Court Opinion

ID: 9839054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 15:10:00.183035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:36.350437
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ralph Maldonado (JT2158),                        :
                 Appellant                       :
                                                 :
                 v.                              :
                                                 :
C/O Johnson; C/O Harn;                           :
LT. R. Arnold, Security;                         :
Michael Zaken, Superintendent                    :   No. 1147 C.D. 2022
SCI-Green                                        :   Submitted: April 21, 2023

BEFORE:          HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
                 HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
                 HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                                   FILED: September 11, 2023

                 Ralph Maldonado (JT2158) (Maldonado) appeals, pro se, from the
Greene County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) September 20, 2022 order1
dismissing his complaint against State Correctional Institution at Greene (SCI-
Greene) Corrections Officer (CO) Thomas Johnson (CO Johnson), SCI-Greene CO
Eugene Harn (CO Harn), SCI-Greene Lieutenant Richard Arnold (Lt. Arnold), and
SCI-Greene Superintendent Michael Zaken (Superintendent Zaken) (collectively,
Appellees) (Complaint), pursuant to Section 6602(e)(2) of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (PLRA).2 Maldonado presents one issue for this Court’s review:
whether the trial court abused its discretion by holding that his Complaint failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After review, this Court affirms.

        1
            The trial court signed the order on September 19, 2022, and filed it on September 20,
2022.
        2
            42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(2).
                                        Background
              Maldonado is currently incarcerated at SCI-Greene.3 On September 6,
2022,4 Maldonado filed the Complaint, pro se, in the trial court seeking declaratory
relief, $50,000.00 per Appellee in compensatory damages, $20,000.00 per Appellee
in punitive damages, and $100,000.00 in nominal damages. In his Complaint,
Maldonado alleged that Appellees confiscated two boxes of legal mail his attorney
had sent to him. According to the Complaint, SCI-Greene follows the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections’ (DOC) policy of running mail through a scanner before
giving it to the inmates.5 Maldonado averred that the initial scan of his legal mail
resulted in a hit for amphetamine; however, after the scanner was restarted, his legal
mail was rescanned, and the second scan was negative. Maldonado asserted that
Appellees nevertheless sent his legal mail to DOC’s Bureau of Investigations and
Intelligence, and that it has not been returned to him. Maldonado claims that
Appellees failed to handle his personal property under their care, custody, and
control with due diligence in violation of the law. See Maldonado Br. App. C
(Complaint) ¶¶ 24-27.6 Further, Maldonado declared that three months have passed
without DOC action, and that he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
Additionally, on September 8, 2022, Maldonado filed his Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (IFP Application).

       3
          See https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov (last visited Sept. 8, 2023).
       4
          The trial court acknowledged that the Complaint was undocketed, but that it was dated
September 6, 2022. See Trial Ct. 9/20/2022 Order at 1.
        5
          Section 1.D.3.k of DC-ADM 803, Inmate Mail and Incoming Publications Procedures
Manual, Section 1 - Mail Processing Procedures reflects DOC’s policy that “[u]nopened
privileged correspondence is subject to K-9 air scans and x-ray imaging prior to being forwarded
to        the         facility      Security        Office.”                 Id.   at      1-14.
https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Documents/DOC%20Policies/803%20Inmate%20Mail%2
0and%20Incoming%20Publications.pdf (last visited Sept. 8, 2023).
        6
          The Complaint was not included in the Original Record.
                                               2
               On September 20, 2022, the trial court dismissed the Complaint
pursuant to Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA as an improper challenge to DOC’s
policies and procedures. Also on September 20, 2022, the trial court denied
Maldonado’s IFP Application. Maldonado appealed to this Court.7, 8
               On October 19, 2022, the trial court directed Maldonado to file a
Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1925(b) (Rule 1925(b) Statement). On October
30, 2022, Appellant filed his Rule 1925(b) Statement. On November 3, 2022, the
trial court issued a statement pursuant to Rule 1925(a) adopting its September 20,
2022 order.

