Kittrell v. Watson
88 A.3d 1091
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Kittrell, a pro se prisoner, sued DOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force, sexual harassment/assault, confinement in a torture cell, and deliberate indifference arising from a December 31, 2009 incident.
- DOC argued Kittrell failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the DOC Inmate Grievance Review System (DC‑ADM 804/37 Pa.Code § 93.9) and filed preliminary objections including failure to exhaust and sovereign immunity.
- Kittrell filed a Step 1 grievance in January 2010; DOC delayed investigation and responded in June 2010. Kittrell dated a Step 2 appeal June 28, 2010 but the envelope bore a July 26, 2010 postmark and was received July 27, 2010.
- Kittrell claims he deposited the Step 2 appeal in the facility mailbox on June 28 (submitted a signed cash slip and affidavit); DOC did not contest the cash slip’s authenticity but relied on the postmark/receipt dates.
- The trial court dismissed Kittrell’s complaint for failure to exhaust, reasoning the DOC Policy required him to notify the Superintendent of any mail delay and he failed to do so; the court rejected application of the prisoner mailbox rule.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded, holding the trial court should have considered evidence supporting the prisoner mailbox rule before dismissing and, if necessary, then considered DOC’s Policy exceptions and remaining objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kittrell exhausted administrative remedies for PLRA purposes | Kittrell timely exhausted because he deposited his Step 2 appeal in the prison mailbox on June 28 (prisoner mailbox rule) | DOC: appeal was untimely (postmarked July 26, received July 27) and Policy required notice of mail delay | Vacated dismissal; remanded for trial court to resolve factual dispute about mailing date and apply the prisoner mailbox rule if supported by evidence |
| Whether the prisoner mailbox rule applies to administrative/inmate grievance appeals | Kittrell: rule applies to all pro se incarcerated litigants and deems filing date the date placed in prison mail | DOC/Trial Ct: Policy governs and places duty on inmate to notify superintendent of delays; mailbox rule limited to post-conviction appeals (trial court view) | Court: mailbox rule applies to all pro se incarcerated litigants; trial court erred by not considering Kittrell’s mailbox evidence |
| Whether DC‑ADM 804’s exception/notice requirement defeats mailing-based filing under the mailbox rule | Kittrell: if mailbox rule establishes timely filing, no exception or notice requirement is implicated | DOC: even if delays occur, inmate must notify Superintendent to obtain exception; failure to notify renders appeal untimely | Court: if mailbox rule establishes timely filing, Policy exceptions aren’t triggered; if not, trial court may then examine Policy exceptions and whether Kittrell complied |
| Whether dismissal for failure to exhaust was appropriate on the limited record | Kittrell: factual record supports mailbox rule and administrative exhaustion; dismissal premature | DOC: exhaustion not met; dismissal proper | Court: dismissal premature without resolving factual mailing dispute; remand to resolve mailbox evidence and then address remaining preliminary objections |
Key Cases Cited
- Com. v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (extends prisoner mailbox rule to all appeals by pro se prisoners)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion must be proper; compliance with procedural rules required)
- Humphrey v. Dep’t of Corr., 939 A.2d 987 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (failure to timely appeal shows failure to exhaust)
- Coldren v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 795 A.2d 457 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (trial court must consider mailbox evidence and resolve factual disputes on remand)
- Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d 170 (Pa. Super. 2001) (prisoner mailbox rule applies to pro se civil filings by inmates)
- Com. v. Castro, 766 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2001) (filing date is the act of placing document with proper prison authority)