IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carlton L. Bullock, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 375 M.D. 2016

 : Submitted: April 21, 2023

The Pennsylvania Department :

of Corrections, and The Medlin :

Training Institute, :

Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: May 16, 2024

Before this Court is Carlton L. Bullock’s (Bullock) pro se Application for 

Summary Relief (Application) on his Amended Petition for Review (Amended 

Petition) asserting a number of allegations against the Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections (Department) regarding his mental health diagnosis, cell ventilation 

system, exposure to diseases, denial of medical treatment, forced double-celling, 

various abuse and retaliation, improper training by Department employees, improper 

charges to his account, and involuntary psychiatric commitment. Bullock seeks

various forms of relief including a transfer to Temple University Hospital in 

Philadelphia for proper treatment for his medical needs, a transfer to the Philadelphia 

prison system until he is paroled, removal of any mental health diagnoses and 
2

involuntary psychiatric commitments from his prison records, correction of his 

behavioral adjustment files and records, return of any charges for co-pays in medical 

services, a permanent single cell, and any further relief this Court deems appropriate 

and just. After review, we dismiss this matter as moot because it appears Bullock is 

no longer incarcerated and, thus, there is no relief that can be afforded. 

In the Amended Petition, Bullock avers as follows. During his incarceration 

he has developed various diseases and mental health disorders that he did not have 

prior to being incarcerated. (Amended Petition ¶ 12.) Bullock contends that it was 

not until he started exercising his rights through the prison grievance system that he 

was diagnosed with a mental health problem. (Id. ¶ 13.) After he was confined in 

the Restrictive Housing Unit at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Greene 

(SCI-Greene), he was released into the general population, only to be sent to the 

Special Needs Unit, which is a mental health facility. (Id. ¶ 14.) In his cell in the 

Special Needs Unit, the ventilation system was poor and caused him to develop 

chronic respiratory illnesses. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) Bullock collected a sample of the air 

and debris from the ventilation system and attempted to send it to the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for testing, for which the Department 

retaliated against him by contaminating his food. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 22.) 

Bullock was later transferred to SCI-Fayette, where he was forced into 

double-celling, even though his status warranted single-celling, and he was attacked 

by other inmates. (Id. ¶¶ 190-98.) He was also asked to sign a Recovery Treatment 

Plan for his mental health needs. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 42, 44-45.) Bullock contends the 

Recovery Treatment Plan was part of a conspiracy to fabricate a mental health 

diagnosis and have him be “given a Stability Code-D” to be transferred back to SCIGreene. (Id. ¶¶ 46-48, 50-51.) Bullock asserts the transfer was retaliatory because 
3

he would not be able to complete his program for sex offenders at SCI-Fayette before 

being transferred to SCI-Greene, which would affect his parole eligibility. (Id. ¶¶

50-52, 99, 126.) Bullock states he was transferred from SCI-Fayette before 

completing his program and was placed back in the cell at SCI-Greene that exposed 

him to diseases. (Id. ¶¶ 56-57.) Bullock further avers that the Department was 

supposed to remove his Stability Code-D status and his mental health diagnoses from 

his records, which it did not do. (Id. ¶¶ 60-64.) 

This Court previously overruled the Department’s preliminary objection (PO) 

to the Amended Petition asserting misjoinder in Bullock v. Pennsylvania Department 

of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 375 M.D. 2016, filed September 28, 2017) 

(Bullock I),1 and ordered it to file an Answer. In Bullock I, we explained Bullock 

asserted five counts against the Department, alleging, inter alia, the Department 

exposed him to diseases, falsified his medical and psychiatric records, denied him 

proper medical treatment, denied him adequate sex offender programming, and 

placed him in a double cell in retaliation for filing grievances and in violation of the 

First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, U.S. 

CONST. amend. I, VIII, XIV, and article I, sections 9, 13, and 14 of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution, PA. CONST. art. I §§ 9, 13, 14. See Bullock I, slip op. at 3-5. After 

Bullock I, the Department filed its Answer and New Matter generally denying 

Bullock’s arguments. (See generally Answer and New Matter.) Bullock filed a reply 

to the New Matter, thereby closing the pleadings.2

1 Bullock filed a Motion to Amend the Amended Petition for Review asking that his name 

in the caption be changed from Lamont C. Bullock to Carlton L. Bullock, which this Court granted 

by order exited on November 18, 2019. 

2 After Bullock I, Bullock also filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and an Application for 

Special Relief seeking an ex parte preliminary injunction. This Court dismissed Bullock’s Motion 

to Compel Discovery because the Department had already responded and denied the Application 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
4

Thereafter, Bullock filed the instant Application. Bullock asserts there are no 

disputed issues of material fact, his right to relief is clear, and he is entitled to relief 

as a matter of law. (Application, Introduction ¶¶ 3-5.) The Department filed an 

Answer to the Application and generally denied Bullock’s arguments and requested 

relief, denied that there are no issues as to any material fact, stated Bullock is not 

entitled to judgment in his favor, and stated Bullock’s arguments are barred by the 

statute of limitations. (See Answer to Application.) The parties also submitted 

briefs. 

We need not reach the substance of these arguments, however, because it 

appears Bullock is no longer incarcerated and has been paroled.

3

 Moreover, the 

Court issued an order on February 23, 2024, for Bullock to show cause why this 

matter should not be dismissed as moot. This rule was returnable on or before March 

25, 2024, and Bullock has not responded. 

Because Bullock is no longer incarcerated, the Amended Petition is now moot. 

A case will generally be dismissed if no actual case or controversy exists. Johnson 

v. Pa. Parole Bd., 300 A.3d 525, 527 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023). A case or controversy 

requires

(1) a legal controversy that is real and not hypothetical, (2) a legal 

controversy that affects an individual in a concrete manner so as to 

provide the factual predicate for a reasoned adjudication, and (3) a legal 

controversy with sufficiently adverse parties so as to sharpen the issues 

for judicial resolution.

for Special Relief without prejudice. (See order exited on 1/9/18.) Bullock also filed an 

Application for Default Judgment, which this Court dismissed as unauthorized since Bullock filed 

an Answer to the New Matter and, thus, the pleadings were closed, and ordered Bullock to advance 

his case as it had been dormant for an extended period. (See order exited on 12/9/21.)

3

See http://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov (last visited May 15, 2024).
5

Mistich v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 863 A.2d 116, 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) 

(internal citation omitted). A real case or controversy must exist throughout all 

stages of a proceeding, and the parties must continue to have “a personal stake in the 

outcome[.]” Id. (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 478 (1990) 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court will also not enter a judgment where 

no effect will be given. Id. (citing Britt v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 787 A.2d 457 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2001)). 

Applying the above legal principles to Bullock’s situation, we are constrained 

to dismiss this matter as moot. “[T]here is no case or controversy because there is 

no relief that can be ordered” since Bullock’s allegations and requested relief pertain 

to the conditions of his incarceration and it appears he is no longer incarcerated. 

Johnson, 300 A.3d at 528. Since Bullock is no longer incarcerated and appears to 

have been paroled, “[a]n order by this Court granting [Bullock] relief . . . will not 

have any meaning[.]” Id. Accordingly, the Amended Petition is dismissed as moot. 

__________________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision in this matter.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Carlton L. Bullock, :

Petitioner :

 :

v. : No. 375 M.D. 2016

 : 

The Pennsylvania Department :

of Corrections, and The Medlin :

Training Institute, :

Respondents :

O R D E R

NOW, May 16, 2024, the Amended Petition for Review filed by Carlton L. 

Bullock is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

__________________________________________

RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge