K. Williams, aka K. Stewart v. PA DOC
695 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Petitioner Kevin Williams (aka Kirby Stewart), a state inmate, filed a writ of replevin seeking return or replacement of personal property (sneakers, a watch, a typewriter, beard trimmer, thermal clothing) allegedly confiscated or damaged while in various state correctional institutions.
- Alleged incidents occurred from May 2011 through April 2014 during transfers, confinement in restricted housing, and returns from out-of-state placement. Some items were returned; others were not.
- Respondents (PA Dept. of Corrections and SCI‑Somerset, SCI‑Mahanoy, SCI‑Camp Hill) filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing sovereign immunity and statute of limitations bars the claim.
- The petition was brought in the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction as a petition for review in the nature of replevin.
- The Court accepted well‑pled facts as true for purposes of the preliminary objections analysis but need not accept legal conclusions.
- The Court sustained the sovereign immunity objection and dismissed the action, concluding replevin is barred by the Sovereign Immunity Act; other objections were not addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether replevin claim against Commonwealth parties is permitted despite sovereign immunity | Williams seeks return/replacement of personal property taken/ damaged by prison staff | Respondents assert sovereign immunity bars replevin and suit must be dismissed | Held: Replevin is barred by sovereign immunity; claim dismissed |
| Whether any waiver in the Sovereign Immunity Act covers this replevin claim | Williams alleges loss/damage of property entitles him to recovery | Respondents argue no applicable waiver for replevin under Section 8522 | Held: No waiver applies to replevin; Valley Gypsum controls, so immunity stands |
| Whether Petitioner stated alternative causes (negligence/assumpsit) that would waive immunity | Impliedly seeks relief for loss/damage of property (not plead negligence or assumpsit) | Respondents note waiver exists for certain negligence or custodial claims but only if properly pled | Held: Petitioner did not plead negligence or assumpsit; court did not treat claim as one of those causes |
| Whether preliminary objections on other grounds (statute of limitations, due process) required resolution | Williams referenced due process/equal protection but did not develop such claims | Respondents argued procedural defenses available | Held: Court did not reach these issues because sovereign immunity was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Meier v. Maleski, 648 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (standard for accepting well‑pled allegations on preliminary objections)
- Martin v. Dep’t of Transp., 556 A.2d 969 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (demurrer cannot rely on facts not apparent from pleading)
- Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (standard for sustaining demurrer/failure to state claim)
- Valley Gypsum Co., Inc. v. Pa. State Police, 581 A.2d 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (replevin does not fall within Sovereign Immunity Act waivers; immunity bars replevin)
- Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (recognizes waiver for negligence or assumpsit claims under Section 8522(b)(3) when properly pled)
- Payton v. Horn, 49 F. Supp.2d 791 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (federal district court view that Section 8522(b) may provide remedy for negligent handling of inmate property)