IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lamont C. Bullock
, : Petitioner :

: v. :

: The Pennsylvania Department : of Corrections
, : No. 241 M .D. 2016 Respondent : Submitted: December 30 , 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT , President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI , Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: May 1 2 , 2017

T he Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) filed preliminary objection s in the nature of a demurrer to Lamont C. Bullock’s ( Bullock )

pro se Amended P etition for R eview (Petition) in the Nature of a Complaint in
Mandamus filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction

. 1 The sole issue before the Court
is whether Bullock ’s Petition states claim s upon which relief may be granted. After review, the Department’s preliminary objections are sustained and Bullock’s Petition
is dismissed

. Bullock is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institut ion at Greene (SCI

- Greene). On July 15, 2016, Bullock fil ed the Petition. According to the Petition and the documents attached thereto, Bullock’s due process and equal

1 Originally, the Department’s preliminary objections also sought to dismiss Bullock ’s Petition under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1514(c) for lack of persona l jurisdiction/improper service. On August 23, 2016 , this Court ordered Bullock to make proper service. By September 26, 2016 order, this Court overruled that preliminary objection based upon Bullock’s compliance with its August 23, 2016 order. Accordin gly, only the Department’s demurrer remains at issue.2

protection rights were violated when Department employees confiscated, stole, lost, destroyed and/or misplaced his De partment

- approved legal, religious and personal property , and that the Department’s actions or inactions “were planned and calculated in retaliation for [Bullock] filing grievance complaint[s] and civil actions

. ” 2 Petition ¶ 6; see also Petition ¶¶ 4

- 5.

Specifically, Bullock claimed that during a January 14, 2014 search of his cell, Correctional Officer (CO) Myers 3 and another unidentified CO confiscated
Bullock’s Sony Walkman, two pairs of prescription eyeglasses and a deck of cards without giving him a confiscated items receipt. See Petition ¶¶ 9

- 13. Bullock represented that after CO Myers refused to provide a receipt
, and Bullock contacted security and block officers concerning the same , he filed Grievance No. 496184 which was ultimately denied

. 4 S ee Petition ¶¶ 14

- 19 ; see also Petition Exs. 1A

- C.
Bullock stated that his property was never returned. See Petition ¶ 20.

Bullock further alleged in the Petition that he was taken into administrative custody at SCI

- Fayette and removed from gener al population to the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) 5 on August 22, 2014, without the opportunity to pack

2 On April 18, 2002, in Bullock v. Horn (C.A. No. 01

- 2428), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit declared Bullock a three

- strike litigant. See attachment to Department ’s Motion to D eny Bullock’s Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Motion) . The Department’s Motion was rendered moot after Bullock paid this Court’s filing fee. See June 24, 2016 Order.

3 CO Myers’ full name is not stated in the record. 4 Grievance No . 496184 was denied because Bullock failed to document his ownership of the missing items. Despite being afforded the opportunity to resubmit the grievance with the proper documentation, Bullock did not do so. See Petition Ex. 1B.

5 “ DC

– ADM 802 defines r estricted housing unit [as] ‘ [a]n area or group of cells for an inmate assigned to [disciplinary custody] or [administrative custody]. ’” Torres v. Beard , 997 A.2d 1242, 1244 n

. 3. (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) . “ Administrative custody is a status of confinement for non

disciplinary reasons that provides closer supervision, control, and protection than is provided for in general population. Section 3 A.1 of DC

- ADM 802 (AC Housing Status). ” Id. at 1244 n.2. According to the record, Bullock was placed in administrativ e custody and placed in RHU because he had “been charged with or is under investigation for a violation of facility rules and3

and/or inventory his belongings. See Petition ¶¶ 21

- 23. Bullock asserted the following about when the COs permitted him to inventory his property o n A ugust 25,
2014 : his property was mixed with another inmate’s property to make it appear that
he was over his cell content limit ; his property was strewn about after being
inventoried outside of his presence ; he was forced to destroy some of it ; and his Dep artment

- approved religious and legal books, commissary food and clothing and other personal items were missing. See Petition ¶¶ 23

- 29, 31

- 32. He was given three confiscated item receipts. See Petition ¶¶ 30

- 31 ; see also Petition Exs. 1C, D, E

. After Bu llock attempted to account for his missing items, he filed Grievance No.
526278 which was ultimately denied. 6 See Petition ¶¶ 33

- 42 ; see also Petition Exs. 1F, G, H

. Bullock further declared that when he was placed in RHU at SCI

Smithfield on November 14 , 2014, his property was again inventoried outside of his presence and more items were confiscated, lost or stolen, including an Aztec
television antenna, prescription eyeglasses, ear buds, a headphone extension, a headphone splitter, and a $2 v enda card. 7 See Petition ¶¶ 45

- 47.

Bullock represented that when he was transferred to SCI

- Greene RHU on December 2, 2014, his property was not inventoried in his presence upon his arrival, it was strewn about, and his television was damaged. See Petition ¶¶ 49

- 59

. Accordingly, Bullock refused to sign the inventory sheet and filed Grievance No.
543765 , which was sustained as to his television

. See Petition ¶¶ 59

- 64; see also

there is a need for increased control pending disposition of charges or completion of the investigation.” Petition Ex. I at 2.

6 Grievance No. 526278 was denied because investigation revealed that his property was inventoried in his presence and was not intermixed with another inmate’s property, that some of the items he claimed were missing never arrived at RHU, and that Bullock ha d opted to destroy certain items that were over the property limit established by DC

- ADM 815

. See Petition Ex. 1

- B. The Department’s response was upheld on appeal. See Petition Exs. 1

- C, 1

- C

- 1.

7 The record does not define the term “venda card.”4

Petition Exs. AB, AC, AD. Bullock further claimed that upon his refusal to sign the
inve ntory sheet while being processed for release from RHU, COs Churney, Cody, Workman and Sergeant Pent 8 “fabricated a misconduct report agains[t] [Bullock]”
and he was returned to RHU for an additional 30 days. Petition ¶¶ 65

- 67. Upon re

release from RHU, Bullock “was made to sign the inventory sheet” without the opportunity to check his property for damage. Petition ¶ 68; see also Petition ¶ 69. He later discovered that “his television and typwrit[]er had been damage d and broken considerably.” Petition ¶ 69 . Bullock claimed that he filed a grievance on Februrary 10, 2015 concerning his television and typewriter, but in exchange for having those items replaced, Bullock agreed to “sign off” on the grievance. 9 Petition ¶¶ 70

- 71. He explained that althoug h he received a typewriter five or six months thereafter, he did
not receive a television for at least 19 months because he had to wait until another
inmate was released or ha d his television confiscated

. See Petition ¶¶ 72

- 73.

Bullock prono unced that he broke his prescription eyeglasses on March 19, 2016 , and reported it to CO Jones, who issued a confiscated item sheet and processed them to be repaired by Mr. Hice

. 10 See Petition ¶¶ 75

- 76. However, Mr.
Hice claimed he never received them, a nd they were not returned to Bullock. See Petition ¶¶ 74

- 79. Bullock stated that Mr. Hice “was acting in retaliation for [Bullock] filing grievances against him” for Mr. Hice’s alleged us e of contaminat ed needles on Bullock in the past. Petition ¶ 79; s ee also Petition ¶ 78. Bullock filed a

8 The f ull names of these COs are not stated in the record. 9 Bullock referenced the grievance as Petition Ex. AE . Although no document with that designation is attached to the Petition , a copy thereof was attached to Bullock’s motion to supplement his original petition for review, which was denied by this Court on July 6, 2016, with the instruction that Bullock file the amended petition.

10 Mr. Hice’s complete name is not stated in the record.5

g rievance regarding the mishandling of his glasses, which was denied. 11 See Petition ¶¶ 80

- 81.
Bullock declared that he filed an Inmate [Cable] Subscriber Agreement
which authorized the Department to deduct $17.00 pe r month from his account beginning on April 1, 2016; however, since Bullock did not receive a cable cord until April 14, 2016, he was unable to watch television from April 1, to April 14, 2016.
See Petition ¶¶ 89

- 92; see also Petition Exs. A

- L , A

- M. Bull ock filed Grievance No.
622998 seeking reimbursement for the days he could not access cable, but the grievance was denied. 12 See Petition ¶¶ 91

- 92; see also Petition Ex. A

- K at 3

- 5

.

Bullock requests that this Court:

1. Enter a final ORDER directing that [the Department] violat e d the property rights of [Bullock] in violation of both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Cla u se of the 1 st , 8 th and 14 th [ 13 ] Amendments of the United States

11 Bullock referenced th e grievance as Petition Ex. AG. Although no do cument with that designation is attached to the Petition, a copy thereof was attached to Bullock’s motion to supplement his original petition for review, which was denied by this Court on July 6, 2016, with the instruction that Bullock file the amended pet ition.

12 Grievance No. 622998 was denied because Bullock did not pick up his cable when it was made available to him on May 1, 2016, or report to anyone that he had not received it that day

. See Petition Ex. A

- K at 3

- 5. It is unclear from this record whe ther Bullock appealed from that denial.

13 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Article 1, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “ All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indef easible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. ” Pa. Const. art. I, § 1. “ The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that ‘ the requirements of Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution are not distinguishable from those of the [Due Process Clause of the] 14th Amendment6 Constitution, and the Due Process and [E]qual Protection Clause of th e 14 th Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, and variou[]s Articles of the Pennsylvania Constitution, when [the Department] mishandled, lost, stole, confiscated and damaged [Bullock’s] property. [ 14 ]

2. Issue a[n] ORDER directing [the Department] to eithe r return [Bullock’s] property forthwith , and replace and/or reimburse [Bullock] for each property item lost, stolen, damaged, or pay [Bullock] in full. [3.] Issue an ORDER directing that the actions or inactions of [the Department] were in retaliation for [Bullock] filing grievance complaints, and civil actions against prison officials.
4. Issue an ORDER that [the Department] pay interest to [Bullock] for every day [Bullock] was without his property.
5. Grant any further relief the Court deems appropriate, or for punitive reasons.

Petition at 11.

On August 17, 2016 , the Department filed the p reliminary o bjections contending that Bullock’s Petition fails to state due process and equal protection

. . . [ ; thus
, ] we may apply the same analysis to both claims. ’” Robbins v. Cumberland C n ty. Ch ildren & Youth Servs. , 802 A.2d 1239, 1252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (quoting P a. Game Comm ’ n v. Marich
, 666 A.2d 253, 255 n.6 ( Pa. 1995) ). Article 1, Section 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares: “ Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision th ereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise of any civil right. ” Pa. Const. art. I, § 26 . “ Our Supreme Court treats equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Uni ted States Constitution the same as equal protection claims brought under Article I, Section 26

.

. . of the Pennsylvania Constitution. ” Ballerino v. W orkers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Darby Borough)
, 938 A.2d 541, 545 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)

.

14 Bullock did not ma ke any specific allegations of Fi r st and Eighth Amendment violations or state which other articles of the Pennsylvania Constitution may be at issue , nor did he provide facts in support thereof in his Petition or br ief in o pposition to the Department’s prel iminary objections. Because Bullock did not develop arguments related to those issues, they are waived. Rapid Pallet v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 707 A.2d 636 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); see also Pa.R.A.P. 106 (Pa.R.A.P. 2119 applies to original jurisdic tion petitions for review /complaints ); G. Ronald Darlington et al., 20A West’s PA Practice, Pa

. Appellate Pr actice §§ 106:4, 106:16 (2016

- 17 ed.). Accordingly, our review herein is limited to Bullock’s Fourteenth Amendment violation claims.7

violation claims and/or retaliation claim s

. Bullock filed a response to the Department’s preliminary objections. The Department’s preliminary objections are
now before the Court. 15

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) states: “The material facts
on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be sta ted in a concise and summary form.” 16 Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a). This Court has declared that “[t]he purpose of this rule is to require the plaintiff to disclose the material facts sufficient to enable the adverse party to prepare the case.” Bennett v. Beard , 919 A.2d 365, 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). “Legal conclusions and general allegations of wrongdoing, without the requisite specific factual averments or support, fail to meet the pleading
standard.” McCulligan v. Pa. State Police , 123 A.3d 1136, 1141 (Pa. C mwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016). Accordingly,

[i] n ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as true all well

- pleaded material allegations in the petition for review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. The Court n eed 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 any do ubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain them. A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits every well

- pleaded fact in the complaint and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. [ 17 ] It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenge d pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed

15 Bullock file d a motion to compel discovery which has been stayed pending disposition of the Department’s preliminary objections. See July 25, 2016 Order.

16 Where appellate rules do not otherwise specifically address them, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure apply t o petitions for review filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction. See Pa.R.A.P. 106.

17 “[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).8 to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to the complaint.

Torres v. Beard , 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citations omitted).

Due Process Claims In the Petition, Bullock claims that several of his property items were confiscated and/or damaged , and he was deprived of two weeks of cable servi c e, in
violation of his due process rights. 18

Sectio n 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

“ Due process under th e Pennsylvania Constitution emanates from a number of provisions, including Article I, Sections 1, 9, and 11. ” Muscarella v. Com monwealth
, 87 A.3d 966, 973 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)

. Article 1, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution , Pa. Const. art. I, § 1, similarly protects life, liberty and property
interests. 19 Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that a person shall not be “deprived of his life, liberty or property, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” Pa. Const. art. I, § 9. Article I, Section
11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states, in relevant part, that “[a]ll courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law [.] ” Pa. Const. art. I, § 11.

18 “ Although [Bullock does] not specify whether [he is] claiming that the Department’s action[s] violate[] procedural due process guarantees or principles of substantive due process, [his] allegations sound in procedural due process, as does the relief [he] seek[s

. ] ” Small v. Horn , 722 A.2d 664, 671 ( Pa. 1998)

.

19 Article 1, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states: “ All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasi ble rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. ” Pa. Const. art. I, § 1.9 “I n order to establish that the [Department] violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, [ Bullock ] must establish that he has been deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law

. See U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1.” Silo v. Ridge , 728 A.2d 394, 399 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (emphasis added)

. However, t he United States Supreme Court has ruled that an inmate cannot state a cognizable procedural due process claim for the deprivation of property by prison officials where there exists an adequate post

- deprivation remedy

. Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517 (1984). This Court has declared that the Department’s grievance procedure is a constitutionally

- adequate and legal post

deprivation rem edy

. See Silo; see also Brown v. Wetzel (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 318 M.D. 2015, filed September 9, 2016); Fennell v. N. D. Goss (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1198 C.D. 2015, filed Feb ruary 5, 2016)

. 20

Here , Bullock asserts in the Petition that the Department “failed and/or

r efused to provide an adequate resolution for the mishandling of his property[.]” Petition ¶ 5. Bullock’s grievances were denied because he either did not supply documentation of his valid possession of the subject items, he possessed property in

excess o f the limits set forth in DC

- ADM 815, 21 or investigations of his claims did

20 This Court’s unreported memorandum opinions ma y be cited “for [their] persuasive value, but not as a binding precedent.” Section 414 (a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating Procedures
, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a)

.

21 Other courts have recognized that reasonable prison regulations regarding the quantity and type of property that inmates may possess do not violate due process guarantees. See, e.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 554

. . . (1979) (noting that prisoners ’ due process rights with respect to possession of property are not absolute, b ut are

‘ subject to reasonable limitation or retraction in light of the legitimate security concerns of the institution ’ ) (emphasis added); Ford v. Schmidt, 577 F.2d 408 (7th Cir. 1977) (upholding, against a constitutional challenge, regulations established by prison officials concerning the possession of property by inmates). Small , 722 A.2d at 671

.10

not produce evidence to support them. S ince it is clear that Bullock “ fully utilize d the [Department’s] grievance procedure ” to redress each of his property damage/confiscation cla ims
, his “ mere dissatisfaction with the outcome

. . . does not equate to a denial of due process

. ” 22 Fennell , slip op. at 4 ( emphasis added; quotation marks omitted).

A ccept ing as true all of the Petition’s well

- pled a llegations and inferences reasonably deduced therefrom , it “ appear [s] with certainty that the law will not permit recovery ” for Bullock’s alleged due process violations. Torres , 997 A.2d

at 1245

. Because it appears on the face of the Petition that Bullock was afforded all of the process th at was due him , we sustain the Department’s demurrer to Bullock’s due process violation claims.

Equal Protection Claims

Bullock further claims i n the Petition that the mishandling and
confiscation of his property and cable service violated his constitut ional right to equal protection

. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. am end. XIV, § 1.
Ar ticle 1, Section 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution declares: “Neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision thereof shall deny to any person the enjoyment of any civil right, nor discriminate against any person in the exercise o f any civil right.” Pa. Const. art. I, § 26. “ Together, [Article 1, Section 1 and Article 1,
Section 26 of the Pennsylvania Constitution] are understood to establish a right to equal protection of the laws equivalent to that established in the United Sta tes

22 Moreover, t his Court lacks jurisdiction to relitigate Bullock’s grievances. Portalatin v. Dep’t of Corr. , 979 A.2d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).11

Constitution. ” 23 Smires v. O ’ Shell , 126 A.3d 383, 393 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), as amended (Oct. 26, 2015)

. “ Our Supreme Court has held that ‘ [t]he Equal Protection
Clause

. . . does not obligate the government to treat all persons identically, but

mere ly assures that all similarly [

- ] situated persons are treated alike. ’” Garrison v. Dep ’ t of Corr. , 16 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (quoting Small v. Horn, 722 A.2d 664, 672 ( Pa. 1998) )

.

“ [I] n order to properly state an equal protection claim, [ Bullock ] must allege that he is receiving different treatment from that received by other similarly

- situated individuals due to his membership in a particular class and his assertions of intentional disparate treatment must be supported by specific factual allegat ions .” Mobley v. Coleman , 110 A.3d 216, 222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (emphasis added)

. Nowhere in his Petition does Bullock state how his equal protection rights
were violated. Bullock merely averred that “the [Department] has discriminated against [him] by f

ailing to conduct an investigation on the allegation that his prope rty was given to other inmates, and willfully denied his grievances contrary to policy guaranting [sic] a resolution for meritorious issues . . . .” Petition ¶ 93. Bullock does
not make a ny specific factual allegations in the Petition that he is a member of a particular class, 24 or that he wa s being treated differently from similarly

- situated persons as a result. Under the circumstances, Bullock has not pled any facts in the
Petition suffi cient to establish that the Department violated his equal protection rights.

23 Accordingly, “ [ o] ur Supreme Court has held that the equal protection provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution are analyzed under the same standards used by the United States Supreme Court when reviewing equal protections claims under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Un ited States Constitution.” Muscarella , 87 A.3d at 972 n.8.

24 Imprisonment in a state correctional facility creates “ neither a suspect classification nor a quasi

- suspect classification. ” Small , 722 A.2d at 672

.12 A ccept ing as true all of the Petition’s well

- pled a llegations and inferences reasonably deduced therefrom , it “ appear [s] with certainty that the law will not permit recovery ” for Bullock’s alleged equal protection violations. Torres , 997
A.2d at 1245 . Accordingly, we sustain the Department ’s demurrer to Bullock’s equal protection violation claims.

Retali a tion Claims

A prison retaliation claim requires proof that ‘the inmate
en gaged in constitutionally [

- ] protected conduct, prison officials took adverse action, and the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the action.’ Yount v. Dep [ ’ ] t of Corr [

. ]
, . . . 966 A.2d 1115, 1120 ([Pa.] 2009); see also Richardson v. Wetzel, 74 A.3d 353, 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (applying Yount test and finding no factual averments in the complaint demonstrating retaliatory conduct by prison officials). Mays v. Kosinski , 86 A.3d 945, 948

- 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). “ Adverse action is o ne which is sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights. ” Bush v. Veach , 1 A.3d 981, 985 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)

.

Here, in support of his retaliation claim, Bu llock generally averred in the
Petition that th e Department’s “actions or inactions . . . in depriving [him] of his property were planned and calculated in retaliation for [his] grievance complaint and
civil actions
, ” without specific facts to substantiate his claim. Petition ¶ 6. With the exception of the December 2014 RHU release incident, t he Petition does not specifically state who retaliated against him or the precise reason, and/or whether the Department was aware of the incidents, nor does it reflect how Bullock was deterred from exercising his constitutional rights. And, even in that one instance, t he Petition does not make specific allegation s of wrongdoing related to any one of Bullock’s past13

filings and
, since Bullock purportedly grieved the matter , he clearly was not deterred
from exercisi ng his constitutional rights

.

A ccept ing as true all of the Petition’s well

- pled a llegations and inferences reasonably deduced therefrom , it “ appear [s] with certainty that the law will not permit recovery ” for Bullock’s alleged retaliation claims. Torres , 997 A.2d at
1245 . Accordingly, we sustain the D epartment ’s demurrer to Bullock’s retaliation
claims.

Conclusion

Because Bullock has not articulated any factual or legal basis to support his claims, the Department’s preliminary objections are sustained, and Bullock’s
Petition is dismissed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lamont C. Bullock, : Petitioner :

: v. :

: The Pennsylvania Department : of Corrections, : No. 241 M.D. 2016 Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1 2 th day of May , 201 7 , the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections ’ preliminary objection s to Lamont C. Bullock’s (Bullock) Amended
P etition for R eview (Petition) are sustained and Bullock’s Petition is dismissed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge