N.E. Gregory v. PSP
N.E. Gregory v. PSP - 245 M.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 1, 2017Background
- Petitioner Norman E. Gregory was convicted of sexual-related offenses in the early 1980s and has been incarcerated since; he alleges parole was granted in Dec. 2015/Jan. 2016 and release depends on approval of a home plan.
- Upon release, Gregory expects to be required to register under SORNA (42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9799.10–9799.41), including providing personal data that will be posted on a public State Police website.
- Gregory filed a Third Amended Petition for Relief seeking declarations that SORNA is unconstitutional as applied (equal protection and ex post facto) and asking the Court to strike the statutory provision declaring SORNA nonpunitive (42 Pa. C.S. § 9799.11(b)(2)).
- The Pennsylvania State Police filed a Preliminary Objection asserting Gregory lacked capacity/standing and that his claims were not ripe because he had not yet been released or formally registered.
- The Court treated the objection as raising standing and ripeness, evaluated whether Gregory had a substantial, direct, and immediate interest, and considered hardship from delaying review (including statutory pre-release verification and disclosure requirements).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — whether Gregory is an "aggrieved" party | Gregory: imminent parole and statutory requirement to provide registration info prior to release creates a direct, immediate injury. | State Police: no injury yet because Gregory is not released and not yet registered; claims are speculative. | Court held Gregory has standing: interest is substantial, direct, and immediate. |
| Ripeness — whether courts should decide before registration occurs | Gregory: legal issues are fully developed; delay would impose hardship because registration info is required before parole and will be public. | State Police: matter not justiciable until registration actually occurs. | Court held matter is ripe: review now avoids hardship and adds little to wait for actual registration. |
| Justiciability of SORNA challenges (as-applied/ex post facto/equal protection) | Gregory: as-applied and ex post facto/equal protection challenges arise from impending application of SORNA to him. | State Police: premature until enforcement occurs. | Court concluded issues are fit for review on present facts (did not decide merits here). |
| Capacity to sue (procedural attack) | Gregory: procedurally able to bring this petition in original jurisdiction. | State Police: preliminary objection claiming lack of capacity to sue. | Court overruled the preliminary objection and ordered State Police to answer within 30 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stilp v. Com., 927 A.2d 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (standard for ruling on preliminary objections; pleadings taken as true)
- Stilp v. Com., 946 A.2d 636 (Pa. 2008) (affirming Commonwealth Court on preliminary objections)
- Rendell v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, 983 A.2d 708 (Pa. 2009) (discussing overlap and confusion between ripeness and standing)
- Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (prudential standing requires party be "aggrieved")
- Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Com., 888 A.2d 655 (Pa. 2005) (standing principles)
- Fumo v. City of Phila., 972 A.2d 487 (Pa. 2009) (definition of an "aggrieved" party)
- Twp. of Derry v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Labor and Indus., 932 A.2d 56 (Pa. 2007) (ripeness: issues adequately developed and consideration of hardship)