K. Small v. PA DOC, PBPP
406 M.D. 2020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 14, 2022Background
- Petitioner Kevin Small is currently in federal custody but will return to Pennsylvania DOC custody for a parole-violation term.
- DOC inmate files contain a two-page entry indicating Small testified before a federal grand jury about a credit-card scam and naming DOC inmates from whom he should be separated; Small denies ever testifying.
- Small’s trial counsel sent a letter (dated May 23, 2013) and attempted to subpoena U.S. Attorney records; the U.S. Attorney’s Office reported no records of Small’s grand-jury testimony.
- The entries are visible to other inmates, and Small alleges his family received anonymous threats as a result; he sought an investigation, out-of-state transfer, and monetary damages.
- Respondents (DOC and the Parole Board) filed preliminary objections asserting improper service and statute-of-limitations/laches defenses; the court ordered proper service and later sustained objections based on limitations and failure to state a mandamus claim.
- The court dismissed the petition (July 2, 2020 filing) because tort/defamation claims were time-barred and mandamus relief was unavailable; summary judgment was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for defamation/tort claims | Small asserts DOC-created false entries injured him and seeks damages; discovery rule may apply | Claims are time-barred: libel/slander subject to 1-year, torts to 2-year limitations; Small learned of entries by May 23, 2013 | Dismissed as barred: defamation claims (1-year) and tort claims (2-year) tolled no later than May 23, 2013; petition filed in 2020. |
| Mandamus to compel investigation/transfer | Seeks investigation of allegedly fabricated records and transfer to non-DOC facility for safety | DOC has no ministerial duty to investigate or to transfer; no statutory right to transfer or parole entitlement | Denied: Petitioner failed to plead a clear legal right or corresponding duty necessary for mandamus. |
| Service of process | Small had served respondents | Respondents challenged sufficiency of service | Court ordered proper service; after compliance, service objection was overruled. |
| Summary judgment motion | Seeks summary relief on claims | Respondents' preliminary objections remain | Denied as moot because all claims were disposed by sustaining preliminary objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (demurrer/preliminary-objection standard: admit well-pleaded facts)
- Allen v. Dep't of Corr., 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (courts may consider exhibits attached to the complaint when ruling on prelim. objections)
- Altoona Area Sch. Dist. v. Campbell, 618 A.2d 1129 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (discovery rule tolls statute of limitations until plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of injury)
- Pocono Int'l Raceway v. Pocono Produce, 468 A.2d 468 (Pa. 1983) (limitations for torts begin when plaintiff can reasonably institute suit; discovery rule may apply in some cases)
- Redenz by Redenz v. Rosenberg, 520 A.2d 883 (Pa. Super. 1987) (two-part discovery rule test: knowledge of injury and causation)
- Crozer Chester Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 22 A.3d 189 (Pa. 2011) (mandamus elements: clear legal right, corresponding duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- Werner v. Zazyczny, 681 A.2d 1331 (Pa. 1996) (burden on party seeking mandamus to establish legal right)
- Yount v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 966 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (no entitlement to transfer or parole; transfer is not a legal right)
- Bronson v. Investigations Div., 650 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (agency has no general duty to investigate at a private party's request; failure to allege such a duty fails to state a mandamus claim)