IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1868 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: June 9, 2017

Pennsylvania Department :

of Corrections, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: October 31, 2017

Alton Brown, pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Office of 

Open Records (OOR) denying his appeal under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).

1

 

In doing so, the OOR affirmed the Department of Corrections’ (Department) denial 

of Brown’s right-to-know request because he owed the Department fees on a prior

right-to-know request. Brown contends that the declaration of the Department’s 

Open Records Officer that Brown had an outstanding balance was insufficient to 

support the denial of his appeal because it lacked any supporting documentation. 

For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand to the OOR for further 

proceedings.

Brown is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at 

Greene. On August 25, 2016, Brown submitted a right-to-know request to the 

Department seeking the following information:

 

1 Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§67.101-67.3104.
2

1. Requester’s Property Inventory sheet that was completed 

at SCI-Smithfield as a result of his 5/11/15 transfer to SCIGreene.

2. The Ramadan Menu that was used for the previous fasting 

period.

3. All responses to Grievance No. 587402-15, and the 

grievance and appeals related to same.

4. All E-Mails and “related documents” sent between SCIGraterford staff members concerning smoking violations 

at SCI-Graterford from 2000 to 2016 (Management Level 

Staff), incident reports, disciplinary reports and reports 

related to staff discipline (“related reports”) inter alia.

5. A list containing the names and positions[] and salaries of 

all SCI-Greene staff including contract medical staff.

Certified Record (C.R.) Item No. 1 at 10. 

By letter dated August 26, 2016, the Department’s Open Records 

Officer, Andrew Filkosky, denied Brown’s request for the stated reason that Brown

had an outstanding balance of $6.32 for records the Department produced in 

response to a previous right-to-know request. Filkosky provided the following 

additional reasons for denying Brown’s request, which we summarize as follows:

Item No. 1

The records do not currently exist.

Item No. 3

The records fall within the noncriminal investigation exemption 

of the RTKL; the requested records are exempt under the RTKL 

because the RTKL excludes records maintained by an agency in 

connection with law enforcement or other public safety activity 

that, if disclosed, would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or 

threaten public safety or preparedness or a public protection 

activity; the records fall within the personal security exemption 
3

of the RTKL; and the records fall within the category of private 

or non-public records and [do] not fall under the RTKL.

Item No. 4

The records fall within the personal security exemption of the 

RTKL; the requested records are exempt under the RTKL 

because the RTKL excludes records maintained by an agency in 

connection with law enforcement or other public safety activity 

that, if disclosed, would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or 

threaten public safety or preparedness or a public protection 

activity; the requested records fall within the criminal 

investigation exemption of the RTKL; the requested records fall 

within the noncriminal investigation exemption of the RTKL; the 

RTKL exempts agency employee records from disclosure; and 

the records do not currently exist.

Item No. 5

The requested records fall within the personal security exemption 

of the RTKL; the requested records are exempt under the RTKL 

because the RTKL excludes records maintained by an agency in 

connection with law enforcement or other public safety activity 

that, if disclosed, would be reasonably likely to jeopardize or 

threaten public safety or preparedness or a public protection 

activity; and employees have a constitutional right to privacy 

which would be violated by the disclosure of their first names.

C.R. Item No. 1 at 6-9. 

Brown appealed the Department’s response to the OOR. In support of 

his appeal, Brown included an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he had never received 

a bill from the Department for “$6.32 for documents provided[,]” and the 

Department never gave him any document presenting an unpaid invoice. C.R. Item 

No. 1 at 5. Upon receiving Brown’s appeal, the OOR invited the parties to 

supplement the record. 
4

The Department submitted a letter in support of its denial of Brown’s 

right-to-know request. The Department attached to its letter a declaration from 

Filkosky stating, in relevant part:

4. Alton Brown, DL4686, was granted records on a RTKL 

request at docket RTKL 0354-16.

5. The records for RTKL 0354-16 were copied and prepared 

for Mr. Brown.

6. As of the date this declaration is being signed, Mr. Brown 

has not paid for the records for RTKL 0354-16.

7. The outstanding balance is $6.32.

C.R. Item No. 3 at 3. Brown did not submit any additional documentation.

On October 21, 2016, the OOR issued its final determination denying 

Brown’s appeal for the sole reason that Brown had an outstanding balance from the

prior right-to-know request. The OOR explained that an agency may refuse to 

process a request for records if the requester has an outstanding balance due for 

previous right-to-know requests. C.R. Item No. 4 at 2. The OOR concluded, based 

upon its review of the evidence submitted, that the Department met its burden of 

proving that Brown had an unpaid balance. Id. The OOR did not address the

Department’s other stated reasons for denying Brown’s right-to-know request. 

Brown petitioned for this Court’s review and applied for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. On January 5, 2017, this Court granted Brown’s application.

On appeal,2 Brown does not challenge the Department’s ability to 

withhold access to records where the requester owes fees for a previous right-toknow request. Rather, Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence the 

 

2 This Court’s standard of review of a final determination of the OOR is de novo and our scope of 

review is plenary. Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453, 477 (Pa. 2013).
5

Department offered to prove his arrears. To that end, Brown raises two arguments. 

First, Brown contends that Filkosky’s declaration was insufficient because the 

statements in his affidavit are conclusory and not supported by documentation that 

the Department has invoiced him. Second, Brown contends that the evidence in the 

record refutes the Department’s assertion that it ever copied or prepared records in 

response to a previous right-to-know request. 

We begin by reviewing the relevant statutory framework. Generally, 

under the RTKL, records in the possession of an agency “are presumed to be public

records, accessible for inspection and copying by anyone requesting them, and must 

be made available to the requestor unless they fall within specific, enumerated 

exceptions or are privileged.” Bowling, 75 A.3d at 457. When an agency receives 

a written right-to-know request, it follows Sections 901-905 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. 

§§67.901–67.905, in responding to the request. Specifically, Section 901 of the 

RTKL sets forth the general rule for an agency response. It states:

Upon receipt of a written request for access to a record, an agency 

shall make a good faith effort to determine if the record requested 

is a public record, legislative record or financial record and 

whether the agency has possession, custody or control of the 

identified record, and to respond as promptly as possible under 

the circumstances existing at the time of the request. All 

applicable fees shall be paid in order to receive access to the 

record requested. The time for response shall not exceed five 

business days from the date the written request is received by the 

open-records officer for an agency. If the agency fails to send 

the response within five business days of receipt of the written 

request for access, the written request for access shall be deemed 

denied.

65 P.S. §67.901 (emphasis added). In addition, Section 903 of the RTKL states that, 

“[i]f an agency’s response is a denial of a written request for access, whether in 
6

whole or in part, the denial ... shall include ... [t]he specific reasons for the denial, 

including a citation of supporting legal authority....” 65 P.S. §67.903.

With this background, we turn to Brown’s first argument. Brown 

contends that the Department’s evidence was insufficient to prove that he owed

outstanding fees for a prior right-to-know request. Brown asserts that Filkosky’s 

declaration stated in conclusory fashion that he owed a balance without any 

supporting facts or documentation. The Department responds that an agency may 

meet its burden of proof through an unsworn attestation or a sworn affidavit. Thus, 

Filkosky’s declaration established that Brown owed the outstanding fees for a prior 

right-to-know request. 

This Court has held that where a requester owes an agency for the cost 

of fulfilling a records request, the agency may deny a subsequent request for records

until the requester pays the outstanding fees. See Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation v. Drack, 42 A.3d 355, 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). An agency asserting

unpaid fees as a basis for denying access to records has the burden of proving the 

requester’s indebtedness. Id. at 364 (“[T]he RTKL places an evidentiary burden 

upon agencies seeking to deny access to records....”). “An agency may meet its 

burden through an unsworn attestation or a sworn affidavit.” West Chester 

University of Pennsylvania v. Schackner, 124 A.3d 382, 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 

However, an open records officer’s conclusory and generic declaration is 

insufficient to satisfy an agency’s burden of proof. See Office of Governor v. 

Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (“[A]ffidavits must be detailed, 

nonconclusory, and submitted in good faith. ... In other words, a generic 

determination or conclusory statements are not sufficient to justify the exemption of 

public records.”). 
7

Here, the Department denied Brown’s right-to-know request, in part, 

on the basis that he owed an outstanding balance for a prior right-to-know request.3 

In support of its denial, the Department offered a declaration from Filkosky stating 

that Brown “was granted records” on a prior right-to-know request that “were copied 

and prepared;” “Brown has not paid for the records;” and “[t]he outstanding balance 

is $6.32.” C.R. Item No. 3 at 3 (emphasis added). The declaration does not identify 

the records “copied and prepared” or the date on which this was done. The 

declaration issilent as to whether the Department actually made the records available 

to Brown, as required by Section 701(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.701(a),

4 or 

whether the Department notified Brown that he owed $6.32 for fulfillment of the 

prior right-to-know request. These omissions render Filkosky’s declaration 

inadequate to satisfy the Department’s burden of proof. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1103. 

Thus, the OOR erred in affirming the Department’s denial on the basis that Brown 

 

3

In its brief on appeal, the Department attached a final determination of the OOR dated June 9, 

2016, in the matter of Alton Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Docket No. AP 

2016-0832, wherein the OOR found that the Department made a menu available to Brown upon 

payment of copying fees. Department Brief, Exhibit A. The Department also attached an advisory 

opinion from the OOR dated January 12, 2016, stating that an agency may require a requester to 

pay costs incurred for fulfilling a records request even though the requester never retrieved the 

records. Department Brief, Exhibit B. These attachments are not relevant to the instant appeal, 

and the advisory opinion is de hors the record. 

4 This section states:

(a) General rule.--Unless otherwise provided by law, a public record, legislative 

record or financial record shall be accessible for inspection and duplication in 

accordance with this act. A record being provided to a requester shall be provided 

in the medium requested if it exists in that medium; otherwise, it shall be provided 

in the medium in which it exists. Public records, legislative records or financial 

records shall be available for access during the regular business hours of an agency.

65 P.S. §67.701(a).
8

owed an outstanding balance on a prior right-to-know request. Accordingly, we 

reverse the decision of the OOR. 

Because the OOR concluded that Brown owed an outstanding balance 

on a prior right-to-know request, it did not evaluate the merits of the Department’s 

other bases for denying Brown’s right-to-know request. Under Section 1101(b) of

the RTKL, an OOR appeals officer has the obligation of determining, in the first 

instance, whether an agency has met its burden of proving entitlement to a statutory

exemption. See 65 P.S. §67.1101(b).5 Although this Court may engage in factfinding, we decline to do so here since the OOR has not yet considered the 

Department’s claimed exemptions under the RTKL. Therefore, we remand this 

matter to the OOR to evaluate the merits of the other exemptions asserted by the 

Department in denying Brown’s right-to-know request.

The Department argues, alternatively, that this Court should revoke 

Brown’s in forma pauperis status on appeal because he is an abusive litigator under 

Section 6602(f)(1) of the statute commonly known as the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act (PLRA), 42 Pa. C.S. §6602(f)(1). Because the instant action is really “prison 

 

5 This section states, in relevant part:

(b) Determination.--

(1) Unless the requester agrees otherwise, the appeals officer shall 

make a final determination which shall be mailed to the requester 

and the agency within 30 days of receipt of the appeal filed under 

[65 P.S. §67.1101(a)].

***

(3) Prior to issuing a final determination, a hearing may be 

conducted. The determination by the appeals officer shall be a final 

order. The appeals officer shall provide a written explanation of the 

reason for the decision to the requester and the agency.

65 P.S. §67.1101(b).
9

conditions litigation,” the Department argues, this Court should require him to pay 

the applicable filing fee or face dismissal of his appeal. We are not persuaded. 

This Court has explained that the RTKL is to “be interpreted and 

applied without regard to the Requestor’s identity beyond meeting the RTKL

requestor definition.” Clinkscale v. Department of Public Welfare, 101 A.3d 137, 

141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citing Weaver v. Department of Corrections, 702 A.2d 370, 

371 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)). A requester’s identity is irrelevant under the RTKL

because “the right to examine a public record is not based on whether the person 

requesting the disclosure is affected by the records or if his or her motives are not 

pure in seeking them, but whether any person’s rights are fixed.” Clinkscale, 101 

A.3d at 141 (quoting Weaver, 702 A.2d at 371) (emphasis in original). Stated 

otherwise, “[t]he status of the individual requesting the record and the reason for the 

request, good or bad, are irrelevant as to whether a document must be made 

accessible....” Hunsicker v. Pennsylvania State Police, 93 A.3d 911, 913 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014). Thus, Brown’s status as an abusive litigator is not a basis to deny 

him records or his statutory appeal rights under the RTKL. 

For the above stated reasons, the final determination of the OOR is 

reversed and this matter is remanded to the OOR for consideration of the other 

exemptions cited by the Department.

6

 ______________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

Judge Cosgrove did not participate in the decision in this case.

 

6

In light of this disposition, we need not address Brown’s remaining argument that there is

evidence in the record contradicting the Department’s position that he owed a balance on a prior 

right-to-know request. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1868 C.D. 2016

:

Pennsylvania Department :

of Corrections, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2017, the October 21, 2016, order 

of the Office of Open Records is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to 

the Office of Open Records for further proceedings in accordance with the attached 

opinion.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

 ______________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge