Danysh v. Department of Corrections

ORDER regard drive with due duty safety persons. of all March, NOW, 24th AND 3105(e). not, however, expressly It does the order of the Court Common of care. create an actionable standard the mo- County denying Pleas Somerset Thus, although grants privi- Section judgment pleadings on the filed tion for vehicles, it leges emergency drivers of Pennsylvania Trooper Police and State law liabili- expand does not their common David Holtzman is REVERSED. ty. relinquished. Jurisdiction Clearly, emergency vehicle of drivers of reduces the duties doctrine comply with some

emergency vehicles Code.

provisions of Vehicle of those totally

it does not abolish duties duty re or “floor”

drivers. residual So, emergency while drivers of

mains. privileges granted conditional

vehicles inconsistent with operate in a manner Code, they must still drive the Vehicle DANYSH, Petitioner, Michael the circumstances. regard due Phila., City See Johnson 3015(e) (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). does Section CORRECTIONS; DEPARTMENT OF existing; duty not create a not otherwise Accounting Cindy Walsavage, Inmate duty of recognizes the residual rather Shannon, Superin I; Robert Assistant emergency vehicles. drivers In Correctional tendent of State emergency Frackville, vehicle doctrine Respondents. Because stitution duties, supply it cannot not create does Pennsylvania. Court of Commonwealth here, where no common cause of action This duty fleeing to a motorist. exists on Briefs Feb. Submitted entire gives effect to the interpretation 24, 2004. Decided March result, yields a reasonable provision, interest, “preem- which is public favors the pursue fleeing motor- police

inent” when Lindstrom, A.2d 563 Pa. at

ist. the trial court Consequently,

at 397.7 3105(e) cre- determining Section

erred duty in cir- legal these

ates an actionable

cumstances.8 foregoing, we reverse.

Based on the significant that the it is argument, 8. Parents also assert a similar 7. Confronted with statutory incorporates the pursuit policy PSP Supreme Alaska reached the same Court of set forth emergency vehicle drivers duties of Day (interpreting similar See Estate result. 3105(e). we conclude Because focusing on emergency provision as vehicle 3105(e) statutory create a does not persons than safety rather of innocent motorist; incorporation fleeing duty toward fleeing duty protect offend- establishing a language pursuit the PSP into ers). policy is immaterial. Danysh, petitioner, pro se. Kurt M. Hill, Robinson, Camp for re- Alan M. spondent. COLINS, Judge, President

BEFORE: SMITH-RIBNER, J., McGINLEY, J., FRIEDMAN, J., PELLEGRINI, J., LEAVITT, COHN, J., and J. Judge BY LEAVITT. OPINION juris- original to this Court’s Addressed filed, pro for review1 petition diction is a se, Danysh against Michael (Department), Corrections Accounting As- Walsavage, Inmate Cindy Shannon, I, Superinten- and Robert sistant Institution of the State Correctional dent filing as a filing that his be treated Danysh originally “Com- rected titled his By plaint in Civil Action—In Mandamus.” for review. January Court di- dated order (Respondents). Danysh dating Frackville both alia, seeks, an order directing inter Re- trial order continuing court’s amended spondents not to include in his to deduct 20% of all funds his inmate they inmate account when calculate deduc- account, including those funds derived tions therefrom and to return deduc- prior from gifts. Danysh

