IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Caine Pelzer, : : No. 2050 C.D. 2015 Appellant : Submitted: April 22, 2016

:

v. :

: Property Officer Pry, C01, : Property Officer Jenkins, C01, : John Doe 1, John Doe 2, : John Doe 3 Security Officer, : John Doe 4 Security SGT :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDM AN FILED: August 12, 2016

Caine Pelzer appeals

, pro se , f r om the September 28, 2015

, order of the

Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County ( trial court)

, 1 which dismiss ed Pelzer’s

motion for summary judgment and grant ed the motion for summary judgment filed

by Property Officer Pry C 0 1, Property Officer Jenkins C 0 1, John Doe 1, John Doe 2,

John Doe 3 Security Officer, and John Doe 4 Security S ergeant ( collectively

, Defendants). W e affirm

.

1 Pelzer is presently serving an aggregate sentence of 22 to 44 years’ imprisonment, which the trial court imposed on Ap ril 15, 2002. (Trial Ct. Op. at 1 n.1.)2

On July 5, 2011, Pelzer filed a n action in replevin 2 and a writ of seizure

(Complaint) against Defendants

, all of whom are employe es of the State Correctional

Institution (SCI) at Houtzdale

, in their individual and official capacities

. In his

C omplaint, 3 Pelzer alleged the following:

10. Plaintiff, Caine Pelzer had his property pack [ ed ] by
SCI

- Somerset on November 14, 2010 to be transferred to
SCI

- Houtzdale[,] which property consisted of nine (9) [ b ] oxes of property. Each box specifically had an individual inventory sheet documenting what was stored in
each box [.] E ach inventory sheet was signed by [Pelzer]
and two (2) correction s officers at SCI

- Somerset documenting its contents and the fact of it being in working/operable condition before being shipped to SCI

Houtzdale.

11. [Office rs] Pry and Jenkins received [Pelzer’s] property from the security department at SCI [

- ] Houtzdale on November 25, 2010 [

, ] which consisted of 4 boxes of property, (specifically) one (1) footlocker and three (3) brown boxes of [Pelzer’s] property (one damaged television
which seem ed like the bottom was hammered out) and 8 inventory slips missing.

12. [Officers] Pry and Jenkins inventoried [Pelzer’s] 4 boxes of property and documented that the television was damaged and all but 1 inventory slip was present whic h did

2 “Replevin is a possessory action in which the issues are [the] plaintiff’s t itle and right of possession.” Valley Gypsum Compan y v. Pennsylvania State Police , 581 A.2d 707, 710 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). “In order to m aintain [an action in] replevin, the plaintiff must have a general or special property right in the thing taken or detained.” International Electronics Company v. N.S.T. Metal Products Company , 88 A.2d 40, 42 (Pa. 19 5 2).

3 After this court issued its dec ision in Pelzer’s first appeal , Pelzer’s July 5, 2011, Complaint
was lost

. (Trial Ct. Order, 10/24/13, at 1.) Thus, Pelzer re

- filed his Complaint in the trial court on May 30, 2013. ( Id. at 2.) All references to Pelzer’s Complaint herein are to the May 30, 2013, Complaint.3

not record all of [Pelzer’s] property. This was conducted on November 25, 2010

. 13. On November 25, 2010, [Pelzer] filed grievance # 345383 documenting [Pelzer’s] lost lawsuits and caseload
to case # 12727

- 2009 Luzerne Courthouse and [ S ] u perior
Court # 1385 MDA 2010 [] [a] s well as ( [ n ] ine) law books

. . . . [ 4 ]

14. On N ovember 25, 2010, [Officers] P ry and J enkins confiscated [Pelzer ’ s] property and took it somewhere off the housing unit (allegedly to security) and wrote a
misconduct on [Pelzer] because he refuse [ d ] to throw away any property due to the fact [that] 5 boxes were missing.

1 5. On D ecember 9 th , 2010 [

, ] John Doe 1, 2, 3

, [ and ] 4 did another inventory on [Pelzer ’ s] property with the same 4 boxes as the November 25, 2010 invent ory. No previous inventory slips were found

, but this time [Pelzer] was told to take (2) boxes of property in his cell and that (2) boxes would be stored in property rooms located in this housing
unit

.

16. After it was discovered the other boxes w ould not be located, grievance N o [

. ] 346908 was filed and a [ t ] elevision of lesser value was placed somewhere in [Pelzer’s] storage

area. All law books and legal documents have been kept from [Pelzer] as well as all inventory sheets documenting said lost property

. 17. Defendants involved acknowledge the fact that [Pelzer]
was received at [ SCI

- H ] outzdale with 9 boxes of property but has failed to protect [Pelzer’s] property knowing the record is clear showing such deprivation of property without due process of law.

4 Pelzer withdrew G rievance No. 345383 on December 9, 2010. ( See Defs.’ Summ. Judg.
Mot., Ex . H.) According to Pelzer, “due to the fact of the [television] being handled in accordance with [Department policy,] said Grievance No[.] 345383 was withdrawn as being partially resolved.” ( Id. , Ex. I.)4

(Compl. ¶¶ 10

- 17.) Pelzer also a lleged that Defendants negligently los t or destroy ed

Pelzer’s property while acting in the course of their official duties as Department of

Corrections (Department) employees

. ( Id. ¶ 19.) Pelzer further alleged that he does

not know the whereabouts of his missing boxes. ( Id. ¶ 2 1 .)

On July 7, 2011, the trial court sua sponte dismissed Pelzer’s C omplaint

as frivolous for failure to state a claim under Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1) . Pelzer

a ppealed to this court , which concluded that the trial court erred in dismissin g

Pelzer’s Complaint because the Complaint stated prima facie c laims for replevin and

negligence

. Pelzer v. Pry , ( Pa. Cmwlth., No. 50 C.D. 2012, filed May 15, 2013), slip

op. at 7, 11. Therefore, we vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for further

proceedings.

Following remand, both Pelzer and Defendants moved for summary

judgment. On September 28, 2015, the trial cour t dismissed Pelzer’s motion and

granted Defendants’ motion

. The trial court found that Pelzer’s Complaint , although

couched as a civil action in replevin, was “ merely [an] attem p t [] to appeal the

outcome of his misconduct hearing and grievance .” (Trial C t. Op. at 5.) Therefore,

the trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the outcome s of Pelzer’s

misconduct and grievance, citing Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee , 721

A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998). ( Id

. at 6

- 7 .) Pelzer now appeals to t his court

. 5

5 Our scope of review of a trial court’s order granting summary judgment is plenary. County of Beaver v. Sainovich , 96 A.3d 421, 426 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) ( en banc )

, app eal denied , 112 A.3d 654 (Pa. 2015)

. We will reverse only where the trial court “ committed an error of law or clearly abused its discretion. ” Id.5

On appeal, Pelzer asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that it

lacked jurisdiction because Pelzer ’s Complaint alleged a valid constitutional claim

.

We dis agree.

In Bronson , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Department

decisions involving internal pri son operations are beyond the scope of this c ourt’s

original and appellate jurisdiction. 72 1 A.2d at 35 8

- 59. The Bronson Court reasoned

that “internal prison operations are more properly left to the legislative and executi ve
branches, and . . . prison officials must be allowed to exercise their judgment in the

execution of policies necessary to preserve order and maintain security free from

judicial interference.” Id

. at 358. An internal Department decision may be subject to

appellate review only “i f an inmate can identify a personal or property interest which

is not limited by Department regulations and which is affected by a final decision of

the Department .” Lawson v. Department of Corrections , 539 A.2d 69, 71 (Pa.

Cmw lth. 19 8 8) (emphasis added) ; see Hill v. Department of Corrections , 64 A.3d

1159, 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (noting that the exception to the general prohibiti on
against judicial review of internal Department decisions is narrow)

.

Here, Pelzer fail ed to a llege a personal or property interest that is not

limited by Department regulations. Inmates do not have a right to possess whichever

personal items they choose. See Bronson

, 721 A.2d at 359 (“Prison inmates do not

enjoy the same level of constitutional protections afforded to non

- incarcerated

citizens.”). Rather, D epartment directives specify both the quantity and the types of

personal property that an inmate may possess

. ( See Defs.’ Sum m . Judg. Mot., Exs.

C

- E .) Section 3(B)(9) of DC

- ADM 815 provides that “[a]n inmate may not exceed

the property limits established by the Department” and that any excess property “ may6

be shipped out at the inmate’s expense or destroyed.” ( Id. , Ex. E.) Thus, because

Department directives expressly limit an inmate’s poss ession of personal property,

Pelzer cannot assert a constitutional claim based on the Department’s application of

its internal policy. See Bronson , 721 A.2d at 359 (“ E ven if [Bronson] had invoked

the c ourt’s original jurisdiction by attempting to color th e confiscation of his clothing

as a violation of his protected constitutional property rights, his claim would fail.”)

.

Pelzer asserts that he properly raised a cognizable constitutional claim

because the Compl a int allege d that Defendants’ “loss and destruction of [Pelzer’s]

property” violated his due process rights under the Pennsylvania and United States

Constitutions . (Compl. ¶¶ 1 7

- 19.) We cannot agree. Pelzer’s Grievance No. 346908

proceeded through each level of the Department ’s internal a ppeal s process. 6 In the

final admi ni strative appeal, t he Chief Grievance Officer determin ed that Pelzer had

d iscarded five boxes of his property in order to comply with the Department ’s

property limitation policy . ( Defs.’ Summ. Judg. Mot., Ex. I.) Thus, a lthough Pelzer

baldly asserts a due process violation, he is actually c ontesting the factual findings

resolved via the Department’s internal grievance process, which is beyond the scope

of both this court’s and the trial court’s jurisdiction

. See Bronso n , 721 A.2d at 358

-
59; Brown v. Department of Corrections , 913 A.2d 301, 305 (Pa. Cmwlth. 200 6 )

6 Our court has explained the prisoner grievance system as follows:

The Department maintains a prisoner grievance system [,] which allows prisoners to seek review of problems [that] they experience during their period of incarceration. [Under that] system, a prisoner files an initial g rievance with the prison staff. He [or she] can then appeal that decision to the superintendent of the prison and, as a final appeal within the Department, a prisoner may appeal the grievance to the chief grievance officer of the Department.

Iseley v. Beard , 841 A.2d 168, 170 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)

.7

(stating that the jurisdictional limitations recognized in Bronson also apply to the

courts of common pleas).

Accordingly, we affirm

.

___________________________________ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

Judge Cosgrove did not participate in the decision of this case.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Caine Pelzer, : : No. 2050 C.D. 2015 Appellant :

:

v. :

: Property Officer Pry, C01, : Property Officer Jenkins, C01, : John Doe 1, John Doe 2, : John Doe 3 Security Officer, : John Doe 4 Security SGT :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12 th day of August , 201 6

, we hereby affirm the

September 28, 2015, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County.

___________________________________ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge