Paluch v. PA Department of Corrections
175 A.3d 433
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- James A. Paluch, Jr., a state prisoner, filed a petition for review (original jurisdiction) against the PA Department of Corrections (DOC), SCI‑Albion and multiple DOC employees alleging claims related to the administration and expenditures of the Inmate General Welfare Fund (IGWF) and claims about destruction/seizure of his personal property.
- Paluch challenged DOC’s Fiscal Administration Policy (FAP) and asserted prisoners are beneficiaries entitled to control or vote on IGWF funding, expenditures, and access to records; he alleged misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and related torts (Counts I–XII).
- Paluch also alleged intentional/negligent destruction and seizure of personal property (typewriter, case, footlocker, headphones) and asserted due process and Takings Clause violations (Counts XIII–XVI).
- DOC moved to dismiss by preliminary objection/demurrer, arguing (1) FAP does not create enforceable individual rights; (2) sovereign immunity bars Paluch’s tort claims; and (3) no constitutionally protected property interest exists in interest/income earned on DOC account principal.
- The Court accepted well‑pleaded facts as true but not legal conclusions, and dismissed the petition for review, granting defendants’ preliminary objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of DOC FAP and prisoners’ right to control IGWF spending | Paluch: FAP creates mandatory duties and grants prisoner‑beneficiaries rights (including voting/approval, inspection) enforceable by prisoners | DOC: FAP is internal policy that explicitly states it creates no enforceable rights; violations of policy do not create legal claims | Held: FAP does not create enforceable individual rights; claims premised on failure to follow FAP are dismissed |
| Sovereign immunity for IGWF tort claims (breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, misappropriation, etc.) | Paluch: DOC actors breached duties and misused IGWF funds; tort claims are viable | DOC: Commonwealth and its employees acting within scope are immune unless claim fits statutory exceptions | Held: Sovereign immunity bars Paluch’s state law torts; alleged intentional torts or fiduciary breaches not within statutory waivers |
| Constitutional property interests in interest/income on DOC account principal (Due Process/Takings) | Paluch: Common‑law rule "interest follows principal" creates protected property interest in interest/income earned | DOC: Prisoners have statutory rights only in principal; common law historically denied prisoners property rights; statutes are silent on interest so no protected interest exists | Held: No constitutionally protected property interest in interest/income; due process and takings claims fail |
| Seizure/destruction of personal property and process (pre‑ vs post‑deprivation) | Paluch: Respondents destroyed his property without notice or adequate remedy; seeks pre‑deprivation process and takings relief | DOC: Prison security permits seizures; adequate post‑deprivation remedies (grievance system, administrative remedies) suffice; takings claim is mischaracterized | Held: Due process requires only adequate post‑deprivation remedy in prison context; grievance system is adequate; takings claim not sustained; negligence/intentional destruction claims barred by sovereign immunity or fail as pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Shore v. Department of Corrections, 168 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (policy violations do not create enforceable rights; inmate grievance system is adequate post‑deprivation remedy)
- Tindell v. Department of Corrections, 87 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (DOC policy violations insufficient to state claim)
- Yount v. Department of Corrections, 886 A.2d 1163 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (same principle on policy non‑enforceability)
- Weaver v. Department of Corrections, 829 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (DOC grievance timelines and policy timeframes do not create enforceable rights)
- Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (personal property exception to sovereign immunity can apply to negligent damage while Commonwealth in possession)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (prisoners’ rights are subject to reasonable limitations for institutional security)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (where adequate post‑deprivation remedies exist, due process does not require pre‑deprivation hearing for property seized by prison officials)
- Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998) (discussing common‑law principle that interest follows principal as source of property interest)
- Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (1980) (interest on deposited funds deemed property of owner despite contrary statute)
- Schneider v. California Department of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (held prisoners had constitutionally cognizable property interest in interest on account; discussed by court but distinguished)
- Washlefske v. Winston, 234 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2000) (rejected common‑law interest claim for prisoners where statutory scheme defined rights)
- Givens v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 381 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2004) (prisoners lack common‑law property right in interest earned on accounts where statute is silent)
- Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 772 A.2d 435 (Pa. 2001) (interpretive note on sovereign immunity statutes and strict construction of immunity exceptions)
- Buck v. Beard, 879 A.2d 157 (Pa. 2005) (prisoners have property interest in principal of DOC account created by statute)