Pelzer v. Wetzel
101 A.3d 142
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Pelzer (pro se) filed a class-action complaint on March 5, 2014, alleging unconstitutional conditions and related claims by inmates in the DOC’s SCI-Greene STGMU.
- Defendants (DOC and prison officials) filed preliminary objections on March 31, 2014, arguing failure to state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Defendants also asked the trial court to decide the objections without a hearing. The trial court dismissed the complaint on April 8, 2014, without permitting a response or amendment and without taking evidence.
- Pelzer appealed; the trial court later issued a post-appeal order referencing its prior order and declining further filings.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing without permitting amendment/response or holding an evidentiary hearing on exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper without allowing amendment under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(c)(1) | Pelzer: dismissal premature; entitled to 20 days to amend after service of preliminary objections | Defendants: court may dismiss based on their objections | Court: vacated; Pelzer must be given 20 days to amend or respond because dismissal occurred before the 20-day period expired |
| Whether trial court should have allowed any response to preliminary objections | Pelzer: court improperly precluded any response | Defendants: sought resolution without hearing or further briefing | Court: preclusion was improper; Pelzer must be allowed to respond or amend |
| Whether failure-to-exhaust objection can be decided on the record without evidence | Pelzer: alleged he exhausted internal remedies in complaint | Defendants: contended exhaustion not met | Court: factual dispute on exhaustion requires taking evidence; preliminary objection raising factual issues cannot be resolved without depositions or an evidentiary hearing |
| Appropriate remedy/remand instructions | Pelzer: requested reinstatement or further proceedings | Defendants: presumably supported dismissal | Court: vacated dismissal and remanded; directed trial court to notify Pelzer to file amended complaint or response within 20 days and to hold evidentiary hearing on factual issues if raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmitt v. Seaspray-Sharkline, Inc., 531 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. 1987) (trial court must resolve factual issues raised by preliminary objections through depositions, interrogatories, or evidentiary hearing)
- Delaware Valley Underwriting Agency, Inc. v. Williams & Sapp, Inc., 518 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Super. 1986) (appellate court may vacate and remand where trial court ruled on factual preliminary objections without taking evidence)
- Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014) (standard of review for dismissal based on preliminary objections is whether trial court committed error of law or abused its discretion)