tions made that asserts are unlaw- objections, In preliminary their Re ful. filed Respondents preliminary have spondents Danysh that objections assert not enti in the nature of a demurrer. tled to relief the because deductions taken an inmate at Danysh is the State Cor- from his pur inmate account were lawful at In rectional Institution Frackville. his 9728(b)(5) to of suant the Sentenc petition Danysh avers that in July 2002 he ing 9728(b)(5), com Depart- notice that received monly and referred to as that the Policy ment Statement DC-ADM 005 the “personal statute except gifts” did not sum monthly of would be deducted $193.50 the from of income available for definition restitution, to pay his inmate account the collection of restitution other fees, fines to the costs and Court of Com- (trial obligations of inmates. Re mon Susquehanna County Pleas of court). maintain that none spondents also of them The then mak- began case; parties ing Danysh’s were to the criminal accord the deductions account. Danysh ingly, filed a motion with trial trial court’s amended order is requesting stopped. that the deductions be not against enforceable them.3 In response, the trial court issued order objections in Preliminary the na that the deductions directing were to con- ture of a deemed to all demurrer are admit tinue Danysh’s the rate 20% of well-pleaded and any material facts infer income, monthly account bal- therefrom, reasonably ences deduced but ance Danysh did not fall below $10.00.2 the complaint’s legal not conclusions and through filed grievance griev- inmate averments. Reider v. Bureau process, ance which was Correc unsuccessful. tion, Danysh filed the instant for Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d 272 petition then (1985). review, asserting Respondents pro of a allegations are vi- se corn- hereby September amending 2. Code amended order of as follows: trial court reads Depart- authorize such collection WIT, September, NOW TO this 3rd ment Corrections. Petitioner's, B, upon Review, review Kurt M. Petition Exhibit Or- for “Amended Danysh, Stop Payment Motion for and/or der.” Fine, Pay Extension of Time the court finding petitioner has’ no other court Danysh, 833 In Commonwealth v. A.2d 151 as, obligations, alimony such (Pa.Super.2003), Superior Court held support having and we child no rea- and/or trial rather than the court had Court he has as rent son to believe debts such jurisdiction subject adjudi exclusive matter being educational debts he incarcerated enjoin cate an civil action inmate's prior attaining majority, to his the filed deducting monies his Payment Stop Motion to Extension and/or pay costs and account to fines. The inmate Pay hereby of Time to Fine be and is properly brought petition should have been (20%) twenty per We deem cent nied. governmental review of a deter petitioner’s, Danysh, monthly M. m original jurisdic this Court's ination within come, provided his account balance ex- Superior Court vacated tion. The the trial ($10), to be ceeds ten dollars a reasonable order, rendering Danysh's court’s moot re to be collected amount quest for enforcement of that order. of Corrections as authorized Act 84 sources, wages, gifts and including stringent various are held to a less stan- plainant of funds filed benefits. source applied pleadings government dard than that reading If a fair moment. by attorneys. Id. is of no complainant complaint shows repeatedly held Our Courts have relief, him to pleaded facts that entitle Sentencing Code objections over- will be to make deduc- authorizes the be sus- ruled. Id. demurrer should to an inmate’s deposited from income only in that are clear and free tained cases Donnelly, 827 Russell v. account. See only appears from doubt and where (Pa.Cmwlth.2008), Boyd v. De- A.2d 585 recovery no certainty permits that the law (Pa. partment allegations pleaded. the Sweatt v. Cmwlth.2003); Harding v. Stickman A.2d 574 769 Department of (Pa.Cmwlth. Greene, A.2d 1110 823 SCI (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). of the al- Upon review (Pa. Beard, 2003); 824 A2d 393 George conclude that the legations pleaded, we Cmwlth.2003); v. Flem Commonwealth preliminary objections Department of the (Pa.Super.2002); 669 Swee ing, 804 A.2d should be sustained. (Pa.Cmwlth. Lotz, A.2d 449 ney v. 787 (Pa. Beard, 2001); Buck v. 834 Danysh’s from in Deductions Cmwlth.2003). In with its stat compliance expressly mate account have been author developed utory duty, Department the by ized amendments to the Sen 84 Policy in guidelines, set forth Statement in tencing provides Code. The statute of In- entitled “Collections DC-ADM part relevant as follows: Policy pro- mate Debts.” The Statement the of Corrections shall be ... that “the business office will vides monetary authorized to make deduc [djeduct month- from the inmate’s account for personal inmate accounts ly preceding for 20% of the payments purpose collecting the restitution or provided income the account bal- month’s any obligations.... other court-ordered 005, Part DC-ADM ance exceeds $10.00.” The of Corrections shall de VI(C)(4)(a). velop guidelines relating responsi to its paragraph. bilities under this Nevertheless, Danysh asserts that the added).4 personal § from his (emphasis 42 deductions Pa.C.S. account are unlawful under Section 8127 Legislature The has not ex- § 42 per- in Pa.C.S. ception gifts placed Judicial account, by amended Act 84. require sonal and it does not the which was also § earn- Department to of all entitled “Personal account for the source Pa.C.S. protects per- ings exempt process,” funds in an account inmate’s be- possession of an em- earnings fore deductions. The ac- sonal garnishment. Arguably, may ployer count of an inmate be derived from ity probation department of the coun- 4. to the The full text county ty agent designated by or other facility county The correctional ap- county offender has been sentenced or commissioners which the county shall be au- president judge of Corrections proval of the monetary make deductions from thorized to offender was convicted. in which the purpose accounts for the inmate develop Department of shall Corrections collecting other court- restitution relating responsibilities guidelines to its un- obligation. Any deducted amount paragraph. der this by Department of shall be transmitted 9728(b)(5). § county facil- Corrections or the correctional by de- themselves way find its to an inmates rehabilitate personal gift a should responsibili- of financial custody, veloping it would be sheltered sense employer’s § ty”).7 under 42 Pa.C.S. for “resti- exception there is an Here, legitimate penological there is victims, costs, fines or bail tution to crime on an inmate’s collecting interest debts to an order entered of his criminal consequence incurred as a proceeding.” in a criminal encourages It rehabilitation conviction. 8127(a)(5).5 exception is This responsibility. instilling a sense of financial cover all enough to broad funds ability The issue of an inmate’s even custody employer, of an be time of sen- by the court reviewed personal gifts. tencing. Wagner, holding Reynolds estab- failed to aver facts to Danysh has Cir.1997) here. is instructive F.3d hearings to additional legal right lish a Third Circuit Court of Reynolds, In to collection requirement a threshold constitutionality Appeals considered of the other for medical care re- plan a fee-for-serviee requests. relief he found by an inmate. The Court quested and are sustained tions adopted plan fee-for-service was is dismissed. Danysh’s petition for review responsibility financial prisoners to teach call, the abuse of sick and and to deter fall within the goals of these well

