Smolsky v. Pennsylvania General Assembly
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 595
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Smolsky, an inmate, filed a pro se petition for review on behalf of all inmates challenging PLRA §6602(f)(1).
- Petition seeks to declare §6602(f)(1) unconstitutional as conflicting with Remedies Clause Art. I, §11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- Respondents (Department and General Assembly) filed preliminary objections; demurrer and immunity defenses asserted.
- Court previously held §6602(f) does not violate access to courts and denied in forma pauperis revocation.
- Court sustained Respondents’ preliminary objections, including immunity for the General Assembly, and dismissed Smolsky’s petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §6602(f)(1) violate the Remedies Clause | Smolsky argues strategic, constitutional conflict. | §6602(f)(1) rationally furthers deterring frivolous suits. | No; §6602(f)(1) withstands constitutional scrutiny. |
| Is the General Assembly immune from Smolsky’s claims | Claims target legislative actions; not actionable. | Speech or Debate Clause immunizes legislative acts. | Yes; immunity bars claims against the General Assembly. |
| Does petition state a cognizable claim under PLRA | Plaintiff seeks access to courts notwithstanding prior dismissals. | PLRA limits in forma pauperis abuse, not all access. | Demurrer sustained; petition dismissed. |
| Were the claims barred by prior procedures or status | N/A in summary. | Statutory framework governs dismissals and immunity. | Not necessary to state a claim; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jae v. Good, 946 A.2d 802 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (access to courts not absolute; rational basis review applies to non-fundamental rights)
- Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 913 A.2d 301 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (PLRA does not violate rights; frivolous claims sanctionable)
- Ieropoli v. AC&S Corp., 577 Pa. 138 (2004) (Accrual rule; preserved rights under Remedies Clause)
- Consumers Education and Protective Association v. Nolan, 470 Pa. 872 (1977) (Speech or Debate Clause given broad protection to legislators)
- Sweeney v. Merrymead Farm, Inc., 799 A.2d 972 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (Immunity affirmative defense may be raised by preliminary objections)
- Lincoln Party v. General Assembly, 682 A.2d 1326 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (Legislation falls within legitimate legislative sphere)