Richardson v. Wetzel
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 308
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Richardson, pro se, filed a civil rights action in forma pauperis against the DOC Defendants in December 2011.
- Second amended complaint alleged that a 2011 prison misconduct charge and 45 days in restrictive housing were retaliatory for Richardson's IRS communications.
- DOC Defendants filed preliminary objections asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Attachments included the misconduct decision records showing the charge was based on a fraudulent tax claim theory, with Richardson maintaining innocence.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding review of prison misconduct proceedings is generally not subject to judicial review and that the alleged retaliation did not fail to further a legitimate penological goal.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed, ruling the facts did not show the misconduct charges were fabricated and that Richardson failed to plead a non-penologically legitimate motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a First Amendment retaliation claim | Richardson asserts retaliation for IRS communications. | DOC Defendants contend the claim fails under Yount and related precedent. | Not stated; fails to show lack of legitimate penological purpose. |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | Judicial review is available to challenge fabricated misconduct. | Prison misconduct proceedings are not ordinarily subject to judicial review absent exceptional circumstances. | Affirmed; court lacking jurisdiction over review of misconduct proceedings. |
| Whether the alleged retaliation did not further a legitimate penological goal | Charges were falsified to retaliate against protected conduct. | Charges and disciplinary action were for legitimate penitential purposes. | Affirmed; allegations insufficient to negate a legitimate penological objective. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yount v. Department of Corrections, 600 Pa. 418 (2009) (four-prong test for retaliation claims; burden to show lack of penological interest)
- Bussinger v. Department of Corrections, 29 A.3d 79 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (mail as a protected form of communication)
- Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (reiteration that mere charging/finding guilty is insufficient for retaliation claim)
- Barndt v. Department of Corrections, 902 A.2d 589 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (limited exception permitting consideration of documents attached to demurrer)
- Sevin v. Kelshaw, 417 Pa.Super. 1 (1992) (pleading framework for claims; need to state essential facts)
- Marrow v. Marrow, 917 A.2d 361 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (fact-pleading requirement; does not treat conclusions as facts)
- Edmunson v. Horn, 694 A.2d 1179 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (caution against accepting bare conclusions as facts)
- Cruz v. Department of Corrections, 2012 WL 8655012 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (unpublished memorandum applying similar retaliation analysis)
- Doolin v. United States, 918 F.2d 15 (2d Cir.1990) (federal jurisdiction over certain Form 3911 refund claims)