IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Richard Wilson

, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 123 C.D. 2015

: Submitted: September 4, 2015 Pennsylvania Department of : Corrections Bureau of Operations : and Maintenance Construction and : Capital Programs Chief, Dept. of Corr, : Architectural Supervisor, Dept. of : Corr, Facility Maintenance Manager, : John Doe Manufactur es and Installers : of Corrections Cell Security Doors, : Jo hn Doe (2) Corrections Officer A t : SCI

, Greene, John Doe ( 3) SCI, Greene, : Dept. O f Corr, P ersonnel Training, : Coordinator :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON , Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: September 29, 2015

Richard Wilson (Plaintiff), pro se , appeals the December 11 , 2014

order of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas (Trial Court) granting the

Motion for Summary Judg ment filed by the Department of Corrections on behalf

of the above

- captioned Commonwealth appellee s ( collectively DOC) and denying

Plaintiff’s request for production of documents and things. We affirm.2 Before this Court, Plaintiff raises two issues for review. 1 First,

Plaintiff contends that he has properly pled a claim for negligence under the real

estate exception to sovereign immunity. Second, Plaintiff argues that the Trial

Court abused its discretion and denied him due process of law by failing to grant

his discovery request.

The Sovereign Immunity Act 2 (Act), as a general rule, grants the

Commonwealth immunity from negligence claims

. 3 42 Pa. C.S. § 8521(a). The

Act provides specific exceptions to this general rule where immunity is waived by

th e Commonwealth “for damages arising out of a negligent act where the damages

would be recoverable under the common law or a statute creating a cause of action

if the injury were caused by a person not having available the defense of sovereign

immunity .” 4 2 Pa. C.S. § 8522(a). One of the exceptions delineated in the Act is

commonly referred to as the real estate exception, which provides that a

Commonwealth ag ency is liable when a plaintiff’ s injuries are caused by a

1 In reviewing a motion fo r summary judgment, our scope of review is plenary and our standard of review requires that we affi rm the trial court’s order only where the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party, clearly shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission , 894 A.2d 174, 176 ( Pa. 1999) ; Weckel v. Carbondale

Hou sing Authority , 20 A.3d 1245, 1248 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011); Kuniskas v. Commonwealth

, 977 A.2d 602, 604 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).

2 42 Pa. C.S. § § 8521

- 8528. Although colloquially referred to as the “Sovereign Immunity Act,” the provisions are found in the Judicial Code.

3 The Act provides:

(a) General rule.

— Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no provision

of this title shall consti tute a waiver of sovereign immunity for the purpose of 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310 (relating to sovereign immunity reaffirmed; specific waiver) or

otherwise.

42 Pa.C.S. § 8521(a).3

dangerous condition or defect of Common wealth agency real estate

. 4 Raker v.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections , 844 A.2d 659, 662 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)

(“ F or an injury to be caused by a ‘ dangero us condition of the real estate’ and fall

within the real estate exception, the actual defect or fl aw in the real estate itself

must cause the injury, not some substance on the real property such as ice, snow,

grease, or debris, unless such substances are there because of a design or

construction defect”).

For a claim to proceed under the real estate e xception to sovereign

immunity, a plaintiff must allege that an artificial condition or defect of the land

itself caused the injury ; it is not sufficient to allege that the real property facilitated

an injury caused by the acts of Commonwealth employees or third persons

. Jones

v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority , 772 A.2d 435, 443

- 444

(Pa. 2001) ( having neither derived n or originated from train platform, salt on the

ground was not a dangerous condition of real estate that caused plaintiff’s injuries ) ;

Warnecki v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority , 689 A.2d 1023,

1025 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (poor safety maintenance in sub way station facilitated

injury but injuries were c aused by the criminal acts of third persons); Gallagher v.

Commonwealth, Bureau of Corrections , 545 A.2d 981, 984 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980)

4 Specifically, the exception provides:

(4) Commonwealth real estate, highways and si dewalks.

— A dangerous condition of Commonwealth agency real estate and sidewalks, including Commonwealth

owned real property, leaseholds in the possession of a Commonwealth agency and Commonwealth real property leased by a Commonwealth agency to private

per sons, and highways under the jurisdiction of a Commonwealth agency, except conditions described in paragraph (5) [which refers to potholes and other dangerous conditions].

42 Pa. C.S. § 8522(b)(4).4

( severing of inmate’s finger was not caused by a defect in the door, but by a

cellmate closing the door )

.

Likewise, the real estate exception does not apply to claims alleging

that a plaintiff’s injuries could have been avoided or minimized had the

Commonwealth taken certain actions , as opposed to claims based on injury from a

defect or dangerous condition of the real prope rty. Dean v. Department of

Transportation , 751 A.2d 1130, 1135 (Pa. 2000) (failure to install a guardrail is not

a dangerous condition); Snyder v. Harmon , 562 A.2d 307, 313 (Pa. 1989) (an unlit

right

- of

- way along the shoulder of a road, which concealed a nearby strip

- mine, is

not an artificial condition or a defect of the land itself ); Weckel v. Carbondale

Housing Authority , 2 0 A.3d 1245, 1248, 1250 (Pa. Cm w l th. 2011) ( allegation that

death may have been prevented by the door to the ro of being equipped with a lock

is irrelevant ); compare Thornton v. Philadelphia Housing Authority , 4 A.3d 1143,

1149

- 1153 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (holding that a claim fell within the real estate

exception to sovereign immunity where the plaintiff alleged that a defective

fire/sm oke detection system was a dangerous condition that caused fatal injuries).

In the i nstant matter, Plaintiff alleges that:

8. On October 18, 2013 [Plaintiff] was being escorted to an administrative hearing at the Greene County, Corrections facility

acco mpanied by John Doe ’s [ sic ] (2) and ( 3) corrections officers.

9. The escort required [Plaintiff] to stick both his arms through slot built into the cell security door to be handcuffed.

10. While John Doe (2) corrections officer attached handcuffs to
[P laintiff] and attached a teether [sic] line, John Does (2) and (3) were engaged in joking with each other in conversation.5

11. While [Plaintiff’s] arms were protruding from the security door slot John Doe (2) shouted to John Doe (3) “Go!”

12. John Doe (3) proceeded to snatch the door open while the arms of [Plaintiff] were still protruding through the door slot.

13. The cell security door opened to its full extension slamming [Plaintiff’s] arms against the built

- in door slot and against the doorway frame.

(Complaint, ¶¶8

- 13.) Plaintiff’s allegations defeat his negligence claim. By his

own words, Plaintiff was injured as a result of the unnamed Corrections Officers ’

inattention rather than from a defect in the door itself. Plaintiff argues tha t a

doorstop of unknown design w ould have prevented his injury but this argument

rests on conjecture and is irrelevant to whether a defect of the property was the

cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, the Trial Court did not err in granting

DOC’s motion f

or summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to state a claim as a

matter of law.

We also conclude that the Trial Court did not err in denying Plaintiff’s

discovery motion. The production of documents and things would not have

changed the outcome in this matter. Plaintiff failed to state a claim for which he is

entitled to relief under the law ; had Plaintiff been able to produce sufficient

evidence to prove every factual averment in his complaint, Plaintiff’s complaint

would still necessitate dismissal. 5

5 Plaintiff argues in his brief that the Trial Court failed to address his products liability claim against a John Doe Man ufacturer. This claim was not before the Trial Court; whether or not Plaintiff is able to state a claim against an unknown manufacturer has no bearing on the issue of

whether Plaintiff’s claims against DOC are barred by sovereign immunity. Plaintiff also argues that by denying his discovery request, the Trial Court has hampered his ability to successfully advance his claim against the John Doe Manufacturer. However, a discovery motion t o a party against whom you have no claim is not the proper vehicle by which to investigate a par ty against

whom you believe you do have a claim . As DOC is a Commonwealth agency, Plaintiff is free to6 Accordingly, we affirm

.

__________ ___________________________ JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

request the information he se eks under the Right to Know Law, Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6,
65 P.S. §§ 67.101

– 67.3104.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Richard Wilson, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 123 C.D. 2015

: Pennsylvania Department of : Corrections Bureau of Operations : and Maintenance Construction and : Capital Programs Chief, Dept. of Corr, : Architectural Supervisor, Dept. of : C orr, Facility Maintenance Manager, : John Doe Manufactur es and Installers : of Corrections Cell Security Doors, : Jo hn Doe (2) Corrections Officer A t : SCI

, Greene, John Doe (3) SCI, Greene, : Dept. O f Corr, P ersonnel Training, : Coordinator :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29 th day of September , 2015, the order of the Greene

County Court of Common Pleas grant ing the motion for summary judg ment filed

by the Appellee s in the above captioned

- matter is AFFIRMED.

__________ ___________________________ JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge