IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Darren Miller, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1370 C.D. 2017

: Submitted: April 13, 2018

Michael Clark :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: May 8, 2018

Darren Miller (Miller) appeals from the order of the Erie County 

Court of Common Pleas (trial court) dismissing his complaint seeking a permanent 

injunction against Michael Clark (Superintendent Clark), the Superintendent of the 

State Correctional Institution at Albion (SCI-Albion), for: (1) further 

medical/psychological treatment; and/or (2) reinstated “Z-Code”1status, which 

 

1 Under the SCI Reception and Classification Procedures Manual:

Any inmate who meets any of the following criteria shall be 

carefully reviewed by staff and considered for Program Code “Z” 

housing classification.

(a) An inmate who is evaluated by psychiatric or 

psychological staff as having mental health problems. Examples 

include the following:

(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

would require him to be in a single-occupancy cell. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

I.

Miller is an inmate currently incarcerated at SCI-Albion. In January 

2017, after having been in a single cell for 20 years, Miller was forced to live with 

a cellmate. Miller then filed a pro se complaint against Superintendent Clark 

seeking injunctive relief to obtain a form of mental-health treatment as well as 

restoration of his “Z-Code” status. In his complaint, Miller alleged that he suffers 

from serious mental illnesses including a history of attempted suicide and violence. 

Attached to that complaint was a November 29, 2016 report detailing an incident 

that occurred after Miller refused to take a cellmate. The reporting staff member 

stated:

 

(continued...)

(1) Dangerous to self;

(2) Dangerous to others;

(3) Self-mutilative;

(4) Unable to care for self; and/or

(5) Active on the Psychiatric Review Team (PRT) 

roster.

***

(d) An inmate who has a documented history of aggressive 

behavior towards cell partners or who staff has reason to believe 

would exhibit assaultive or predatory behavior towards cell 

partners.

(Record (R.) Item No. 7, Complaint, Attachment.)
3

I then informed [Miller] that he is not a single cell status 

inmate and [cannot] refuse to be double celled. He then 

stated to me that “if you put him in here he isn’t safe.” I 

then shut his cell door and notified control.

(Record (R.) Item No. 7.) The following month, Miller attempted suicide by 

taking a large amount of pills and was taken to UPMC Hamot overnight for 

observation. Miller alleged that he was not receiving any mental health care at the 

prison and “continues to suffer.” (Complaint ¶9.)

On April 17, 2017, in response to Miller’s Motion for Expedition, the 

trial court ordered that an expedited hearing on Miller’s request for injunction be 

held on April 28, 2017. The order also required that the Erie County Sheriff serve 

Superintendent Clark with the order scheduling the hearing as well a copy of the 

complaint and request for an injunction. On April 24, 2017, the Sheriff served 

Superintendent Clark.

At the April 28, 2017 hearing, Superintendent Clark did not appear, 

no appearance was entered on his behalf, and the hearing proceeded without him. 

Miller testified that he was on medication for mood swings but stopped taking it 

after his “Z-Code” status was revoked. Miller also testified that he often heard 

voices in his head telling him to hurt himself and others.

On May 2, 2017, the trial court ordered that Superintendent Clark 

provide the court with Miller’s medical records from UPMC Hamot and have 

Miller evaluated by a certified, independent psychologist who was unaffiliated 

with the Pennsylvania prison system. Counsel for Superintendent Clark entered 
4

his appearance on May 17, 2017, and Superintendent Clark complied with the trial 

court’s May 2, 2017 order.

On May 15, 2017, Miller filed a Motion for Judgment upon Default or 

Admission, alleging that because Superintendent Clark failed to appear at the April 

28, 2017 hearing and because his counsel did not timely file an entry of 

appearance, Miller was entitled to permanent injunctive relief. On June 5, 2017, 

the trial court denied the motion because the relief granted in its May 2, 2017 order 

made the motion moot. Miller then filed a Motion for Clarification, noting that he 

had not been granted injunctive relief to receive adequate mental health care and 

reinstatement to “Z-Code” status.

In accordance with the May 2, 2017 order, Miller was evaluated by 

Dr. Keith R. Stowell (Dr. Stowell), a board certified physician in adult psychiatry, 

forensic psychiatry and geriatric psychiatry. Dr. Stowell interviewed Miller, 

reviewed Miller’s UPMC Hamot medical records and medical administration notes 

and psychiatry, as well as psychology and progress notes from doctors at SCIAlbion. Dr. Stowell also conducted a collateral interview with Sergeant Conley, an 

employee of SCI-Albion.

In his report, Dr. Stowell stated that Miller exhibits signs of antisocial 

personality disorder and recommended the following treatment:

There is no standard recommended treatment for 

Antisocial Personality Disorder. There is some evidence 

to support the use of group-based cognitive and 

behavioral interventions to address impulsivity, 
5

interpersonal difficulties, and antisocial behavior. 

However, availability of this programming and Mr. 

Miller’s participation should be at the recommendation of 

the behavioral health treatment team at SCI-Albion. It is 

not essential that such programming be provided to him. 

It should be noted that there have been multiple attempts 

by mental health professionals to meet with Mr. Miller 

over the past several months, but he has declined to 

interact with them.

(R. Item No. 3, 1925(a) Opinion at 3) (quoting Dr. Stowell’s report).2 

Furthermore, Miller’s UPMC Hamot records stated, “Patient may be overstating 

how many [pills he] actually took as he again shows no signs or symptoms of 

Benadryl or Bupropion overdose.” (Id.) The trial court noted that Bupropion is a 

medication used to treat depression. Furthermore, Dr. Gottesman, D.O., 

presumably a prison physician, stated in his Psychiatric Observation Cell 

Discharge Summary, that Miller:

Argues very logically and coherently that he needs his Z 

code or “for sure something is gonna happen bad.” 

Fabricated auditory hallucinations. No acute risk to self 

or others. Wants to influence staff to maintain his Z 

code.

(Id. at 4.) Another prison progress note indicated that Miller “declined to be seen 

by psychology. No reason was provided and he has been refusing to be seen for 

several months.” (Id.)

 

2 Dr. Stowell’s report was not forwarded with the trial court’s record. It was filed under 

seal with the trial court, at Superintendent Clark’s request, because it would reveal sensitive 

medical and mental health information pertaining to Miller.
6

Based on Dr. Stowell’s report, the trial court dismissed Miller’s 

complaint requesting injunctive relief in the form of Superintendent Clark 

providing additional medical/psychological treatment and reinstating his “Z-Code” 

status because it was satisfied that: (1) Miller was being treated for his mental 

health issues; (2) he was not in imminent danger of serious bodily harm; and (3) 

Superintendent Clark did not exhibit deliberate indifference to the serious medical 

or mental health needs of Miller. This appeal followed.3

II.

A.

On appeal, Miller contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his 

complaint and denying injunctive relief because he is entitled to default judgment 

under Pa. R.C.P. No. 1037 because Superintendent Clark failed to appear at the 

April 28, 2017 hearing or timely enter an appearance. Pa. R.C.P. No. 1037 

provides in relevant part:

(b) The prothonotary, on praecipe of the plaintiff, shall 

enter judgment against the defendant for failure to file 

within the required time a pleading to a complaint which 

contains a notice to defend or, except as provided by 

subdivision (d), for any relief to be due by the 

defendant’s pleadings.

* * *

 

3 This Court’s scope of review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional 

rights have been violated and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error 

of law. Bronson v. Lechward, 624 A.2d 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
7

(d) In all cases in which equitable relief is sought, the 

court shall enter an appropriate order upon the judgment 

of default or admission and may take testimony to assist 

in its decision and in framing the order.

The trial court, construing the matter before it at the April 28, 2017 

hearing as a motion for actions to be taken to determine whether Miller needed 

additional medical care or housed in a single cell, denied Miller’s motion because 

it had already provided the requested relief in its May 2, 2017 Order. Miller seems 

to argue that the matter is not moot because what he was seeking at the April 28, 

2017 hearing was additional mental health treatment and to be housed in a single 

cell, not an evaluation to see if he needed treatment or single-cell housing.

We need not address this issue because Miller was not entitled to a 

default judgment under Pa. R.C.P. No. 1037. Under that provision, a default 

judgment can be taken when a defendant fails to file a responsive pleading 

(normally, within 20 days) to a complaint. However, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 

237.1, this can only be done after ten days’ notice is given by the plaintiff to the 

defendant that he intends to do so. In this case, the ten day notice that was required 

to be given by Miller to Superintendent Clark was not given, making any request 

or entry of a default judgment improper. Now to the merits.

B.

Without precisely saying so, Miller is alleging that the trial court erred 

when dismissing his Eighth Amendment claim, finding that he was receiving 

proper treatment and that accommodation for his medical condition was 
8

unnecessary – i.e., single-cell housing.4 In order to state a cognizable claim under 

the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently 

harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Whether the medical need of an inmate is 

sufficiently serious is an objective inquiry, the factors of which include:

(i) [O]ne that has been diagnosed by a physician as 

requiring treatment; (ii) one that is so obvious that a lay 

person would easily recognize the necessity for a 

doctor’s attention; (iii) one where denial or delay of 

treatment causes an inmate to suffer a life-long handicap 

or permanent loss; (iv) one where denial or delay of 

treatment results in unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain; (v) one that significantly affects an individual’s 

daily activities; or (vi) one that causes chronic and 

substantial pain.

Tindell v. Department of Corrections, 87 A.3d 1029, 1038-39 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) 

(citing Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 702 (2d Cir. 1998)). An inquiry into 

whether a prison official was deliberately indifferent requires that the prisoner 

show that: (i) the prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to 

inmate health or safety; (ii) the prison official was aware of facts from which an 

inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists; and (iii) the 

prison official drew the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 837, 840 (1980).

 

4 Amendment VIII of the U.S. Const. provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor 

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. Amend. 

VIII.
9

Miller failed to establish evidence of deliberate indifference to serious 

medical needs by Superintendent Clark, based on Dr. Stowell’s report. That report 

shows that: (1) Miller was being treated for his depression prior to his suicide 

attempt; (2) after the suicide attempt, he was evaluated, medicated and offered 

psychological services, but turned them down; and (3) the only mental health 

condition Miller has is Antisocial Personality Disorder.

As to Miller’s request for single-cell housing, an inmate does not have 

a right to be confined in housing of his choosing. 37 Pa. Code § 93.11(a). In fact, 

it is well settled that prisoners do not have a due process right to be single-celled. 

See, e.g., Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). Moreover, prison officials 

must be afforded wide-ranging deference on the adoption and execution of policies 

and practices that, in their judgment, are necessary to preserve internal order and 

maintain institutional security. Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9, 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1980). Under the SCI Reception and Classification Procedures Manual, to be 

considered for single-cell housing – i.e., a Program Code “Z” housing 

classification – Miller must have a mental health condition that makes him 

dangerous to himself or others. (See supra note 1.) In this case, the trial court 

accepted Dr. Stowell’s report that Miller is not dangerous to himself or others, and 

his mental health problems do not require that he be placed in a single cell. 

Because there is no evidence that his mental health conditions were not being 

addressed or that they require him to be housed in a single cell, Miller failed to 

make out a claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated or that prison 

officials abused their discretion by not placing him in a single cell.
10

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.5

___________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

 

5 Miller contends that the trial court denied him the opportunity to present evidence of 

his alleged mental health illness. This issue was not raised in his 1925(b) statement and, 

therefore, is waived.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Darren Miller, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1370 C.D. 2017

:

Michael Clark :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8

th day of May, 2018, the June 20, 2017 order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County is affirmed.

___________________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge