Court Opinion

ID: 9881619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 15:28:25.760105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:13:47.036628
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                              EASTERN DISTRICT

 MICHAEL E. KEELING,                           :   No. 30 EAP 2022
                                               :
                     Appellant                 :   Appeal from the Order of
                                               :   Commonwealth Court dated
                                               :   July 7, 2022, at No. 166 M.D. 2021
              v.                               :
                                               :
                                               :
 MR. FAGAN AND MRS. NEWBERRY,                  :
 BOTH GRIEVANCE COORDINATORS                   :
 FOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,                :
                                               :
                     Appellees                 :

                                        ORDER

PER CURIAM                                            DECIDED: September 28, 2023
      AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2023, the decision of the Commonwealth

Court is AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED IN PART and the matter is REMANDED

to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. In his

petition for review addressed to the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction,

Petitioner/Appellant Michael E. Keeling (Keeling) alleges that he filed a grievance

(perhaps more than one) relating to the confiscation of his “Venda Card,” which had a

monetary value (or balance), while he was an inmate at the State Correctional Institution

at Dallas (Venda Card Grievance). Keeling further alleges that Appellees have refused

to process this particular grievance(s). Keeling sought, inter alia, an order from the

Commonwealth Court, directing that Respondents/Appellees decide the Venda Card

Grievance. “It is beyond dispute that money is property” and that “[p]rivate property

cannot be taken by the government without due process.”           Holloway v. Lehman,
671 A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).           In Bronson v. Central Office Review

Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998), the Court recognized that inmates retain

constitutional protections for personal or property interests not limited by Department of

Corrections regulations. Accordingly, an inmate grievance final determination that affects

such a personal or property interest is an adjudication subject to appellate review by the

Commonwealth Court. See Bronson, 721 A.2d at 359. As the Commonwealth Court’s

stated reasons for dismissing Keeling’s claim related to his Venda Card Grievance do not

include consideration of the alleged property interest involved or whether the alleged

inaction on Keeling’s Venda Card Grievance has frustrated Keeling’s ability to receive a

final adjudication that would be appealable under Bronson, the Commonwealth Court’s

July 7, 2022 Order dismissing Keeling’s petition for review in the nature of a complaint in

mandamus is VACATED as to that particular claim only and REMANDED to the

Commonwealth Court for further consideration. In all other respects, the Commonwealth

Court’s July 7, 2022 Order is AFFIRMED.

      Keeling’s application for relief requesting leave to file a reply brief nunc pro tunc is

DENIED as moot.

                                             -2