Court Opinion

ID: 9408978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 15:08:21.969621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.136960
License: Public Domain

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.
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.

                                                  2
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.

                                               3
             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

                                           4
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.

                                                 5
        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 :

                                    ORDER

            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