IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Richard D. Beaver, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: John Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania : Department of Corrections, and : Melinda Adams, Superintendant, 1 : SCI

- Mercer, and Rhonda Jolley, : Inmat e Accounts, SCI

- Mercer, : No. 674 M.D. 2018

Respondents : Submitted: October 4, 2019

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT

, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON

, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: December 6, 2019

Before this Court are the preliminary objections in the nature of a

demurrer (Preliminary Objections) filed by the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (Department) Secretary John Wetzel (Wetzel)

, State Correctional

Institution at Mercer ’s ( SCI

- Mercer ) Superintendent Melissa Adams (Adams) , and

SCI

- Mercer’s inmate accountant Rhonda Jolley (Jolley) (collectively, DOC) to
Richard D. Beaver’s (Beaver) pro se amended petition for review ( Amended Petition )
filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction. After review, we sustain the Preliminary
Objections and dismiss the Amended Petition.

1 Sup erintendent is misspelled in Richard D. Beaver’s complaint caption.2 Background 2

By August 14, 2018 order, the Trumbull County, Ohio

, Child Support
Enforcement Agency (CSEA) directed SCI

- Mercer to withhold money from Beaver’s
inmate account to satisfy child support arrearages

. See Amended Petition Ex. B. By
August 20, 2018 order, the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court (Allegheny
County) directed:

At the request of the state of O hio, th e arrears only order is removed from the [ Pennsylvania Automated Child Support Enforcement System (] PACSES [)] []

. A rrears of $17,215.02 are removed. T his balance is subject to adjustment based on the records of Trumbull County, state of O hio courts

. A t the request of the O hio court, this case will close.

Amended Petition Ex. A (emphasis added)

.

On September 12, 2018, Beaver filed an Inmate’s Request to Staff

Member (Request) stating that SCI

- Mercer’s continu ed withholding of his fu nds

violat ed the Au gust 20, 2018 order. See Amended Petition Unspecified Ex. The

r esponse to the Request specified Trumbull County had informed Jolley that
Allegheny County lacked jurisdiction in this matter and SCI

- Mercer should continue

to withhold fund s until otherwise ordered by T rumbull County. See id.

On October 24, 2018, Beaver filed a petition for review, styled as a
Complaint in Civil A ction

, in this Court. On December 3, 2018, Beaver filed the
Amended Petition seeking:

(1) that the Court issue an Order to [DOC] to cease and desist taking monies from [Beaver’s] inmate account, (2) issue an Order instructing [DOC] to reimburse [Beaver] all monies the [Department] has taken f rom him pursuant to the [August 14, 2018 order] issued and/or a telephone conversation, and (3) issue an Order for the [Department] to pay [Beaver] in the sum amount of $500.00 as punitive

2 The following facts are as alleged in the Amended Petition and the attachments thereto

.3 damage for the deliberate indifference and emotional effect its actions has [sic] had on [Beaver].

Amended Petition at 4. On January 8, 2019, DOC filed the Preliminary Objections to

the Amended Petition

.

The law is well settled :

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 therefr om. The Court 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 reco very , and any doubt 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 [petition for review in the nature of a] complaint and all inferences reasonably deducible there from. It tests the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to th e [ petition for review in the nature of a ] complaint

.

Torres v. Beard , 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) ( emphasis added; citations
omitted). “[C]ourts reviewing preliminary objections may not only consider the facts
pled in the complaint, but also a ny documents or exhibits attached to it.” Allen v.
Dep’t of Corr.

, 103 A.3d 365, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). Thus, when deciding the

P reliminary O bjections, this Court’s analysis is limited to the Amended Petition and

the attachments thereto.

DOC first argu es that the Amended Petition should be dismissed because
the Departme nt is complying with a facially valid out

- of

- state child support order and

is

, therefore

, immune from liability under Section 7501.3 of the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (Act)

, wh ich provides: “ An employer who complies with an4

income

- withholding order issued in another state in accordance with this chapter is
not subject to civil liability to an individual or age ncy with regard to the employer’ s withholding of child support from th e obligor’ s income. ” 23 Pa.C.S. § 7501.3

.

Beaver rejoins that

, since the Department is not his employer, Section

7501.3 of the Act does not apply her e

. However, Section 4302 of the Domestic

R elations Code defines “ employer” as “ an individual, partners hip, association,
corporation, trust,

. . . [or] Commonwealth agency

. . . paying or obligated to pay

income

. ” 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302 (emphasis added). “ Income ” is defined , in relevant part,

as “ any form of payment due to and collectible by an individual reg ardless of

source. ” Id. Thus, b y definition, the Department is Beaver’s employer unde r the

D omestic R elations Code . Consequently, Section 7501.3 of the Act applies in the

instant matter. 3 Accordingly, DOC’s first preliminary objection is sustained.

DO C next asserts that the Amended Petition should be dismissed
because Beaver’s due process remedies 4 lie in the Domestic Relations Code

.

Section 7501.5 of the Act expressly provides:
An obligor may contest the validity or enforcement of an income

- withhol ding order issued in another state and received directly by an employer in this [s] tate by registering the order in a tribunal of this [s] tate and filing a contest to that order as provided in Chapter 76 (relating to registration, enforcement and modificat ion of support order) or otherwise contesting the order in the same manner as if the order had been issued by a tribunal of this [s] tate

.

3 Notably, Beaver agrees that if the Department w as his employer and he was earning a wage, DOC wo uld be immune from liability under Section 7501.3 of the Act. See Beaver B r. at 10.

4 Beaver contends he is entitled to due process because taking his money is causing him a financial hardship. However, “[t]here is [] no indication that [DOC] [is] required to hold a hearing to determine how much, if anything, [an inmate] is capable of paying toward his child support obligation. The court order and the Domestic Relations Code contain no such requirement.”
Rosario v. Beard , 920 A.2d 931, 93 6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)

.5

23 Pa.C.S. § 7501.5. Thus, pursuant to the Act, Beaver’s remedy is to register the

Ohio order in Pennsylvania and com mence an action to contest it

. Accordingly,
DOC’s second preliminary objection is sustained

.

Finally, DOC argues that Beaver’ s Amended P etition should be
dismissed because he fails to establish a clear right to relief. Specifical ly, DOC

contends that

, to the ext ent Beaver is seeking an injunction

, he has not pled facts
which indicate he has a clear right to relief.

To prevail in an action for injunction , a party must establish that his right to relief is clear , that an injunction is necessary to avoid an injury that cannot be compensated by damages, and that greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting the relief requested. A court may not grant injunctive relief where an adequate remedy exists at law

.

Buehl v. Beard , 54 A.3d 412, 419

- 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (emphasis added ; citation

omitted )

, aff’d , 91 A.3d 100 (Pa. 2014)

.

Here, Beaver’s action rests entirely upon an Allegheny County Common

Pleas Court order removing his arrears order from Pennsylva nia’s PACSES system

. The order’s removal from the PACSES system does not remove the arrears from
Trumbull County

, wherein the support order was initiated or the CSEA that directed

SCI

- Mercer to withhold the money from Beaver’s inmate account. If B eaver w ishes
to contest the original support order or the enforcement thereof, he must comply with

the Act. Because “ an adequate remedy exists at law ,” DOC’s third preliminary
objection is sustained. Buehl , 54 A.3d at 419

- 20.6 Conclusion

For all of the abo ve reasons, DOC’s Preliminar y Objections are

sustained

, and B eaver’s Amended Petition is dismissed.

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

Richard D. Beaver, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: John Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania : Department of Corrections, and : Melinda Adams, Superintendant, : SCI

- Mercer, and Rhonda Jolley, : Inmate Accounts, SCI

- Mercer, : No. 674 M.D. 2018

Respon dents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6 th day of December , 201 9

, the preliminary objections
filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel, State

Correctional Institution at Mercer ’s (SCI

- Mercer) Superintendent Melissa Adams,

an d SCI

- Mercer’s inmate accountant Rhonda Jolley to Richard D. Beaver’s (Beaver)
pro se amended petition for review (Amended Petition) are SUSTAINED

, and

Beaver’s Amended Petition is DISMISSED.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge