IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

J. M. P., : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 93 M.D. 2022

: Submitted: April 14, 2023 Pennsylvania State Police, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: August 24, 2023

J. M. P. (Petitioner) , currently incarcerated at the State Correctional

I nstitution at Forest (SCI

- Forest), has filed pro se a petit i on for review in this Court’s

original jur isdiction , asserting that the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) delay ed

removing his name and identifying information from Pennsylvania’s online sex

offender registry. In respo nse, PSP has filed preliminary objections , asserting

sovereign immunity and fail ure to state a claim. After review, it is clear that

Petitioner seeks monetary damages for claims that sound in trespass

. Accordingly,

we lack jurisdiction to consider the petition for review and transfer this matter to the

Court of Common Pleas of Forest County. 1

1 We take judicial notice of the fact that SCI

- Forest is located in Forest County. See Pa. Dep’t of Corr. , SCI

- Forest

, https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Forest.aspx (last
accessed 8 / 23 /2023); Pa.R.E. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court ’ s territ orial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”).2 I. BACKGROUND 2

At one time, Petitioner was subject to a lifetime requirement to register

as a sex offender

. 3 PSP maintains a publicly accessible Internet registry providing

information regarding convicted sex offenders. The registry included information

related to Petitioner’s registration.

On March 11, 2020, purs uant to the parties’ agreement and our Superior

Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Haines , 222 A.3d 756 (Pa. Super. 2020)

, 4 the

Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County struck Petitioner’s lifetime registration

requirement. Nevertheless, PSP failed to remove his name and identifying

information from the r egistry for 351 days

.

On March 4, 2022, Petitioner commenced this action , asserting

negligence, defamation, and a violation of his constitutional right to reputation. For

these harms, Peti tioner seeks $8 m illion dollars in damages. 5 In response, PSP filed

preliminary objections

, asserting sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim.

See Prelim. Objs., 3/23/22

. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss PSP’s

preliminary objections. Pet’r’s Mot. to Dismiss, dated 4/21/22.

2 We derive the following facts, which we accept as true for purposes of this disposition,
from Petitio n er’s petition and its attached exhibit. See Pet. for Rev., 3/ 4 /22. See also Foxe v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. , 214 A.3d 308, 310 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (observing that c ourts reviewing preliminary objections may not only consider the facts ple a d ed in the petition fo r review, but also any documents or exhibits attached to it ).

3 See Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA II)

, Act of Feb ruary 21, 2018, P.L. 27, No. 10 (Act 10), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10

- 9799.75, as amended by the Act of June 12, 2018, P.L . 140, No. 29 (Act 29).

4 Our Supreme Court held in In re J.B.

, 107 A.3d 1, 20 (Pa. 2014)

, that the lifetime registration requirement for sex offenders was unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. The Haines
Court extended J.B. ’s holding by concluding that an adult convicted in a criminal court for acts committed as a juvenile is not required to register as a sex offender under SORNA. Haines

, 222
A.3d . at 759.

5 Petitioner was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. Cmwlth. Ct. Order, 3/30/22.3 II. ISSUES

PSP asserts that it is entitled to sovereign immunity . Prelim. Objs., ¶¶

4

- 7. 6 Further, according to PSP, Petition er h as fail e d to state a claim because

Pennsylvania law does not permit the award of money damages for a violation of the

Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. , ¶¶ 8

- 10.

III. DISCUSSION

Preliminarily, we address our jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s

claims. 7 Generally, the Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction in cases

asserted against “the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof,

acting in his official capacity.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1). However, there are

exceptions to this general r ule. For example, it is well settled that “all actions against

the Commonwealth or its officers acting in their official capacity for money damages

based upon tort liability fall outside the scope of the Commonwealth Court’s original

jurisdiction and are properly commenced in the courts of common pleas.”

Stackhouse v. Pa

. State Police

, 832 A.2d 1004, 1008 (Pa. 2003) (plurality ) (citation

omitted); see 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)(v) (excluding “actions or proceedings in the

nature of trespass” from our original jurisdiction). 8 This exception also encompasses

“statutory claims such as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985” because “the plaintiff seeks

6 Although sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense, a party may raise it “as a prelimina ry objection where it is clearly applicable on the face of the complaint

. . . . ” Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading

, 87 A.3d 1014, 1022 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)

7 PSP has not challenged our jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we may address our jurisdiction
sua sponte

. Pennhurst Med. Grp., P.C. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare , 796 A.2d 423, 425 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

8 An action in trespass seeks “ 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.” Balshy v. Rank , 490 A.2d 415, 420 (Pa. 1985) (cleaned up)

.4

the same redress in the form of money for an unlawful injury.” Hill v. Pa. Dep’t of

Env’t Prot. , 679 A.2d 773, 774 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). 9

Here, Petitioner asserts that PSP delayed in removing his name and

identifying information from the sex offender regi stry for nearly a year , despite a

court order clearly directing the removal

. According to Petitioner, this negligen t and

wanton disregard harmed him , a nd for that harm he seeks money damages. There

can be no doubt that Petitioner’s claims sound in trespa ss and fall outside this Court’s

original jurisdiction. See Stackhouse

, 832 A.2d at 1008 (concluding that monetary

compensation sought for alleged improper invasion of privacy and reputational

interests deprived the Commonwealth Court of jurisdiction) ; Balshy , 490 A.2d at

420.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we lack original jurisdiction to consider

this p etition for r eview and, therefore, transfer it to the Court of Common Pleas of

Forest County for disposition , which shall treat it as a complaint filed in its original

jurisdi ction. Stedman v. Lancaster Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs , 221 A.3d 747, 760

- 61

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) ( en banc ) ; 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103(a) . Upon that court’s receipt of

the record

, that court shall resolve PSP’s preliminary objections and Petitioner’s

motion to dismiss

.
LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

9 This Court retains ancillary jurisdict ion over such claims if they are related to a claim
within this Court’s exclusive, original jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S. § 761 (c). Here, the sole relief sought by Petitioner is monetary damages for an alleged trespass; thus

, we need not consider whether we
ha ve ancillary jurisdiction over this matter. Nevertheless, we note that the mere inclusion of claims for declaratory or injunctive relief, particularly where “premised upon the same events,” does not “transform a [petition] from one sounding in trespass in to the type of matter . . . belonging within the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.” Stackhouse

, 832 A.2d at 1008; see also Miles
v. Beard , 847 A.2d 161, 165 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004 )

.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

J. M. P., : Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 93 M.D. 2022

: Pennsylvania State Police, : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 24 th day of August , 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that

Petitioner J. M. P.’s Petition for Review is TRANSFERRED to the Court of

Common Pleas of Forest County (Common Pleas), because this Court lacks original

jurisdiction.

The Commonwealth Court’s Prothonotary shall transmit the record of

the above

- captioned proceedings to Common Pleas’ Prothonotary, together with a

copy of this opinion and order, as well as a certified copy of this matter’s docket

entries. Subsequent to tr ansfer, the assigned Common Pleas judge shall rule upon

the Pennsylvania State Police’s unresolved Preliminary Objections as well as

Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss

.

LORI A. DUMAS, Judge