IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anthony S. Twitty, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

The Pa. Dept. of Corr., : No. 36 M.D. 2023

Respondent : Submitted: July 5, 2024

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: July 26, 2024

Anthony S. Twitty (Twitty), an inmate in the State Correctional 

Institution (SCI) at Coal Township, has filed a Petition in this Court’s original 

jurisdiction alleging that negligence by personnel of the Pennsylvania Department 

of Corrections (DOC) at SCI-Houtzdale in packing his personal property resulted in 

damage to his television set in transit during his transfer from SCI-Houtzdale to SCICoal Township. Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this matter will 

be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, where SCIHoutzdale is located.

I. Background

Twitty alleges that his television set was undamaged and in working 

order when he surrendered it to personnel at SCI-Houtzdale to be packed for 

transport upon his transfer to SCI-Coal Township. When his belongings arrived at 

SCI-Coal Township, however, the television had a broken cable connector and was 
2

unusable. Twitty filed a claim at SCI-Coal Township but was informed that he 

would need to grieve the issue at SCI-Houtzdale. He did so and exhausted all levels 

of the grievance process. Twitty relied on a DOC policy indicating that DOC 

personnel are responsible for packing an inmate’s property for transfer and that the 

sending institution is responsible for any damages occurring in transit. His grievance 

was denied, however, because prison personnel alleged that they had not checked

the condition of the television’s cable connector when packing the television; thus, 

there was no documentation that the cable connector was not already damaged when 

the television was surrendered for packing.

Twitty then commenced this action in this Court’s original jurisdiction. 

His claim sounds in negligence, inasmuch as a fair reading of his Petition reveals 

averments that DOC personnel had a duty to exercise due care in packing his 

television and that the failure to use proper care caused damage to the television, as 

shown by the arrival of the television in damaged condition although the box in 

which it was shipped was undamaged. See Quinones v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 45 

A.3d 467, 470 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (quoting Brown v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 11 A.3d 

1054, 1056 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (explaining that the plaintiff in a negligence action 

“must establish that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) that 

duty was breached; (3) the breach resulted in the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) the 

plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damages”) (additional quotation marks omitted)).

II. Discussion

The DOC asserts preliminary objections contending that the Petition 

fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, is insufficiently specific, and 

improperly seeks appellate review of an internal grievance determination. Before 
3

we can reach any of these issues, however, we must first determine whether this 

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim asserted in the Petition. See 

Williams v. Wetzel, 232 A.3d 652, 654 (Pa. 2020) (stating that a court may raise the 

issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte). We conclude that we lack such 

jurisdiction.

Section 761(a)(1)(v) of the Judicial Code provides:

The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction 

of all civil actions or proceedings:

(1) Against the Commonwealth government, including 

any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity, except:

. . . .

(v) actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass as to 

which the Commonwealth government formerly enjoyed 

sovereign or other immunity and actions or proceedings in 

the nature of assumpsit relating to such actions or 

proceedings in the nature of trespass.

42 Pa. C.S. §761(a)(1)(v). Stated simply, an action in trespass that would formerly 

have been barred by immunity is excepted from this Court’s original jurisdiction.

This case is on all fours with Velez v. Wetzel (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 651 

M.D. 2020, filed Mar. 14, 2024),1in which an inmate filed a petition in this Court’s 

original jurisdiction seeking, inter alia, money damages for damage to his television 

allegedly caused by the negligence of prison personnel. This Court explained in 

Velez:

“An action in trespass . . . lie[s] ‘for redress in the shape 

of money damages for any unlawful injury done to the 

plaintiff, in respect either to his person, property, or rights, 

by the immediate force and violence of the defendant.’”

1 This unreported decision is cited as persuasive authority pursuant to Section 414(a) of 

this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).
4

Balshy v. Rank, . . . 490 A.2d 415, 420 ([Pa.] 1985) 

(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1674 (4th rev. ed. 

1968)). Actions in the nature of trespass are expressly 

excluded from our original jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S. §

761(a)(1)(v). Simply stated, “this Court lacks original 

jurisdiction over tort actions for money damages . . . .”

Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

“[A]ll actions against the Commonwealth or its officers 

acting in their official capacity for money damages based 

upon tort liability . . . are properly commenced in the 

courts of common pleas.” Stackhouse v. Commonwealth, 

. . . 832 A.2d 1004, 1008 ([Pa.] 2003); see Pa. Const. art. 

5, § 5(b) (our courts of common pleas “hav[e] unlimited 

original jurisdiction in all cases except as may otherwise 

be provided by law”).

Velez, slip op. at 10-11. We find the reasoning of Velez persuasive here and likewise 

conclude that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over Twitty’s claim.

Pursuant to Section 5103(a) of the Judicial Code, this Court will not 

dismiss an erroneously filed matter for lack of jurisdiction, but rather, will transfer 

the case to the proper tribunal. 42 Pa. C.S. § 5103(a); see Velez, slip op. at 11 (first 

citing Mayo v. Sec’y of Pa. Dep’t of Corr. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 479 M.D. 2018, filed 

Dec. 9, 2020); and then citing Prater v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 392 

M.D. 2018, filed July 10, 2019)). Accordingly, as SCI-Houtzdale is located in 

Clearfield County, we will transfer this matter to the Court of Common Pleas of 

Clearfield County.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this case will be transferred to the Court of 

Common Pleas of Clearfield County.

___________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Anthony S. Twitty, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

The Pa. Dept. of Corr., : No. 36 M.D. 2023

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 26

th day of July, 2024, this matter is TRANSFERRED to the 

Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The Commonwealth Court Prothonotary shall transmit the record of the abovecaptioned proceedings to the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Clearfield County, together with a copy of this opinion and order, as well as a copy 

of this matter’s docket entries.

___________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge