IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ronald A. Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Department :

of Corrections, : No. 387 M.D. 2015

Respondent : Submitted: April 15, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: July 20, 2016

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) filed 

preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Ronald A. Williams’ (Williams) 

pro se petition for review (Petition) filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction seeking 

injunctive relief. The sole issue before the Court is whether Williams’ Petition states 

a claim upon which relief may be granted. After review, the Department’s 

preliminary objections are sustained and Williams’ Petition is dismissed.

Williams is currently serving a life sentence at the State Correctional 

Institute at Fayette (SCI-Fayette). According to the Petition, Williams was diagnosed 

with Hepatitis C Viral Infection (Hepatitis-C) in 1999, for which he continues to be 

monitored in the chronic care clinic. Gilead Sciences Inc. has perfected two

medications, one in 2013 and the other in 2014 that have a high cure rate for 

Hepatitis-C. Williams has been advised that the Department is working on an 

updated protocol for treating inmates with Hepatitis-C.
2

Williams filed his Petition on August 5, 2015, alleging that “[t]he 

[Department] is willfully violating [his] federally [sic] and state rights under the State 

Constitution and the Federal Constitutions [sic] to be free from cruel and unusual 

punishment” and asking this Court to “issue an[] [o]rder [u]pon the [Department] and 

[its] Bureau of Health Care Services to establish a realistic reasonable and 

eff[i]catious protocol and to treat Williams’ [Hepatitis-C].” Petition at 2, 3-4 ¶¶ 11,

24. On August 11, 2015, the Department filed its Preliminary Objections. On 

December 30, 2015, Williams filed a Motion for Discovery (Discovery Motion). On 

January 27, 2016, Williams filed a Motion to Compel the Department to comply with 

Williams’ Discovery Motion. By January 28, 2016 order, this Court denied 

Williams’ Discovery Motion and dismissed his Motion to Compel as moot. 

This Court’s review of preliminary objections is limited to the pleadings. 

Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res., 

909 A.2d 413 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), aff’d, 924 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 2007). 

[This Court is] required to accept as true the well-pled 

averments set forth in the . . . complaint, and all inferences 

reasonably deducible therefrom. Moreover, the [C]ourt 

need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted 

inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or 

expressions of opinion. In order to sustain preliminary 

objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will 

not permit recovery, and, where any doubt exists as to 

whether the preliminary objections should be sustained, the 

doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the 

preliminary objections.

Id. at 415-16 (citations omitted).

 The Department first argues that Williams failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act (Section 

1983), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is the basis of Williams’ Petition, because the 

Department is not a “person” for purposes of a Section 1983 action. We agree.
3

Section 1983 states, in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or 

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . 

to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other 

proper proceeding for redress[.]

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). With respect to “person” in regards to a Section 

1983 action, this Court explained:

In Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 

. . . (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that 

neither a state nor a state agency is a person for purposes of 

[S]ection 1983 lawsuits. Accord Flesch v. [E.] [Pa.]

Psychiatric [Inst.], 434 F.Supp. 963 (E.D. Pa. 1977); Faust 

v. [Dep’t] of Revenue, . . . 592 A.2d 835 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 

1991) petition for allowance of appeal denied, . . . 607 A.2d 

257 ([Pa.] 1992). 

It is undisputed that [] the Department . . . constitute[s a]

Commonwealth agenc[y]. Under [S]ection 201 of The 

Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 

177, as amended, 71 P.S. § 61, the Department is 

designated an administrative department of the 

Commonwealth. See also 2 Pa.C.S. § 101. . . . 

Therefore, we hold that the Department . . . [is] not subject 

to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Warren v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 616 A.2d 140, 141-42 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). 

Accordingly, Williams failed to state a claim under Section 1983 since the 

Department is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983. 

 Next, the Department contends Williams failed to state a claim upon 

which injunctive relief can be granted because he cannot demonstrate that there is an 

urgent necessity to avoid an injury which cannot be compensated in damages, and 
4

that greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting the relief requested. 

We agree.

[A p]etitioner[’s] threshold burden when seeking a 

permanent injunction is to establish a clear legal right to 

relief. To secure injunctive relief, [a p]etitioner[] must 

demonstrate that the right to relief is clear, that there is an 

urgent necessity to avoid an injury which cannot be 

compensated in damages, and that the greater injury will 

result from refusing rather than granting the relief 

requested.

Tindall v. Dep’t of Corr., 87 A.3d 1029, 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (citation omitted). 

Here, Williams averred in his Petition, in relevant part:

[Williams] has been diagnosed with Hepatitis-C Genotype1 at the SCI[-]Graterford in 1999[.] Gilead Sciences Inc[.]

(hereafter Gilead) has perfected (2) medications in 2013 and 

2014 respectively[,] that offer a 96 to a 99% cure rate for 

the Hepatitis C Virus.

Hepatitis C affects 3[.]2 [m]illion Americans and kills more

people each year tha[n] HIV/AIDS in the United States and 

is clearly a severe life threatening viral infection. (See Ex. 

A)

In 2013[,] Gilead developed and marketed Sovaldi which is 

administered with two other anti-viral medications[,] i.e[.,]

Pegylated Interferon Injections and ribavirin tablets.

In 2014[,] Gilead developed and [m]arketed Harvoni

[w]hich was a major breakthrough which only required a 

single [t]ablet regiment once a day and required no other 

anti[-]viral medications[.]

Hepatitis C is a life threatening [v]iral [i]nfection that

destroys vital liver functions over time[.] It can and does 

lead to serious and potentially fatal complications, including 

liver cancer[,] cirrhosis and the need for liver 

transplantation[.] Inclusive with serious liver damage and 

complications if left untreated hepatitis C can include but is 

not limited [to] Type 2 Diabetes[,] Rheumatologic disorders 

and thyroid disease.
5

[Williams] [c]urrently suffers from rheumatoid arthritis in

his right knee[,] shoulder and wrist pain [sic] and is 

required to wear a brace for his knee and has been required 

to take pain medication for the last six years[,] is limited to 

sleeping in a lower bunk and the proximal cause of 

[Williams’] suffering is his hepatitis C viral infection[.]

Petition at 1-2, ¶¶ 4-9. The above averments, while declaring that Williams has 

Hepatitis-C and that new medications have been developed which claim a high cure 

rate,1do not demonstrate that ordering the Department to establish a protocol for 

treating Hepatitis-C with the new medications is “an urgent necessity to avoid an 

injury which cannot be compensated in damages, and that the greater injury will 

result from refusing rather than granting the relief requested.” Tindall, 87 A.3d at 

1034. 

Indeed, according to the Final Appeal Decision issued by the 

Department’s Secretary’s Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals:

[Williams’] concern of not being provided proper medical 

care for Hepatitis C was reviewed by the staff of the Bureau

of Health Care Services. They reviewed the medical record 

and determined that the medical care provided was 

reasonable and appropriate. The [Department] is updating 

its protocol for treating Hepatitis C. [Williams] will 

continue to be monitored in [the] chronic care clinic. Once 

the protocol is issued, [he] will be re-evaluated for 

treatment with medication. [Williams is] encouraged to 

participate in [his] treatment plan and to discuss [his]

concerns or changes of condition with a practitioner. No 

evidence of neglect or deliberate indifference has been 

found.

Petition Ex. I.2 “Absent a showing that [prison] officials have engaged in 

 

1

Inmates do not get to choose their own medications or treatment. Kretchmar v. 

Commonwealth, 831 A.2d 793 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

2

“[C]ourts reviewing preliminary objections may not only consider the facts pled in the 

complaint, but also any documents or exhibits attached to it.” Allen v. Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 

365, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
6

constitutionally[-]impermissible conduct,[3]it is not in the public’s interest for the 

court to usurp the [Department’s] authority and micro-manage the medical needs of a 

particular inmate.” Kretchmar v. Commonwealth, 831 A.2d 793, 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2003) (quoting Berman v. Lamer, 874 F.Supp. 102, 106 (E.D. Pa. 1995)). We must, 

therefore, hold that Williams’ Petition fails to state a claim for injunctive relief. 

Lastly, the Department asserts that Williams failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted because he failed to sufficiently plead facts regarding the 

current state of or the progression of his Hepatitis-C or his eligibility for the 

specifically-desired medications under the manufacturer’s guidelines. We agree.

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) (Rule 

1019(a)): “The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be 

stated in a concise and summary form.” Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a). “[Rule 1019(a)] 

requires a plaintiff to plead all the facts that he must prove in order to achieve 

recovery on the alleged cause of action. The pleading must be sufficiently specific 

so that the defending party will know how to prepare his defense.” Commonwealth 

ex rel. Pappert v. TAP Pharms. Products, Inc., 868 A.2d 624, 635 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2005) (emphasis added). Here, Williams cannot succeed on a claim that the 

Department must provide him with a specific medication without proving that he is in 

fact eligible for the medication. Thus, because Williams failed to plead such

eligibility, he has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

 

3

[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth 

Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement 

unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate

health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which 

the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists, and he must also draw the inference.

Kretchmar v. Commonwealth, 831 A.2d 793, 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).
7

For all of the above reasons, the Department’s preliminary objections are

sustained and Williams’ Petition is dismissed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ronald A. Williams, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Department :

of Corrections, : No. 387 M.D. 2015

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to Ronald A. 

Williams’ (Williams) petition for review (Petition) are sustained and Williams’ 

Petition is dismissed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge