Court Opinion

ID: 9387003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 14:08:13.352156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.546292
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Hugh Williams,                                :
                       Petitioner             :
                                              :
      v.                                      : No. 287 M.D. 2022
                                              :
George M. Little, Secretary of                :
Department of Corrections and                 :
Jaime Sorber, Superintendent,                 :
SCI Phoenix,                                  :
                   Respondents                : Submitted: February 17, 2023

BEFORE:         HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
                HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
                HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE CEISLER                                                       FILED: April 14, 2023

      Before this Court are the Preliminary Objections filed by George M. Little,
Secretary of the Department of Corrections,1 and Jaime Sorber, Superintendent at
SCI-Phoenix (together, DOC), to the pro se Petition for Review filed by Hugh
Williams in this Court’s original jurisdiction. Because we conclude that this Court
lacks jurisdiction, we sustain DOC’s Preliminary Objection on that basis and dismiss
the Petition for Review.
                                          Background
      Mr. Williams, who is presently serving a sentence of life in prison, was
transferred to SCI-Phoenix on July 23, 2018. Pet. for Rev. ¶ 1, 5. Mr. Williams
avers that each housing unit at SCI-Phoenix has a courtyard, and each “quad” has

      1
          Mr. Little is the former Secretary of the Department of Corrections.
four housing units and a main recreation yard that the units within the quad share.
Id. ¶ 5.
       On January 2, 2022, Mr. Williams filed a grievance (Grievance 964257) with
the Grievance Coordinator at SCI-Phoenix. Id. ¶ 11. The subject of Mr. Williams’
grievance was the lack of a designated inmate bathroom in the main recreation yard
for Quad Two, where he resides. Mr. Williams avers that the main recreation yard
contains “two . . . drinking water fountains,” “no sinks or bathrooms for inmates,”
and “one . . . open air urinal.” Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Williams filed the grievance “after
witnessing several inmates using the water fountains as a sink to wash their hands
after using the urinal.” Id. ¶ 11.
       The Grievance Coordinator denied Grievance 964257 on February 14, 2022.
Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Williams filed an appeal of Grievance 964257 to the Facility Manager
on February 17, 2022. Id. ¶ 13. On March 17, 2022, the Facility Manager upheld
the Grievance Coordinator’s denial, finding as follows:

       Upon my review of all documentation, I find that there are open air
       urinals and water fountains [in the main yard]. There are no sinks in
       the main yards. However, it appears that inmates are utilizing the water
       fountains as sinks. Urinals and water fountains are cleaned daily. Staff
       will be remin[d]ed not to allow inmates to utilize the water fountains
       as sinks.

       I, therefore, uphold the decision of the [G]rievance [O]fficer and deny
       [Mr. Williams’] appeal and all monetary relief.

Williams Ans. to DOC Prelim. Objs., Ex. 1 (emphasis added).2

       2
         Mr. Williams avers that he received the Facility Manager’s decision on March 27, 2022.
Pet. for Rev. ¶ 14. According to Mr. Williams, “portable hand sanitizer stations were
subsequently placed in all recreation yards on March 30, 2022.” Id. (emphasis in original).

                                              2
       On May 26, 2022, Mr. Williams filed a Petition for Review in this Court’s
original jurisdiction regarding the lack of an inmate bathroom in the outdoor
recreation yard at SCI-Phoenix. Mr. Williams seeks an injunction compelling DOC
“to reassign/designate Staff Bathroom 9A1124 as the Inmate Bathroom” or,
alternatively, an order “instructing corrections officers to permit inmates to enter
Program Services Building 9A to use Inmate Bathroom 91116,” which would allow
the inmates “to observe and practice proper sanitation and hygiene consistent with
[DOC] policy.” Pet. for Rev. ¶¶ 21-22.
       On July 14, 2022, DOC filed Preliminary Objections to the Petition for
Review, to which Mr. Williams filed an Answer on August 3, 2022. Both parties
have also filed supporting briefs with this Court.3
                                             Analysis
       In its Preliminary Objections, DOC first asserts that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over this internal grievance matter challenging prison conditions.4 In
response, Mr. Williams asserts that this Court has jurisdiction to review the denial
of inmate grievances.          He further contends that “there is no compelling or
pen[o]logical reason why there is a unisex, handicap accessible bathroom for staff”
in the outdoor recreation yard but “none for hundreds of inmates[] . . . and no

