Shore v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
168 A.3d 374
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Brian Shore, an inmate at SCI‑Albion, alleged prison mailroom withheld 43 photographs (June 14, 2016) as violative of DC‑ADM 803 / 37 Pa. Code §93.2’s ban on "nudity."
- Shore filed internal grievances (Superintendent denied Aug. 18, 2016; Chief Grievance Officer denied Oct. 17, 2016), then filed a petition for review in Commonwealth Court asserting First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims against the Department (not individual employees).
- Shore claimed the photos were non‑nude, that adjudicators used "benchmarks of morality," and that grievance decisions exceeded DC‑ADM 804 time limits; he also complained he was not permitted to physically view the confiscated photos during review.
- The Department filed preliminary objections (demurrer); Court considered whether Shore stated claims on which relief could be granted and whether the Court had jurisdiction to review grievance determinations.
- Court found (1) DC‑ADM 803 and §93.2 are facially constitutional under precedent; (2) factual/as‑applied challenges to grievance determinations are not reviewable in this Court under Bronson and related authority; and (3) DC‑ADM 804 provides an adequate post‑deprivation remedy and its timing provisions do not create enforceable due process rights.
- Petition dismissed with prejudice; Court also noted sovereign/Eleventh Amendment immunity would bar claims against the Department.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment challenge to confiscation | Shore: photos are non‑nude; Department misapplied DC‑ADM 803 and violated his right to receive non‑obscene mail | Department: DC‑ADM 803 and §93.2 are facially constitutional and prison restrictions on nudity are reasonably related to penological interests; grievance factual findings are not subject to Court review | Court: Dismissed — policy facially constitutional; as‑applied/factual review of grievance determinations is not within Court’s jurisdiction per Bronson/Xavier |
| Procedural due process for confiscation | Shore: denial of opportunity to physically view photos during grievance made process inadequate; requests an in‑camera, inmate‑present review | Department: Post‑deprivation remedies (grievance process, tort remedies) are adequate; pre‑deprivation hearings impracticable for contraband determinations | Court: Dismissed — DC‑ADM 804 provides adequate post‑deprivation process; Shore did not request photo inspection during grievance so cannot now claim inadequacy |
| Failure to meet DC‑ADM 804 time limits | Shore: adjudicators took longer than policy timelines (56 and 35 days) violating due process | Department: Policy’s timing language does not create a protected liberty or property interest; policy disclaims creation of enforceable rights | Court: Dismissed — timing provisions do not create enforceable federal due process rights (Weaver, Bohm) |
| Suit against Department (relief available) | Shore: seeks declaratory relief, return of property, damages, mandamus, and policy changes against Department | Department (and Court sua sponte): Commonwealth and its agencies retain sovereign/Eleventh Amendment immunity from such suits for constitutional claims | Court: Notes immunity would bar claims against Department; dismissed petition with prejudice as amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Brittain v. Beard, 974 A.2d 479 (Pa. 2009) (upholding prison policy prohibiting possession of nudity as serving legitimate penological interests)
- Smith v. Beard, 26 A.3d 551 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (rejecting overbreadth/vagueness challenge to DC‑ADM 803; plaintiff failed to disprove penological interests)
- Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review internal grievance decisions; internal prison administration reserved to executive)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (post‑deprivation remedies can satisfy due process when pre‑deprivation process impracticable)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (prison property deprivations require only adequate post‑deprivation remedies)
- Weaver v. Department of Corrections, 829 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (time limits in prison grievance policy do not create enforceable liberty interests)