223 A.3d 735
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background:
- Sanders, incarcerated at SCI‑Forest, was approached by an officer on Jan. 30, 2017; a "marijuana stick" was found nearby, a strip search followed, and drugs were later found in a garbage can attributed to him.
- Sanders received misconduct convictions, 90 days disciplinary custody, and loss of his prison job; after custody ended the Department recommended placement in a Special Management Unit (SMU).
- Sanders alleges he received no notice of the SMU recommendation rationale and no opportunity to challenge or appeal, and he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking enforcement of DC‑ADM 802 procedures and release to general population.
- The Attorney General and Department respondents filed preliminary objections arguing, inter alia, failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction; the AG argued the petition contained no factual allegations against him.
- The court dismissed the AG as a party for failure to state a claim; it rejected a jurisdictional bar to mandamus review but sustained the Department respondents’ objection and dismissed the mandamus petition because DC‑ADM 802 is a policy disclaiming enforceable rights and 37 Pa. Code §93.11(b) only requires due process as already recognized by controlling law.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim properly states a cause of action against the Attorney General | Sanders named AG as respondent but alleged no facts against him | AG: petition contains no allegations to permit defense or joinder | Court: sustain AG objection; no facts against AG; AG dismissed |
| Whether Commonwealth Court lacks jurisdiction because this is an improper review of misconduct/grievance decisions | Sanders seeks mandamus to compel compliance with SMU placement procedures, not review of misconduct appeals | Dept: inmate misconduct/grievance matters are not subject to this Court's appellate/original review | Court: overruled jurisdiction objection as framed; mandamus claim potentially within original jurisdiction when not merely a misconduct appeal |
| Whether DC‑ADM 802 creates enforceable rights/duties supporting mandamus | Sanders: DC‑ADM 802 and its AC Procedures Manual require notice and opportunity to respond/appeal for SMU recommendations | Dept: DC‑ADM 802 is a departmental policy with disclaimer language and does not create enforceable rights | Court: sustain objection; DC‑ADM 802 disclaimer and precedent show policy does not create a mandamus‑enforceable right |
| Whether 37 Pa. Code §93.11(b) (RHU due process language) supports mandamus relief for SMU placement | Sanders: regulation requires due process for restricted housing and thus supports his claim | Dept: regulation only requires "due process in accordance with established principles of law," which does not create a right to process where no liberty interest exists | Court: sustain objection; §93.11(b) only requires due process as required by law, and Sandin precludes a protected liberty interest in segregated placement here |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (establishes that state‑created liberty interests arise only for "atypical and significant" hardships; segregated confinement there did not create a protected liberty interest)
- Tindell v. Dep't of Corr., 87 A.3d 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (prison rule violations that do not implicate established statutory or constitutional rights do not support mandamus)
- Shore v. Dep't of Corr., 168 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (department policy does not create mandamus‑enforceable rights; failure to follow policy alone is not a cause of action)
- Weaver v. Dep't of Corr., 829 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (policy disclaimer language defeats reasonable expectation of an enforceable right)
- Chadwick v. Dauphin Cty. Office of Coroner, 905 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (writ of mandamus enforces ministerial/mandatory duties; cannot control exercise of discretion)
- Filippi v. Kwitowski, 880 A.2d 711 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (mandamus elements: clear legal right, corresponding duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- Meier v. Maleski, 648 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (preliminary‑objection standard: accept well‑pleaded facts, reject legal conclusions)
- Bronson v. Cent. Office Review Comm., 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998) (Commonwealth Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over inmate grievance/misconduct appeals)
- Phila. Cty. Intermediate Unit No. 26 v. Dep't of Educ., 432 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (pleadings must be specific enough to enable a defense)
- Cmwlth. ex rel. Buehl v. Price, 705 A.2d 933 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (administrative rules do not by themselves create rights in inmates)
- Bush v. Veach, 1 A.3d 981 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (recognizes circumstances where mandamus may require compliance with Department regulations)