Court Opinion

ID: 9352164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 15:06:58.493803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:17.007927
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lavond Hill,                                      :
                               Appellant          :
                                                  :
                       v.                         :    No. 699 C.D. 2021
                                                  :    Submitted: February 4, 2022
John E. Wetzel, et al.                            :

BEFORE:         HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
                HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
                HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER                         FILED: January 5, 2023

      Lavond Hill (Hill), an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution
at Houtzdale (SCI-Houtzdale), appeals from the Order entered in the Court of
Common Pleas of Clearfield County (trial court) on January 5, 2021, dismissing with
prejudice Hill’s pro se action filed against John E. Wetzel, the Secretary of
Corrections, and twenty-one (21) institutional staff members in their official and
individual capacities (collectively Appellees). The trial court dismissed the action
in its entirety sua sponte as frivolous pursuant to Rule 240(j)(1) of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure, Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1).1 For the reasons set forth below,
we reverse.

      1
          Rule 240(j)(1) provides, in relevant part:

(Footnote continued on next page…)
       On October 16, 2020, Hill filed a Complaint along with a request to proceed
in forma pauperis for the duration of the proceeding. In his Civil Complaint, filed
pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1983 of the United States Code (Section 1983), 42
U.S.C. § 1983,2 Hill generally alleges that Appellees lost his property; denied him
access to hygienic supplies such as showers, razors, cleaning supplies for his cell,
and proper shoes; prohibited him from using the law library; made sexual comments
to him; subjected him to unsanitary conditions; refused to provide him medical care;
retaliated against him for filing a rape report against a corrections officer; and
violated his constitutional rights.          Hill seeks both compensatory and punitive
damages from Appellees.
       Hill attached to his Complaint as Exhibits numerous Inmate’s Request to Staff
Member Forms he submitted while incarcerated at SCI-Houtzdale along with several

       If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action, proceeding or appeal a party
       has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting
       upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if . . . it is satisfied
       that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1). The Note further explains that: “A frivolous action or proceeding has been
defined as one that ‘lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’ Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).” Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1), Note.
       2
         Section 1983 provides:

       Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
       usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
       be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
       thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
       Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
       equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
       against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial
       capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was
       violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

                                                  2
Inmate Activity Restrictions Forms, but he did not include any grievances that he
may have submitted while incarcerated at SCI-Houtzdale or any appeal decisions to
a grievance or inmate request.3 In the response section to an Inmate’s Request to
Staff Member Form dated June 25, 2020, attached to his Complaint as Exhibit M,
wherein he requested a transfer to another prison, Hill was directed as to how he may
acquire grievance forms. Throughout the Complaint, however, Hill avers that he
filed, or attempted to file, multiple grievances based on the conduct of numerous
Appellees toward him. Hill maintains that those grievances were destroyed by
Appellees and further contends he was warned against filing grievances, threatened
with negative consequences if he did file them, or was not provided with grievance
forms when they were requested. (Complaint ¶¶ 78-91, 101, 103, 113, 135, 140,
142, 160, 188, 195, 207.) To summarize his attempts to exhaust his administrative
remedies, Hill averred:

       Some institutional grievances were properly filed and appealed, others
       were not, due to being destroyed; machination; misrepresentation;
       intimidation; the administrative procedure operates as a simple dead
       end – with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any
       relief to Hill. As [a] result[,] there were no administrative procedure[s]
       available. Where [p]rison officials obstruct Hill’s and other [p]risoners
       from exhausting their administrative remedies, no further exhaustion is
       required.

(Id. ¶ 207.)
       In its Order entered on January 5, 2021, after a full review of Hill’s Complaint,
the trial court found that while Hill set forth numerous claims against Appellees, he
had failed to exhaust appropriate agency remedies before he filed his Complaint. As

       3
        Exhibit G is an Initial Review Response from a grievance that Hill submitted in 2013
while housed at SCI-Smithfield, and Exhibit R is a Final Appeal Decision from a grievance
submitted by another inmate in 2019.

                                             3
for Hill’s claims that he was obstructed from filing grievances or appealing such
grievances and, therefore, exhaustion was not required, the trial court concluded that
“[t]his is an erroneous legal conclusion.” (Trial Ct. Order at 2.) “Simply because
[Hill] feels that the administrative remedies would not have resolved his issues, does
not waive the requirement that he follow the appropriate procedure.” (Id. at 2-3.)
The trial court concluded that Hill’s failure to exhaust those remedies meant his
claims could not stand. In accordance with Rule 240(j)(1), the trial court found
Hill’s Complaint to be frivolous and dismissed it with prejudice.4
       Hill filed a timely notice of appeal on January 22, 2021. On February 4, 2021,
the trial court entered an order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925(b), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directing Hill to file a Concise Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal within 21 days, and Hill filed his “Concise Statement of
Errors Complained of on Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)” on February 26,
2021. The trial court issued a letter advising that it would not file a further opinion
in this matter.5
       In his brief, Hill presents the following “Statement of Question[s] Involved”:

       1.      Whether the claims in the complaint are frivolous or not? . . . .

       4
          The trial court also noted that Hill had attempted to file the same Complaint three times
and directed that the Complaints submitted on November 13, 2020, and December 6, 2020, be
returned to Hill unfiled.
        5
          Hill initially filed his appeal and docketing statement with the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania. In a per curiam order entered on May 11, 2021, upon consideration of the notice of
appeal and docketing statement filed along with Hill’s response to the Court’s April 21, 2021,
order, the Superior Court transferred the appeal to this Court. See Section 761(a) of the Judicial
Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1); see also Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 751, Pa.R.A.P.
751. In addition, upon consideration of Hill’s March 17, 2021 “Application for Relief,” wherein
he requested documents contained in the certified record, the Superior Court denied Hill’s
Application as moot because the Court’s Prothonotary had mailed those materials to Hill on March
25, 2021.

                                                4
       2.     Whether the Court should have afforded [Hill] an opportunity to
       serve [Appellees] the civil action complaint before dismissal or not? . .
       ..
       3.     Whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an
       affirmative defense for [Appellees] to raise or not? . . . .

(Hill’s Brief at 4 (footnote omitted).)6 As they are dispositive, we begin with Hill’s
second and third questions.
       Our review of a decision dismissing an action pursuant to Rule 240(j) is
limited to a determination of whether the plaintiff’s “constitutional rights have been
violated,” and “whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of
law.” McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A.2d 797, 798 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). In McGriff,
699 A.2d at 799 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted), this Court explained
that under Rule 240(j), an action is deemed frivolous “if, on its face, it does not set
forth a valid cause of action.” Facial defects that can be considered by trial courts
include affirmative defenses, such as the expiration of a statute of limitations and
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Paluch v. Palakovich, 84 A.3d 1109,
1111, 1113-14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). An individual like Hill who seeks to proceed in
forma pauperis is responsible for presenting a valid cause of action. McWilliams v.
Commonwealth (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 657 C.D. 2019, filed Sept. 13, 2021), slip op. at
37 (citing Conover v. Mikosky, 609 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. Super. 1992)).8 Requiring

       6
          In a Notice of Non-Participation filed on November 1, 2021, Appellees indicated that
they would not be participating in this appeal as the matter was dismissed by the trial court as
frivolous prior to service.
        7
          While not precedential, unreported panel opinions of this Court may be cited for their
persuasive value pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 126(b), Pa.R.A.P. 126(b),
and Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code §
69.414(a).
        8
          Although in his brief Hill relies upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Boyle
v. O’Bannon, 458 A.2d 183 (Pa. 1983), for the proposition that courts lack authority to dismiss a
plaintiff’s complaint sua sponte before the complaint had been served upon the defendant and
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                5
the filing of a valid cause of action in a matter in which the plaintiff seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis is necessary because the plaintiff is seeking to have the costs paid
by the taxpayers and to support “the notion of judicial economy.” Conover, 609
A.2d at 560. Further, because Rule 240(j)(1) allows for the dismissal of an action
for frivolousness prior to granting an application for in forma pauperis status, it
necessarily authorizes such decisions prior to service of a complaint on the
defendants. Thus, Hill’s arguments that there was an error in the trial court’s
dismissing under Rule 240(j) prior to service on Appellees and based on an
affirmative defense are unavailing. We now turn to the trial court’s determination
that Hill’s Complaint was frivolous due to his failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies.
     This Court has held that when an inmate alleges his right to due process has
been violated, “inmate grievance systems are an adequate post-deprivation
remedy[.]” Shore v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 168 A.3d 374, 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)
(internal citation omitted) As this Court previously stated:

       Pursuant to [Department of Corrections’] [(DOC or Department)]
       Inmate Grievance Review System, 37 Pa.Code § 93.9 (incorporating
       DC–ADM 804),[9] inmates may seek resolution of problems or issues

without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard, the Supreme Court subsequently added
Rule 240(j) to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, effective January 1, 1992. Thus, Boyle
does not preclude the trial court’s actions here.
       9
         This section provides:

      (a) The Department 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
      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 the
      Department. 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
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                6
       of concern arising during the course of their confinement
       (Grievance Process). The Grievance Process consists of three steps. In
       Step 1, an inmate must submit the initial grievance to
       the Grievance Coordinator within 15 working days of the initial
       incident. The Grievance Coordinator then has 15 working days to
       provide a written response.

       In Step 2, an inmate must appeal the grievance response to the Facility
       Manager or Superintendent within 15 working days of receiving it. In
       turn, the Manager or Superintendent must notify the inmate of his
       decision within 15 working days of receiving the appeal.

       If still dissatisfied, an inmate in Step 3 must submit the final appeal to
       the Secretary’s Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals (Central
       Office) within 15 working days of receiving an appeal response. The
       Central Office then has 30 working days to respond to the inmate.
       The Grievance Process thus culminates in the Central Office’s
       response.

Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091, 1092-93 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). If the inmate fails
to complete each of these steps, he or she fails to exhaust his administrative
remedies. See Humphrey v. Dep’t of Corr., 939 A.2d 987 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (where
inmate did not allege that he appealed the denial of a grievance or any DOC final
order, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies). Significantly, “a prisoner must
have     utilized     all    available      remedies       in    accordance         with   the
applicable procedural rules, so that prison officials have been given an opportunity
to address the claims administratively.” Shore, 168 A.3d at 383-84 (quoting Moore

       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.

                                               7
v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008)). The exhaustion of administrative
remedies is required for all federal claims. Kittrell, 88 A.3d at 1095; see also Section
1997e(a) of the Federal Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(which mandates that inmates exhaust “such administrative remedies as are
available” before bringing suit to challenge prison conditions under Section 1983);
Section 6603(a) of the Pennsylvania Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 6603(a) (providing that prison conditions litigation filed in Pennsylvania courts
alleging a violation of Federal law are “subject to any limitations and remedies
established by Federal law or Federal courts with respect to the Federal claims”).
Therefore, “[p]rior to filing a complaint alleging violation of federal rights, an
inmate must exhaust the administrative grievance system in a complete and ‘proper’
manner, and this necessitates compliance with ‘critical procedural rules.’” Shore,
168 A.3d at 384 (quoting Kittrell, 88 A.3d at 1095).
      However, there are circumstances where an inmate may not be required to
exhaust the administrative remedies because those remedies are not available to the
inmate. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642 (2016); Minor v. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114,
125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). There are three situations where an administrative remedy
is considered “unavailable.” Ross, 578 U.S. at 643. First, “an administrative
procedure is unavailable when (despite what regulations or guidance materials may
promise) it operates as a simple dead end – with officers unable or consistently
unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates.” Id. (citing Booth v . Churner,
532 U.S. 731, 736 (2001)). Second, an administrative remedy is unavailable if the
“administrative scheme [is] so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking,
incapable of use.” Id. at 643. Third, an administrative remedy is unavailable “when
prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process

                                           8
through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.” Id. at 644. In this last
instance, where prison “officials misle[a]d or threaten[] individual inmates so as to
prevent their use of otherwise proper procedures, such interference with an inmate’s
pursuit of relief renders the administrative process unavailable.” Id. In Minor, this
Court similarly recognized that “if an agency prevents a party from pursuing a
remedy, the agency does not ‘hold out’ a remedy, and the remedy cannot be
exhausted.” 155 A.3d at 125.
      As the trial court herein observed, Hill attached no evidence that he pursued
any of the circumstances he sets forth in his Complaint to the level of the
superintendent of SCI-Houtzdale, although the record reflects he was instructed as
to how to do so in the June 25, 2020 correspondence. However, while Hill fails to
allege specifically that he followed the grievance process to finality on any of the
claims he presents, he does allege that multiple Appellees interfered with his ability
to file grievances, through destruction of documents, warnings and threats, and
refusals to provide grievance forms, which, at this stage of the proceeding, must be
accepted as true. Although the trial court dismissed these claims as Hill “feel[ing]
that the administrative remedies would not have resolved his issues,” (Trial Ct. Order
at 2-3), pursuant to Ross and Minor, these allegations arguably raise legal and factual
questions regarding whether the administrative remedies were actually available to
Hill so as to require their exhaustion. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing
the Complaint as frivolous under Rule 240(j)(1) based on Hill’s failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies. We must therefore reverse the trial court’s order.

                                        __________________________________________
                                        RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

                                           9
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lavond Hill,                              :
                           Appellant      :
                                          :
                    v.                    :   No. 699 C.D. 2021
                                          :
John E. Wetzel, et al.                    :

                                       ORDER

      NOW, January 5, 2023, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield
County, dated January 5, 2021, is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to
the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
Jurisdiction is relinquished.

.

                                        __________________________________________
                                        RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge