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 2 6 , 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 SCI

Coal Township. Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this matter will

be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, where SCI

Houtzdale 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 was2

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 check ed

the condition of th e 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 P etition 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. Before3

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 trespas s.

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), 1 in 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 l iability . . . 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 wi ll not

dismiss an erroneously filed matter for lack of jurisdiction

, but rather, wi ll 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, JudgeIN 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 2 6 th day of July, 202 4

, 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 above

captioned 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