M. Morgalo v. S. Gorniak (SCI Albion Accountant) v. Montgomery County Clerk of Courts
134 A.3d 1139
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Michael Morgalo, an inmate at SCI‑Albion, challenged monthly deductions from his inmate account beginning September 5, 2008, seeking return of funds and an order stopping further deductions.
- Deductions were made under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b) (Act 84) and DC‑ADM 005, which authorize the Department of Corrections to collect court‑ordered fines, costs and restitution from inmate accounts.
- Morgalo contended several sentencing orders required payment only upon supervision/parole/release; he argued the Department deducted prematurely and failed to obtain clarification from the sentencing court as required by its own policy.
- Morgalo pursued the Department’s grievance process (grievances in March 2010 and May 2013); the Department treated the later grievance as duplicative and denied relief, and Morgalo then filed the instant Petition in Commonwealth Court on September 27, 2013.
- The Department filed preliminary objections asserting (1) the Petition is time‑barred and (2) it fails to state a claim because Act 84 authorizes deductions without prior court orders.
- The Commonwealth Court (Judge Covey) overruled both preliminary objections, concluding timeliness could not be resolved on the pleadings and that ambiguities in the sentencing orders required further factual/administrative development (and possibly clarification from the sentencing court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / statute of limitations | Morgalo argued he exhausted administrative remedies in 2013 after transfer prevented completion earlier; filing was timely after exhaustion. | Department argued prior precedent treated these claims as mandamus with a six‑month limit, so Petition filed in 2013 is untimely. | Court held Curley I’s six‑month mandamus framing is wrong; claim fits §5524(6) and a two‑year period applies. But on the pleadings, whether exhaustion tolled or reset accrual was unclear, so objection overruled. |
| Nature of cause of action (mandamus vs. other) | Morgalo sought an order stopping deductions and returning funds; he did not plead mandamus. | Department treated the relief as mandamus (six‑month limit). | Court held the claim is not properly characterized as mandamus and declined to apply a six‑month mandamus limitation. |
| Ability of DOC to deduct without court order | Morgalo argued DOC policy required contacting sentencing court if orders tied payments to parole/release and that the orders here are ambiguous. | Department argued Act 84 authorizes deductions from inmate accounts without a separate sentencing court authorization; sentencing forms are irrelevant if fines/costs were imposed. | Court held Act 84 authorizes deductions, but sentencing orders here are ambiguous; DOC policy required it to seek clarification before deducting, so dismissal on demurrer was inappropriate. |
| Right to reimbursement / due process before deduction | Morgalo claimed deductions violated due process and required notice/hearing. | Department relied on precedent holding sentencing hearing satisfied pre‑deprivation process and that DOC deductions pursuant to Act 84 are proper; prior cases rejected reimbursement claims against DOC. | Court rejected dismissal: although DOC has statutory authority and prior cases limit relief, factual ambiguity about when payments were due prevented resolving the due process/restitution claim on preliminary objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curley v. Smeal, 41 A.3d 916 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (prior Commonwealth Court decision applying a six‑month limitations characterization)
- Curley v. Smeal, 82 A.3d 418 (Pa. 2013) (Supreme Court affirmed on timeliness grounds but rejected mandamus characterization in dictum)
- Jackson v. Vaughn, 777 A.2d 436 (Pa. 2001) (elements and limits of mandamus relief)
- Chanceford Aviation Props., L.L.P. v. Chanceford Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 923 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 2007) (statutory construction; discussion of mandamus and remedies)
- George v. Beard, 824 A.2d 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (upholding DOC authority under Act 84 to deduct fines/costs from inmate accounts)
- Russell v. Donnelly, 827 A.2d 535 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (same; distinguishing cases requiring pre‑deduction process)
- Holloway v. Lehman, 671 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (holding inmates may challenge deductions where no due process preceded assessment)
- Buck v. Beard, 879 A.2d 157 (Pa. 2005) (sentencing hearing supplies required pre‑deprivation due process for restitution assessments)
- Montañez v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 773 F.3d 472 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding inmates are entitled to pre‑deduction notice; persuasive but not binding in Pennsylvania)