R. DeShields v. T. Bennett
R. DeShields v. T. Bennett - 1049 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Inmate Robert DeShields alleged that correctional officer Thomas Bennett confiscated and destroyed roughly $60 in commissary items during a reinventory and transfer between state correctional institutions in February 2014.
- DeShields arrived at SCI-Greene with one TV and one footlocker; his property was unpacked and reinventoried while he was absent and later divided into commissary vs. personal property.
- A DOC confiscated items receipt was prepared but did not bear DeShields’ signature; DeShields submitted a grievance and was told the items had been destroyed on 2/11/14.
- DeShields filed a second amended complaint asserting negligence and willful misconduct; Bennett answered, raised sovereign immunity, and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bennett; on appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the allegations amounted to an intentional taking (conversion) and therefore were barred by sovereign immunity for Commonwealth employees acting within the scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DeShields waived his right to sue by signing the confiscation receipt | DeShields argued he did not sign the receipt and thus did not voluntarily relinquish property | Bennett argued DeShields had effectively consented or acquiesced to confiscation | The court found lack of signature but held waiver/nonwaiver was not material to immunity outcome; no waiver established |
| Whether the claim pleaded was negligence within the personal property exception to sovereign immunity (42 Pa. C.S. § 8522(b)(3)) | DeShields argued Bennett negligently destroyed property and thus fits within the negligence exception to sovereign immunity | Bennett argued the acts alleged were intentional (destruction/conversion) and thus barred by sovereign immunity for intentional torts by state employees | Court held the facts alleged amounted to intentional conduct (conversion), so sovereign immunity barred the claim |
| Whether sovereign immunity permits recovery for the taking/destruction alleged | DeShields relied on cases allowing negligent handling of prisoner property to proceed | Bennett asserted sovereign immunity protects state employees from intentional tort liability while acting in scope of employment | Court held sovereign immunity applies to alleged intentional acts; personal property exception does not cover intentional conversion |
| Whether appellate relitigation of the grievance was permitted | DeShields challenged grievance outcome as part of claim | Bennett and DOC relied on final grievance determination and DOC policy limiting property | Court noted grievance resolution cannot be relitigated in this court; DOC policy supported that confiscation was within duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205 (Pa. 1991) (summary judgment standard)
- Strine v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania MCARE Fund, 894 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (definition of material factual disputes for summary judgment)
- Kull v. Guisse, 81 A.3d 148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (sovereign immunity protects employees for intentional torts within scope of employment)
- McKeeman v. Corestates Bank, 751 A.2d 655 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of conversion)
- Morgalo v. Gorniak, 134 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (intentional taking falls outside the personal property exception to sovereign immunity)
- Williams v. Stickman, 917 A.2d 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (personal property exception can apply to negligent handling of prisoner property)
- LaChance v. Michael Baker Corp., 869 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (sovereign immunity waiver framework under Section 8522)
- Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (no appellate jurisdiction to relitigate grievance decisions)