       3
         In ruling on preliminary objections, this Court must accept as true all well-pled material
facts and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Smolsky v. Governor’s Off. of Admin.,
990 A.2d 173, 174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). To sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with
certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be resolved by overruling
preliminary objections. Id.

       4
          Section 6601 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act defines “prison conditions litigation,”
in relevant part, as “[a] civil proceeding arising in whole or in part under Federal or State law with
respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of actions by a government party on the life
of an individual confined in prison.” 42 Pa. C.S. § 6601 (emphasis added).

                                                  3
alternative access to the available bathroom in building 9A.” Williams Ans. to
Prelim. Objs. ¶ 14.
       “[This] Court usually does not have original jurisdiction over an inmate’s
petition for review after a grievance proceeding.” Weaver v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 829
A.2d 750, 751 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (emphasis in original). “Unless ‘an inmate can
identify a personal or property interest . . . not limited by [DOC’s] regulations and
which has been affected by a final decision of [DOC,]’ the decision is not an
adjudication subject to th[is C]ourt’s review.” Id. (citing Bronson v. Central Off.
Rev. Comm., 721 A.2d 357, 359 (Pa. 1998)) (emphasis added).
       Moreover, before filing an action challenging prison conditions in this Court’s
original jurisdiction, “an inmate must first exhaust all administrative remedies
available at the state prison level.” Goodley v. Wetzel (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 704 M.D.
2019, filed April 16, 2021), slip op. at 4.5 “The purposes of the exhaustion
requirement are to prevent premature judicial intervention in the administrative
process and to ensure that such claims will be addressed by the agency with expertise
in the area.” Id.
       DOC’s inmate grievance process is set forth in its regulation at 37 Pa. Code §
93.9,6 which incorporates DC-ADM 804. Our Court has explained the requisite
procedure as follows:

       5
         Pursuant to our Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, we may cite unreported panel
decisions of this Court, issued after January 15, 2008, for their persuasive value. 210 Pa. Code §
69.414(a).

       6
           This regulation provides:

       (a) [DOC] will maintain an inmate grievance system which will permit any inmate
       to seek review of problems which the inmate experiences during the course of
       confinement. The system will provide for review and resolution of inmate
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                4
       The “administrative remedies available at the state prison level” are set
       forth in [DOC’s] policy DC-ADM 804. . . . DC-ADM 804 requires an
       inmate, who has received an initial determination on his grievance, to
       appeal to the facility manager and, thereafter, seek final review with
       [DOC]. If the inmate fails to complete each of these steps, he has failed
       to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Paluch v. Palakovich, 84 A.3d 1109, 1113 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014); see also Kittrell v.
Watson, 88 A.3d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (same); Humphrey v. Dep’t of
Corr., 939 A.2d 987, 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (holding that where an inmate did not
allege that he timely appealed to the facility manager or that he sought final review
with DOC, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies).
       In his brief, Mr. Williams baldly asserts that he exhausted his administrative
remedies before filing this action. Williams Br. at 7. However, this claim is belied
by the averments in his Petition for Review and the exhibits attached to his pleadings.
       Mr. Williams avers that, while he was awaiting a decision in Grievance
964257, on January 26, 2022, he filed an “informal” request with the Facility
Manager, in which Mr. Williams proposed that “the staff bathroom 9A1124 in the
main yard be designated as the inmate bathroom.” Pet. for Rev. ¶ 16 & Ex. 1. The
Facility Manager responded that Mr. Williams’ request could not be considered at

       grievances at the most decentralized level possible. It will also provide for review
       of the initial decision making and for possible appeal to the Central Office of
       [DOC]. An inmate will not be disciplined for the good faith use of the grievance
       systems. However, an inmate who submits a grievance for review which is false,
       frivolous or malicious may be subject to appropriate disciplinary procedures. A
       frivolous grievance is one in which the allegations or the relief sought lack any
       arguable basis in fact as set forth in DC-ADM 804—Inmate Grievance System,
       which is disseminated to inmates.

       (b) Inmates may also pursue available remedies in State and Federal court.

37 Pa. Code § 93.9.

                                                5
that time, id. ¶ 17 & Ex. 1, presumably because there was a pending grievance
relating to the matter. Mr. Williams then sent a letter to Mr. Little on February 3,
2022, reiterating his bathroom proposal and asking Mr. Little “to use [his] authority
to correct” the situation. Id. ¶ 18 & Ex. 2. He sent another letter to Mr. Little on
April 3, 2022, requesting a response to his prior letter and again reiterating his
bathroom proposal. Id. ¶ 20 & Ex. 3.
      Importantly, the Facility Manager formally responded to Mr. Williams’
appeal of Grievance 964275 on March 17, 2022, on a form titled “Facility Manager’s
Appeal Response,” in which he upheld the Grievance Officer’s denial. Williams
Ans. to DOC Prelim. Objs., Ex. 1. Mr. Williams avers that he received the Facility
Manager’s decision on March 27, 2022. Pet. for Rev. ¶ 14. However, there is no
indication in the record, nor does Mr. Williams allege, that he ever requested or
received final review of the Facility Manager’s decision in Grievance 964257.
While Mr. Williams attaches to his Petition for Review the April 3, 2022 letter to
Mr. Little, as explained above, that letter related only to Mr. Williams’ informal
request to the Facility Manager about his bathroom proposal. The April 3, 2022
letter did not mention Grievance 964257 or the Facility Manager’s March 17, 2022
decision, nor did it state that Mr. Williams wished to appeal that decision. See Pet.
for Rev., Ex. 3. Thus, we cannot construe Mr. Williams’ April 3, 2022 letter as an
appeal to final review in Grievance 964257.
      The record before this Court does not establish that Mr. Williams ever
requested or received final DOC review of Grievance 964257. Therefore, because
Mr. Williams failed to complete each step in the grievance review process, as
required by our Court’s precedent, we lack jurisdiction over this matter. See Paluch
84 A.3d at 1113; see also Salter v. Lamas (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 369 C.D. 2013, filed

                                         6
Oct. 4, 2013), slip op. at 10 (“[W]hen an inmate fails to appeal the denial of his
grievance to final review with [DOC], he has failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies under [37 Pa. Code § 93.9] and DC-ADM 804.”) (emphasis added).
                                     Conclusion
      Accordingly, we sustain DOC’s Preliminary Objection based on lack of
jurisdiction and dismiss Mr. Williams’ Petition for Review.7

                                           ____________________________
                                           ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

      7
         In light of our ruling on this Preliminary Objection, we need not address DOC’S
remaining Preliminary Objections.

                                           7
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Hugh Williams,                      :
                  Petitioner        :
                                    :
      v.                            : No. 287 M.D. 2022
                                    :
George M. Little, Secretary of      :
Department of Corrections and       :
Jaime Sorber, Superintendent,       :
SCI Phoenix,                        :
                   Respondents      :

                                  ORDER

      AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2023, we hereby SUSTAIN the
Preliminary Objection filed by George M. Little, Secretary of the Department of
Corrections, and Jaime Sorber, Superintendent at SCI-Phoenix, based on lack of
jurisdiction and DISMISS Hugh Williams’ Petition for Review.

                                      ____________________________
                                      ELLEN CEISLER, Judge