R. Comrie v. PA DOC
R. Comrie v. PA DOC - 697 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Robert Comrie, an SCI-Houtzdale inmate, filed a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections seeking his DC-300B court commitment form and correction of alleged errors (credit time).
- The Department granted the RTKL request and produced a redacted DC-300B form (SID redacted); Comrie disputed the accuracy of information on the form.
- Comrie appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR) but failed to include a copy of his original RTKL request and the agency response with the OOR appeal.
- OOR issued a notice of filing deficiency giving seven days to cure; Comrie did not supply the missing documents, and OOR dismissed the appeal as insufficient.
- Comrie petitioned this Court for review challenging OOR’s dismissal and arguing the Department relied on an incorrect DC-300B and violated his due process rights.
- The Court considered only whether the appeal was legally sufficient under the RTKL and affirmed OOR’s dismissal; it also explained RTKL is not the proper remedy to correct or challenge the computation or accuracy of sentencing records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Comrie’s OOR appeal was legally sufficient under RTKL §1101(a)(1) | Comrie argued OOR should address the alleged inaccuracies in the DC-300B form | Department implicitly argued appeal lacked required materials and OOR lacked a complete record | Appeal was legally insufficient; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether failure to include original request and agency response justifies dismissal | Comrie did not provide those documents and argued on merits instead | OOR asserted required attachments were missing and issued deficiency notice | Missing attachments and failure to cure warranted dismissal (appeal insufficient) |
| Whether RTKL can be used to compel correction of inaccurate records | Comrie sought correction of alleged clerical errors and credit adjustments via RTKL | Department provided the record; argued RTKL is for disclosure, not correction | RTKL is for disclosure only; it cannot be used to compel correction of records |
| Appropriate remedy for correcting sentencing/credit errors | Comrie sought correction via RTKL appeal | Department and Court pointed to mandamus, habeas corpus, or original action depending on source of error | Mandamus or other judicial remedies (habeas or original action) — not RTKL — are the proper routes to correct sentence computation or ambiguous sentencing orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Padgett v. Pennsylvania State Police, 73 A.3d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (appeal must state records sought are public and address agency grounds for denial)
- Department of Corrections v. Office of Open Records, 18 A.3d 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (appeal must address agency’s grounds for denial)
- Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (RTKL’s purpose is disclosure of public records)
- Allen v. Department of Corrections, 103 A.3d 365 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (mandamus is the remedy to compel correction by a government agency; RTKL not for corrections)
- Commonwealth v. Heredia, 97 A.3d 392 (Pa. Super. 2014) (describing proper remedies: original action for Bureau computation errors or habeas for ambiguous trial-court sentences)