents lacked discretion and must process the court order as written | Respondents could condition expungement on payment of outstanding costs | For plaintiff: duty was nondiscretionary |
| Whether failure to process the expungement violated CHRIA | Office's refusal violated CHRIA, entitling K.B. to damages and fees | CHRIA duties don't extend to Director, refusal wasn't willful | For plaintiff in part: Office violated CHRIA, K.B. entitled to actual damages and fees, willfulness unresolved |
| Whether K.B. is entitled to punitive damages under CHRIA | Violation was willful and punitive damages are appropriate | Actions were in good faith, not willful | Undecided: factual record needed |
| Whether refusal to process expungement violated K.B.'s constitutional right to reputation | Refusal harmed his reputation under the PA Constitution | No reputational injury alleged; facts unclear | Undecided: can't resolve on pleadings alone |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Admin. Ord. No. 1-MD-2003, 936 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2007) (clerks of court have a ministerial duty and no discretion to challenge court orders)
- Com. v. Williams, 106 A.3d 583 (Pa. 2014) (clerk of courts must follow, not interpret or challenge, court orders)
- Com. v. C.S., 534 A.2d 1053 (Pa. 1987) (unconditional pardon requires expungement of the conviction)
- Thompson v. Cortese, 398 A.2d 1079 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (no discretion for clerk to refuse to enter court orders if proper on their face)
- Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) ("aggrieved" means having a substantial, direct, and immediate interest)