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, :

Inmate 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 Superintendent is misspelled in Richard D. Beaver’s complaint caption.
2

Background2

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 Ohio, the arrears only order is 

removed from the [Pennsylvania Automated Child Support 

Enforcement System (] PACSES [)] []. Arrears of 

$17,215.02 are removed. This balance is subject to

adjustment based on the records of Trumbull County, 

state of Ohio courts. At the request of the Ohio 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 continued withholding of his funds 

violated the August 20, 2018 order. See Amended Petition Unspecified Ex. The 

response to the Request specified Trumbull County had informed Jolley that 

Allegheny County lacked jurisdiction in this matter and SCI-Mercer should continue 

to withhold funds until otherwise ordered by Trumbull County. See id.

On October 24, 2018, Beaver filed a petition for review, styled as a 

Complaint in Civil Action, 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 from 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:

In 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 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 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 therefrom. 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 the [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 any documents or exhibits attached to it.” Allen v. 

Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). Thus, when deciding the 

Preliminary Objections, this Court’s analysis is limited to the Amended Petition and 

the attachments thereto.

DOC first argues that the Amended Petition should be dismissed because 

the Department 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), which provides: “An employer who complies with an 
4

income-withholding order issued in another state in accordance with this chapter is 

not subject to civil liability to an individual or agency with regard to the employer’s 

withholding of child support from the 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 here. However, Section 4302 of the Domestic 

Relations Code defines “employer” as “an individual, partnership, 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 regardless of 

source.” Id. Thus, by definition, the Department is Beaver’s employer under the 

Domestic Relations Code. Consequently, Section 7501.3 of the Act applies in the 

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

DOC next asserts that the Amended Petition should be dismissed 

because Beaver’s due process remedies4lie in the Domestic Relations Code.

Section 7501.5 of the Act expressly provides:

An obligor may contest the validity or enforcement of an 

income-withholding 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 modification 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 was his employer and he was earning a 

wage, DOC would be immune from liability under Section 7501.3 of the Act. See Beaver Br. 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, 936 (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 commence an action to contest it. Accordingly, 

DOC’s second preliminary objection is sustained.

Finally, DOC argues that Beaver’s Amended Petition should be 

dismissed because he fails to establish a clear right to relief. Specifically, DOC 

contends that, to the extent 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 Pennsylvania’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 Beaver wishes 

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 above reasons, DOC’s Preliminary Objections are 

sustained, and Beaver’s Amended Petition is dismissed. 

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN 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

Respondents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of December, 2019, the preliminary objections 

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

Correctional Institution at Mercer’s (SCI-Mercer) Superintendent Melissa Adams, 

and 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