George R. Sweatt (Petitioner) brings this action pro se 1 in the original jurisdiction of the Court seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to enjoin the Department of Corrections (DOC) and its authorized personnel (Respondents) from deducting costs, fines and restitution from his inmate account pursuant to Section 9728(b)(5) of the Sentencing Code, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)(5), and DOC Policy DC-DAM 005, entitled “Collection of Inmate Debts,” and requiring reimbursement of any monies seized from his account. Respondents filed preliminary objections alleging lack of proper service by Petitioner and demurring to Petitioner’s argument that the statute relied upon by DOC is unconstitutional and represents an ex post facto law.
Petitioner is an inmate сurrently confined at the State Correctional Institute at Huntingdon where he is serving an 18 to 60 month sentence imposed by the Court of Cоmmon Pleas of Armstrong County on April 30, 1996 after having been convicted
Petitioner states in his petition thаt because his conviction took place two years prior to the passage of Act 84, its provisions do not aрply to him while he is incarcerated. He relies in part on the Court’s decisions in
Weaver v. Department of Corrections,
The Court held in Weaver that the regulations were properly promulgated and that neither the Medical Services Act nor the regulatiоns constituted ex post facto laws in violation of Article I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution as they were not penal in nature. In addition, the Cоurt held that the Act and its implementing regulations apply only prospectively. In Byrd the Court reversed an order issued by the Secrеtary of DOC that assessed costs against an inmate for medical services rendered five years before the effectivе date of the Department’s regulations and three years before the effective date of the Act. The Court determinеd in Byrd that the Department’s assessment resulted from an impermissible retroactive application of the Act and the regulations.
When ruling upon preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded аllegations of material fact as well as all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom.
Rodgers v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Upon review of the allegations pleaded, the Court concludes that Respondents’ preliminary objections should be sustained. As Respondents argue, Act 84 is not penal in nature, but rather it provides a procedural mechanism for DOC to collect court costs and fines.
Commonwealth v. Berryman,
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2001, the preliminary objections filed by Respondents Department of Corrections, Kenneth D. Kyler and Charles E. Martin are sustained, and the petition for review filed by Petitioner George R. Sweatt is dismissed.
Notes
. By letter dated September 15, 2000, Petitioner sought to have counsel appointed for the purpose of filing a brief in opposition to Respondents’ brief. By Order dated September 18, 2000, the Court denied Petitioner’s request on the basis that he is not entitled to the appointment of counsel in this civil action. Petitioner did not file a brief in opposition to Respondеnts’ brief.
. Section § 9728(b)(5) now reads:
The county correctional facility to which the offender has been sentenced or the Department of Corrections shall be authorized to make monetary deductions from inmate personal accounts for the purpose of collecting restitution or any other court-ordered obligation. Any amount deducted shall be transmitted by the Department of Corrections or the county correctional facility to the probation department of the county or other agent designated by the county commissioners of the county with the approval of the president judge of the county in which the offender was convicted. The Department of Corrections shall develop guidelines relating to its responsibilities under this paragraph.
. Article I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution forbids the passage of any law which imposes any punishment for an act not punishable at the time it was committed or which imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed. See Weaver. The ex post facto clause has been interpreted by the courts to apply exclusively to penal statutes; the penal law must apply to events which occurred before its enactment and it must disadvantage the affected offender. Id.