both ORDER penological interests.6 legitimate ambit March, 627, NOW, this 24th Quinlan, F.2d AND also James v. 866 See (3d Cir.1989) (“Here objections Respondents’ preliminary Fi- the Inmate 630 hereby matter are above-captioned in the Program ap- would Responsibility nancial is for review legiti- to a sustained and reasonably to be related pear dismissed. encouraging interest penological mate concerning 8127(a) judgments make the difficult of the Judi- 5. Act 84 amended Section Code, 8127(a), operations. by adding sub- stitutional cial 42 Pa.C.S. 175, (quoting v. (a)(5) Reynolds, Turner provides: 128 F.3d section which 78, 89, Safley, S.Ct. 96 482 U.S. 107 (a) exceptions. General rule —The 64 (1987)). L.Ed.2d wages, of individ- salaries and commissions employ- while in the hands of uals shall Higgins Beyer, 7.On the other hand attachment, execu- exempt from er be Cir.2002), statute for a state F.3d 683 process except upon an action tion or-other assessment from of a crime victims’ collection proceeding: account was found to be con- prohibiting the attach-’ with Federal law flict victims, costs, (5) crime For restitution to disability checks veterans’ ment of inmate’s to an or- fines or bail 5301(a). § The Court rea- under 38 U.S.C. pro- by a court in a criminal der entered Supremacy Clause the that under the soned ceeding. abrogated by the conflict- been state law had simply ing state lacked Federal statute. The explained: 6. The Court authority benefits to override veterans’ similarly protects So- [Wjhen Congress. impinges Federal law prison regulation on in- 407(a). § Security at 42 U.S.C. regulation benefits rights, cial mates’ constitutional Arkansas, S.Ct. U.S. legiti- reasonably Bennett is related is valid if it Here, (1988). view, is not 99 L.Ed.2d 455 In our penological interests. mate by Danysh his inmate account necessary prison ad- contended if such a standard ministrators, courts, Security benefits. or Veterans' contains Social and not however, majority, and commission.” CONCURRING/DISSENTING its own Judge support BY OPINION SMITH-RIBNER. has rewritten rewritten, interpretation: majority that Section agree I with the per- authority deductions Code, 42 Pa. “wages, now covers inmate accounts sonal 9728(b), § authorizes the C.S. Op. at government to make deductions from of Corrections benefits.” to 263. in an inmate’s account income depart, restitution. I collect court-ordered 8127(a) of the amended Section however, majority’s decision 8127(a), by § Judicial Respondents’ preliminary sustain (a)(5). adding subsection on in the nature of a demurrer based 8127(a)(5) now holding the broad (a) exceptions.— rule and General from “all of 20% may make deductions and commissions wages, salaries in an inmate’s account funds” hands of while individuals shall earn- derived from institutional

