Court Opinion

ID: 9838821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 13:07:26.548199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:02.281726
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kevin Silas,                                 :
                       Petitioner            :
                                             :
      v.                                     : No. 1145 C.D. 2022
                                             :
Philadelphia Office of Judicial              :
Records (Office of Open Records),            :
                   Respondent                : Submitted: July 14, 2023

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

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE CEISLER                                                FILED: September 8, 2023

      Kevin Silas (Requester), an inmate housed at the State Correctional Institution
at Frackville (SCI-Frackville), petitions this Court pro se for review of the
September 15, 2022 Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that
dismissed Requester’s appeal under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 for lack of
jurisdiction. Requester sought copies of court records from the Philadelphia Office
of Judicial Records (OJR), which denied his request on the basis that the records
were not public documents. Requester argues that the OJR’s denial of his RTKL
request violated his constitutional rights under the United States and Pennsylvania
Constitutions. After review, we affirm the OOR.

                                         I. Background

      On August 19, 2022, Requester sent a RTKL request to the OJR seeking
“court commitment sheets” and “court disposition[s]” related to the “robbery

      1
          Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
arrest[s]” of Rhon Duval Parker (Parker) in 1980 and 1981. Certified Record (C.R.),
Ex. 1. The OJR denied the request on August 26, 2022, stating that the records
requested were not public documents. Id. Requester appealed to the OOR, which
dismissed the appeal, noting that it did not have jurisdiction over appeals from
judicial agencies such as the OJR, and that judicial records could be requested from
a judicial records custodian pursuant to the public access policies of the Unified
Judicial System of Pennsylvania (UJS).2 C.R., Ex. 2. This appeal followed.3

                                             II. Issue

       Requester argues that, in denying Requester access to the requested records,
the OJR violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution4 and under article I, sections 1 and 11 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution.5

                                          III.   Analysis

       Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.102, defines “Judicial agency” as “[a]
court of the Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the [UJS].” Access to
judicial agency records under the RTKL is limited to financial records, per Section
304(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.304(a). A judicial agency “is not duty-bound to

       2
             See    Case      Records    Public    Access    Policy     of     the    UJS,
https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20211230/165101-publicrecordspolicy2022.pdf
(last viewed September 7, 2023).

       3
         This Court’s standard of review of a final determination by the OOR is de novo and our
scope of review is plenary. Wishnefsky v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 144 A.3d 290, 294 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2016).

       4
           U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV.

       5
           Pa. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 11.

                                                 2
disclose court records under the RTKL[.]” Faulk v. Phila. Clerk of Cts., 116 A.3d
1183, 1187-88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). While Section 503(a) of the RTKL provides
that the OOR “shall designate an appeals officer” for decisions by a Commonwealth
agency or a local agency,6 under Section 503(b),7 a judicial agency designates its
own appeals officer. Because judicial agencies have their own appeals officers and
appeal procedures, the OOR does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal taken from
the determination of a judicial agency. Phila. Dist. Att’y’s Off. v. Stover, 176 A.3d
1024, 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).

       Instantly, Requester’s argument focuses on whether the OJR erred in denying
his RTKL request on the basis that the requested records were not public documents.
That issue is not before this Court, however, as the OOR dismissed Requester’s
appeal on jurisdictional grounds. In that regard, the OOR did not err. Requester has
not disputed that the OJR is a judicial agency or challenged the OOR’s conclusion
that it lacks jurisdiction over decisions made by the OJR under the RTKL.

       Furthermore, Requester did not raise any constitutional issues in his appeal to
the OOR. Rather, he argued that the records sought were financial records because
the information in a “court commitment order” includes the amount of any court-
ordered fines, costs, and restitution.8 Section 1101(a) of the RTKL provides that a

       6
           65 P.S. § 67.503(a).

       7
           65 P.S. § 67.503(b).

       8
          Requester appears to have abandoned the argument that he sought financial records,
which are defined in Section 102 of the RTKL as: (1) any account, voucher, or contract concerning
the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency, or the agency’s acquisition, use, or disposal of
services, supplies, materials, equipment, or property; (2) the salary or other payments or expenses
paid to an officer or employee of an agency; or (3) a financial audit report. 65 P.S. §67.102.
Instead, Requester maintains that he seeks “public information” contained in “judicial records
and/or judicial documents.” Requester’s Br. at 4-5.

                                                3
requester’s appeal “shall state the grounds upon which the requester asserts that the
record is a public record.” 65 P.S. § 67.1101(a). Arguments that are not raised in a
Section 1101 appeal are waived. Crocco v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 214 A.3d 316, 321
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). Thus, to the extent Requester argues that the OJR violated his
constitutional rights, those issues are waived, having been raised before this Court
for the first time on appeal.

      Accordingly, as the OOR lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judicial
agency decision under the RTKL, we affirm the OOR’s Final Determination that
dismissed Requester’s RTKL appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

                                         ____________________________
                                         ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

                                         4
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Kevin Silas,                         :
                  Petitioner         :
                                     :
      v.                             : No. 1145 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Philadelphia Office of Judicial      :
Records (Office of Open Records),    :
                   Respondent        :

                                    ORDER

      AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2023, the September 15, 2022 order
of the Office of Open Records is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                       ____________________________
                                       ELLEN CEISLER, Judge