L.C. Bullock v. PA DOC
L.C. Bullock v. PA DOC - 241 M.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 12, 2017Background
- Petitioner Lamont C. Bullock, an inmate, alleged that DOC staff confiscated, lost, damaged or stole multiple approved personal, legal, and religious items during several cell searches and transfers across SCI facilities between January 2014 and March 2016.
- Bullock filed multiple grievances (e.g., Nos. 496184, 526278, 543765, 622998) complaining of missing/damaged property, cable service interruptions, and mishandling; these grievances were investigated and denied or partially sustained.
- Bullock alleged the property losses were retaliatory (because he filed grievances and civil suits) and sought mandamus relief in Commonwealth Court for return, replacement, reimbursement, and damages/interest.
- The Department of Corrections filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing Bullock failed to state cognizable constitutional claims.
- The Court treated the pleading under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a), accepted well-pleaded facts as true but not legal conclusions, and limited review to Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection and to retaliation claims.
- Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition, concluding Bullock had adequate post-deprivation remedies (grievance procedure) and failed to plead required elements for equal protection or retaliation claims with specific factual allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process (property deprivation) | Bullock contends DOC deprived him of property and cable without due process. | DOC argues Bullock had an adequate post-deprivation remedy via its grievance process; grievances were processed. | Demurrer sustained — no due process claim: adequate post-deprivation remedy and grievances were available and used. |
| Equal protection | DOC discriminated by denying investigations/resolutions and treating Bullock differently. | DOC contends Bullock failed to allege membership in a class or disparate treatment of similarly situated persons. | Demurrer sustained — pleadings lacked specific facts showing membership in a class or disparate treatment. |
| Retaliation | Bullock alleges actions were planned and calculated retaliation for filing grievances/civil suits. | DOC argues no specific facts identifying who retaliated, motive, awareness, or deterrent effect; grievances show he was not deterred. | Demurrer sustained — retaliation elements not pleaded with required specificity. |
| Procedural (demurrer standard) | Bullock relied on factual allegations and attached grievance exhibits. | DOC argued pleading insufficient under Pa.R.C.P.1019(a) and law will not permit recovery. | Court applied demurrer standard, accepted well-pleaded facts but dismissed where legal recovery barred on face of petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (inmate cannot state procedural due process claim for property loss where adequate post-deprivation remedy exists)
- Silo v. Ridge, 728 A.2d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (DOC grievance procedure is an adequate post-deprivation remedy)
- Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standard for sustaining demurrer; confine analysis to complaint and attached exhibits)
- Yount v. Department of Corrections, 966 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2009) (elements for prison retaliation claim: protected conduct, adverse action, motivating factor)
- Small v. Horn, 722 A.2d 664 (Pa. 1998) (prisoners are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class; equal protection analysis and property limits in prison context)
- Muscarella v. Commonwealth, 87 A.3d 966 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (due process protections under Pennsylvania Constitution discussed)