IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Omar A. Rahman, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 2 M.D. 2022

: SUBMITTED: February 24, 2023

Security Department of SCI Smithfield :

Pennsylvania State Police Crime Lab, :

Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: July 14, 2023

Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary 

objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by Respondent, Pennsylvania State 

Police Crime Lab (PSP), to the complaint in mandamus1(petition for review) of pro 

se petitioner Omar A. Rahman.2 We sustain the preliminary objections and dismiss 

Rahman’s petition for review with prejudice.

3

In December 2021, Rahman filed a petition for review in the Superior 

Court of Pennsylvania seeking mandamus relief in the form of an order directing the 

1 This Court will treat the complaint in mandamus as a petition for review addressed to our 

original jurisdiction pursuant to Section 761 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761, and Pa.R.A.P. 

1502.

2 This Court issued an order directing Rahman to file a brief on or before September 20, 2022,

and advising him that his failure to do so would result in consideration of this matter without his 

brief. In light of his failure to comply, we consider this matter without his brief.

3 Respondent Security Department of SCI Smithfield did not file preliminary objections.
2

return of property and monetary damages against Respondents.

4

 The gravamen of 

the petition for review is that staff at SCI-Smithfield seized Rahman’s property in 

the form of mail as evidence in the course of a criminal investigation, submitted it 

to PSP for forensic testing, and failed to return his property. (Pet. for Rev., ¶¶ 6-8.) 

Rahman avers that PSP has a duty to return any evidence that is not determined to 

be the fruits of any wrongdoing and that Security Department at SCI-Smithfield has 

a duty to ensure that any confiscated property be returned or that he be reimbursed 

for that property. (Id., ¶ 18.)

Before filing the instant petition for review, Rahman filed a January 

2021 motion for return of property pertaining to the same seized property in the 

Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County. (Id., ¶ 14.) He avers that 

Respondents failed to respond to his motion. (Id., ¶ 15.) Rahman also avers that he 

erroneously filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania seeking damages and the return of his property, which was denied. 

(Id., ¶ 16 and App. H.)

In January 2022, PSP filed preliminary objections to the instant petition 

for review averring that (1) the Commonwealth Court lacks jurisdiction over this 

matter; (2) the petition for review is legally insufficient; and (3) there is a prior 

pending action in common pleas court. In ruling upon preliminary objections in the 

nature of a demurrer, this Court must accept as true all well-pled facts and all 

reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, and it must determine whether the facts 

pled are legally sufficient to permit the action to continue. Altoona Housing Auth. 

v. City of Altoona, 785 A.2d 1047 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). We are not required, 

however, to accept conclusions of law or expressions of opinion. Pa. Div., 

4

In January 2022, the Superior Court transferred the case to this Court.
3

Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Ass’n, Inc. v. Mountainview Thoroughbred 

Racing Ass’n, 855 A.2d 957 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). In that a demurrer results in the 

dismissal of a suit, it should be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from 

doubt and only where it appears with certainty that the law permits no recovery under 

the allegations pleaded. Id.

As PSP maintains, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. 

Section 5806(a)(1) of the Judicial Code provides: “A person aggrieved by a search 

and seizure may move for the return of the property seized by filing a motion in the 

court of common pleas in the judicial district where the property is located.” 42 

Pa.C.S. § 5806(a)(1). In addition, Rule 588 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, in pertinent part, provides:

A person aggrieved by a search and seizure, whether or not 

executed pursuant to a warrant, may move for the return 

of the property on the ground that he or she is entitled to 

lawful possession thereof. Such motion shall be filed in 

the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which 

the property was seized.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 588(A). As this Court determined in an analogous case, subject matter 

jurisdiction is vested in the courts of common pleas. Green v. Pa. State Police (Pa. 

Cmwlth., No. 349 M.D. 2020, filed August 6, 2021).

5

 Accordingly, this matter is

dismissed as to both respondents for lack of jurisdiction.6

5 While not binding, unreported panel decisions of this Court issued after January 15, 2008 

may be cited for their persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1); 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).

6

“[Q]uestions of jurisdiction can never be waived, and may be raised any time by the parties 

or sua sponte by [the] court.” Pennhurst Med. Grp., P.C. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 796 A.2d 423, 

425 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Where dismissal is based on lack of jurisdiction, it applies to all 

parties.
4

In addition, the averments of the petition for review are legally 

insufficient to establish a right to mandamus relief. “It is well settled that mandamus 

is an extraordinary writ which lies to compel performance of a ministerial act or 

mandatory duty where there is a clear legal right in the petitioner, a corresponding 

duty in the respondent, and a want of any other appropriate and adequate remedy.” 

Cooper v. City of Greensburg, 363 A.2d 813, 815 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). “The purpose 

of mandamus is not to establish legal rights but only to enforce those legal rights that 

have already been established.” Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, Zoning 

Hearing Bd., 32 A.3d 287, 290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). “Mandamus will lie only to

compel public officials to perform their duties in accordance with the law [when] 

those duties are ministerial in character and not discretionary.” Rakus v. Robinson, 

382 A.2d 770, 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) [citing Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist. v. Dep’t 

of Pub. Instruction, 244 A.2d 754 (Pa. 1968)]. Here, Rahman has not established 

that he is legally entitled to return of the previously seized property, that PSP still 

retains the property, or that PSP has any duty to return the property to him. In 

addition, he has a clear remedy at law in the form of his motion for return of property.

Moreover, as Rahman acknowledges, there is a prior pending action in 

common pleas court in the form of the motion for return of property. The pendency 

of a prior action, known as the doctrine of lis pendens, is a valid ground for the 

dismissal of a later filed action where the parties, the causes of action, and the relief 

are the same in both actions. Cellucci v. Laurel Homeowners Ass’n, 142 A.3d 1032, 

1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). The purpose of the defense is to protect a defendant from 

having to defend multiple suits on the same cause of action at the same time. 

Crutchfield v. Eaton Corp., 806 A.2d 1259, 1262 (Pa. Super. 2022). The 

applicability of the doctrine is a question of law that can be ascertained from 
5

examining the pleadings. Id. As the pleadings at issue reflect, the motion for return 

of property before common pleas court7 and the instant petition for review are

essentially identical. In both cases, Rahman seeks the return of his property in the 

form of mail seized by SCI-Smithfield, both SCI-Smithfield and PSP are parties,8

and the requested relief is essentially the same. Accordingly, the doctrine of lis 

pendens applies, warranting dismissal of the subsequently filed petition for review.

Finally, Rahman has failed to exhaust his statutory remedies. As noted, 

Section 5806 of the Judicial Code sets forth the process by which individuals 

“aggrieved by a search and seizure” may seek the return of their property. 

Accordingly, he must pursue the statutory remedy provided by the General 

Assembly. Wolk v. Sch. Dist. of Lower Merion, 228 A.3d 595, 605 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2020).

Accordingly, we sustain the preliminary objections and dismiss 

Rahman’s petition for review, with prejudice.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita

7

(PSP’s Prelim. Objs., Exs. A and B.)

8 While it is true that the Huntingdon County District Attorney is also a party to the pending 

motion for return of property, its inclusion does not change our analysis in the instant case.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Omar A. Rahman, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 2 M.D. 2022

:

Security Department of SCI Smithfield :

Pennsylvania State Police Crime Lab, :

Respondents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2023, the preliminary objections of 

Respondent, Pennsylvania State Police Crime Lab, are hereby SUSTAINED. The 

petition for review of Petitioner, Omar A. Rahman, is hereby DISMSSED with 

prejudice as to both Respondents.

_____________________________________

BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,

President Judge Emerita