Key v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.
185 A.3d 421
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2018Background
- Petitioner Brandon Key, a DOC inmate, challenged DOC Policy DC-ADM 803 governing inmate mail and incoming publications, arguing it unlawfully restricts receipt of sexually explicit materials and nudity.
- After Key filed suit, DOC amended DC-ADM 803 (New 803); Key conceded the amendment permits catalogues and commercially sold photographs but continued to challenge other restrictions as inconsistent with the Administrative Code, the Criminal Obscenity Statute, and the federal and state constitutions.
- DOC filed preliminary objections asserting lack of standing for certain claims, mootness as to prior policy provisions, and legal insufficiency of Key’s amended petition; Key cross-objected claiming a verification defect in DOC’s filing.
- The Commonwealth Court overruled Key’s procedural objection, found claims relating to the amended policy largely moot or legally deficient, and evaluated First Amendment and state-law challenges under Turner/Overton deference to penological judgments.
- The Court concluded Key failed to plead specific facts undermining DOC’s legitimate penological interests, found New 803 not materially inconsistent with the enabling Administrative Code or criminal obscenity law, and dismissed the amended petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Key states a First Amendment claim against New 803's restrictions on sexually explicit materials and nudity | New 803 unlawfully restricts inmates' right to receive publications | Policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; Turner standard applies and DOC merits deference | Dismissed: Key failed to plead specific facts to overcome Turner/Overton deference; claim legally insufficient |
| Whether New 803 is inconsistent with the Administrative Code because it is more restrictive than the Criminal Obscenity Statute | New 803 is invalid under 71 P.S. §186 if more restrictive than statute | DOC enacted New 803 under Administrative Code authority; minor differences do not render it inconsistent | Dismissed: No material inconsistency; policy validly promulgated under Sections 506 and 901-B |
| Whether Key may require DOC to forward rejected publications to his home address | Preventing forwarding infringes First Amendment right to receive/distribute materials | Policy may return, destroy, or otherwise dispose rejected mail; inmates can order materials to home separately | Dismissed: New 803 does not bar obtaining materials via home delivery; no First Amendment violation shown |
| Whether Key has standing under Article I, §7 (press freedom) of the Pennsylvania Constitution | Policy infringes freedom of press by restricting distribution/receipt of publications | Key is not a member of the press and was not prevented from speaking, writing, or ordering materials to his home | Dismissed for lack of standing and failure to allege restraint on press rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (courts must defer to professional judgment of prison administrators)
- Brittain v. Beard, 974 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2009) (upholding DOC pornography restrictions as reasonably related to penological interests)
- Payne v. Dep’t of Corr., 871 A.2d 795 (Pa. 2005) (applying Turner to prison obscenity regulation challenges)
- Smith v. Beard, 26 A.3d 551 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (sustaining demurrer where inmate failed to plead facts to rebut DOC interests)
- Shore v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 168 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (DC-ADM 803 facially constitutional under Turner/Overton)
- Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (prisoners retain First Amendment rights not inconsistent with incarceration)