whether at- employer exempt be majority gifts. The ings or from tachment, ex- process execution or other un- exemption relies on the proceeding: cept upon an action Code, 42 der Section 8127 of the Judicial to crime for “restitution victims, costs, judgments pur- fines or bail victims, to crime For restitution court in a suant to an order entered costs, judgments pursuant or bail fines proceeding.” criminal in a entered to an order added.) proceeding. (Emphasis majority the view criminal expresses also legitimate penological interests that the amendments question There is no in an inmate’s debt collecting be advanced “wages, to salaries attachments restrict from his or her inmate account in the institution’s and commissions” ability pay a debt and that an inmate’s to Act 84 also amended hands. in the first instance at the is determined 9728(b) of the Code. sentencing. disagree of I do not time now in be advanced penological interests should facility to county correctional state, any or in other but I do dis- this has been sentenced which the offender agree with the notion that the shall be authorized [DOC] or the personal gifts, can deductions from make monetary deductions from inmate make property, or of an inmate when private purpose of col- accounts for the power expressly is not authorized any other court- lecting restitution or Furthermore, statute. no record exists de- obligation. Any amount Court, agency, before this or before the by the transmitted ducted shall be of involved or as to gifts to the nature facility county correctional or the [DOC] making instituted for procedures coun- department probation to the recording them in gifts ductions from or designated by the ty agent or other authority Also inmate accounts. county of the with county commissioners monetary deductions from judge president approval account is under Sec- inmate’s restricted was county in which the offender 8127(a)(5) of the Judicial tion develop shall 8127(a)(5), [DOC] salaries convicted. “wages, 18, 1998, October P.L. effective Act of June 1. Act No. 84 of affording the inmate gifts without first guidelines relating responsibilities to its protection. paragraph. appropriate some due under this Wagner, 128 F.3d 166 Reynolds See v. guidelines and issued its developed DOC Cir.1997). that “the busi- policy providing statement [djeduct ... from the ness office will Corrections, In Sweatt monthly for 20% payments mate’s account (Pa.Cmwlth.2001), 769 A.2d 576-577 month’s income preceding following princi- the Court reiterated exceeds DC- the account balance $10.00.” ple: VI(C)(4)(a). 005, Part ADM ruling upon When essentially adopts the view majority demurrer, of a the nature policy statement is that the Court, well-plead- all accept must as true statutory authority and that it upon based as well as allegations ed of material fact supports argument all reasonable inferences deducible any family members or from other required is not therefrom. The Court outside source unrelated to accept as true conclusions law deposited to the earnings institutional demurrer, expressions opinion. subject automatic account are inmate’s suit, in the dismissal of a which results restitution or other deduction only cases should be sustained obligation.2 only free and clear from doubt Chimenti certainty with that the appears where it (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff'd, 720 A.2d recovery the alle- no permits law (1999), 379, 740 A.2d 1139 559 Pa. omitted.) (Citations gations pleaded. that “a statement of Court indicated can- reasoning, majority agency’s statutory inter Based on its' governmental is a case is free may accept say that the issue which a not pretation, accurately appears and that it reject depending upon how and clear from doubt permit the mean agency’s interpretation certainty effects would (quoting recovery allegations Central Dau under the ing of the statute.” no relief or Ed Accordingly, District v. I dissent from the phin pleaded. School 426, 434, ucation, A.2d Respondents’ prelimi- Pa.Cmwlth. decision to sustain (1992)). policy Department’s of a demur- objections in the nature nary to auto devolving upon power itself the rer.

matically deduct 20% joins this dissent. Judge FRIEDMAN authorized, statutorily inmates is not therefore, and, binding on the it is not upheld Although

Court. Court authority under income, it from inmate

make deductions authori corresponding follow that

does not

ty exists to make deductions liability. Clearly, such automatic logi- Taking majority’s most view to its limits, allow statement would Act 84. cal not authorized ductions are automatic deductions to damages support, for civil child against other court- the inmate or suits

Case Details

Case Name: Danysh v. Department of Corrections

Court Name: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Mar 24, 2004

Citation: 845 A.2d 260

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Commw. Ct.