R. Weaver v. Commonwealth of PA Dept. of Corrections Employees
R. Weaver v. Commonwealth of PA Dept. of Corrections Employees - 1860 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Ronald D. Weaver (Appellant), a state prisoner, sued alleging exposure to inmates’ smoking and burning pine-tree air fresheners at SCI–Laurel Highlands harmed his health.
- Defendants moved to revoke Weaver’s in forma pauperis (IFP) status under the PLRA “three strikes” provision, 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f).
- The record showed Weaver had at least five prior prisoner-condition actions dismissed under § 6602(e)(2).
- A hearing on the motion was held without Weaver’s presence at his request; the trial court gave Weaver 30 days to pay filing fees or the complaint would be dismissed.
- Weaver claimed an “imminent danger” of serious bodily injury (secondhand smoke/toxic air fresheners) and pointed to alleged medical corroboration; the record contained a corrections health‑care affidavit that did not corroborate imminent danger and Weaver disputed its veracity.
- The trial court found Weaver did not make a "credible allegation" of imminent danger and thus properly revoked IFP; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation of IFP under §6602(f) was proper given prior dismissals | Weaver argued his current complaint should proceed IFP despite prior dismissals | Defendants argued Weaver is an "abusive litigator" with multiple §6602(e)(2) dismissals, so §6602(f) permits revocation | Court held revocation proper because record confirmed at least five prior §6602(e)(2) dismissals |
| Whether Weaver alleged "imminent danger" to trigger PLRA exception | Weaver claimed imminent danger from secondhand smoke/toxic air fresheners, supported by alleged medical evidence | Defendants and trial court noted Weaver did not seek preliminary injunctive relief and record lacked credible corroboration of imminent danger | Court held Weaver failed to make a "credible allegation" of imminent danger, so exception did not apply |
| Constitutional challenge to §6602(f) (equal protection / Remedies Clause) | Weaver argued revocation denied meaningful access to courts and violated equal protection/Remedies Clause | Defendants relied on precedent upholding §6602(f) as a rational deterrent to frivolous suits and not a total bar to litigation | Court rejected constitutional challenge, following precedent that §6602(f) restricts IFP status but does not bar filing suits if fees are paid |
| Adequacy of process (hearing without appellant) | Weaver implicitly challenged procedure by noting hearing occurred without him | Defendants noted Weaver requested hearing without his presence | Court did not find abuse of discretion; no reversible procedural error identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Capitolo, 498 A.2d 806 (Pa. 1985) (definition of “imminent”)
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 58 A.3d 118 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (definition of “credible allegation” for PLRA imminent‑danger exception)
- Jae v. Good, 946 A.2d 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (upheld constitutionality of PLRA three‑strikes rule)
- Smolsky v. General Assembly, 34 A.3d 316 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (three‑strikes rule does not violate Remedies Clause or access‑to‑courts when fees required)
- Lopez v. Haywood, 41 A.3d 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (procedural precedent on payment deadline following IFP revocation)