                                            Discussion
               Initially, Section 6601 of the PLRA defines prison conditions litigation
as:

               A civil proceeding arising in whole or in part under
               [f]ederal or [s]tate [l]aw 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. The
               term includes an appeal. The term does not include
               criminal proceedings or habeas corpus proceedings
               challenging the fact or direction of confinement in prison.

42 Pa.C.S. § 6601. Further, Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA authorizes a court to
dismiss prison conditions litigation when “[t]he prison conditions litigation is
frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[,]

       7
           “Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been
violated, whether the trial court abused its discretion, or whether the trial court committed an error
of law.” Mojica v. SCI-Mahanoy Sec., 224 A.3d 811, 812 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (quoting
Lichtman v. Glazer, 111 A.3d 1225, 1227 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)).
         8
           By January 6, 2023 letter, DOC’s Office of General Counsel notified this Court on
Appellees’ behalf that DOC “will not participate in this appeal as the matter was dismissed by the
[trial court] prior to service.” Jan. 6, 2023 Non-Participation Letter at 1.
                                                  3
or the defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense, including immunity,
which, if asserted, would preclude the relief.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(2).
               Maldonado argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his Complaint
as a challenge to DOC’s incoming privileged mail policies and procedures.
Specifically, Maldonado asserts that the trial court “overthought” the Complaint and
“attempted to reclassify the issue at hand.” Maldonado Br. at 7. Maldonado insists
that he did not challenge SCI-Greene’s policies and procedures but, rather, he
averred a negligence claim for “lost property in the care, custody, and control of
[Appellees].” Maldonado Br. at 8. Specifically, Maldonado claims that Appellees
negligently handled his legal mail, and care, custody, and control of personal
property is an exception to DOC’s sovereign immunity.
               This Court has explained:

               Pursuant to [a]rticle [I], [s]ection 11 of the Pennsylvania
               Constitution, the General Assembly declared that ‘the
               Commonwealth, and its officials and employees acting
               within the scope of their duties, shall continue to enjoy
               sovereign immunity and official immunity and remain
               immune from suit except as the General Assembly shall
               specifically waive the immunity.’ 1 Pa.C.S. § 2310.
Minor v. Kraynak, 155 A.3d 114, 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (footnote omitted).

               This Court determines whether a Commonwealth
               employee is protected by sovereign immunity by
               considering “whether the . . . employee was acting within
               the scope of his or her employment; whether the alleged
               act which causes injury was negligent and damages would
               be recoverable but for the availability of the immunity
               defense; and whether the act fits within one of the [10]
               exceptions to sovereign immunity.”[9]

       9
           Acts by a Commonwealth party for which liability may be imposed relate to (1) vehicle
liability; (2) medical-professional liability; (3) care, custody, and control of personal property;
(4) Commonwealth real estate, highways, and sidewalks; (5) potholes and other dangerous
conditions; (6) care, custody, and control of animals; (7) liquor store sales; (8) National Guard

                                                4
Id. at 122 (quoting La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992));
see also Section 8522 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522, commonly known as
the Sovereign Immunity Act (Act).

              Thus, “[t]o impose liability on a Commonwealth party, (1)
              the alleged negligent act must involve a cause of action
              that is recognized at common law or by a statute, and (2)
              the case must fall within one of [the] exceptions to
              sovereign immunity listed in Section 8522(b)” of [the
              Act]. Bufford v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 670 A.2d 751, 753
              (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b)).
              [Maldonado], therefore, bore the “initial burden” of setting
              forth a claim for negligence against [DOC] where
              damages would be recoverable under the common law or
              a statute creating a cause of action. LaChance v. Michael
              Baker Corp., 869 A.2d 1054, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), as
              amended (Feb. 10, 2005); see also Williams v. Phila.
              Hous. Auth., 873 A.2d 81, 85 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (“The
              threshold question in a case of . . . sovereign immunity is
              whether [Maldonado] would have an action in damages at
              common law or statute if [DOC] could not claim the
              defense of governmental or sovereign immunity.”).

Young v. Wetzel, 260 A.3d 281, 289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (emphasis added; footnotes
omitted).
              In order to satisfy the Act’s first immunity waiver requirement,
Maldonado must have pled a cause of action involving negligence recognized under
the common law or a statute. See Young. To assert a valid negligence action, a
plaintiff must plead the following: (1) that the defendant had a duty or obligation
recognized by law; (2) that the defendant breached that duty; (3) that a causal
connection exists between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4)
actual damages. Page v. City of Phila., 25 A.3d 471, 475 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

activities; (9) toxoids and vaccines; and (10) sexual abuse. See Section 8522(b) of the Judicial
Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b).
                                               5
              This Court addressed whether an inmate pled a valid negligence claim
in Hitner v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 281 M.D.
2022, filed August 8, 2023).10, 11 In Hitner, this Court determined that the inmate
failed to plead the necessary facts to support his negligence claim when he did not
allege facts that suggested the defendants had a duty to safeguard the inmate’s
property, which duty they subsequently breached. The Hitner Court further ruled
that the inmate failed to allege the necessary facts to support his damages claim.
Specifically, the Hitner Court explained: “[The inmate] had to plead more than the
loss of his property. He also had to plead facts that he suffered an injury and ‘actual
damages.’” Id., slip op. at 6 (quoting Page, 25 A.3d at 475).
              Here, Maldonado did “not specifically allege that [Appellees] had a
duty to [Maldonado] and that they breached that duty.” Hitner, slip op. at 6.
Maldonado alleged that CO Johnson and CO Harn “knowing that [Maldonado’s]
property[,] once rescanned[,] cleared all security measures, failed to release [his]
property[.]” Complaint ¶¶ 24-25. However, these factual allegations do not state or
define a legal duty owed by CO Harn and CO Johnson to Maldonado, or a breach
thereof. Similarly, relative to Lt. Arnold and Superintendent Zaken, Maldonado did
not allege that they received or handled his mail, that they had a duty to safeguard
it, or that they breached any such duty. Rather,
              the gravamen of [Maldonado’s] allegations in this case
              against [Lt. Arnold and Superintendent Zaken] relate[d] to
              the handling of the grievance that he filed related to his
              mail . . . . However, there is no cause of action for the
              mishandling of an inmate’s grievance. See Samuels v.
       10
           This Court’s unreported memorandum opinions may be cited “for [their] persuasive
value, but not as binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth Court’s Internal
Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). The unreported cases cited herein are cited for
their persuasive value.
        11
           This Court acknowledges that Hitner involved preliminary objections; however, the
same sovereign immunity analysis applies.

                                              6
               Walsh (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 318 C.D. 2014, filed Nov. 17,
               2014). Therefore, to the extent that [Maldonado’s]
               Complaint can be understood to assert that [Lt. Arnold and
               Superintendent Zaken] negligently handled his grievance,
               . . . [Maldonado’s] Complaint failed to state a claim upon
               which relief could be granted [against them].

White v. Walter (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1341 C.D. 2019, filed Feb. 9, 2021), slip op. at
12-13.
               Further, Maldonado has not pled facts to support his claim that he
sustained actual damages. Maldonado asserted that CO Harn and CO Johnson
confiscated his legal mail, see Complaint ¶¶ 10-11, and after three months he has
still not received his legal mail. See Complaint ¶ 18. “To maintain an action for
negligence, [Maldonado] had to plead more than the loss of his [legal mail].” Hitner,
slip op. at 6. Accordingly, Maldonado did not plead all of the common law
negligence claim elements necessary to satisfy the first immunity waiver
requirement.

                                         Conclusion
               Because Maldonado did not satisfy the first immunity waiver
requirement, the trial court properly dismissed the Complaint. See Young. For all
of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.12
                                            _________________________________
                                            ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

       12
               This Court may affirm a trial court[’s order] based on a differing
               rationale. See Slusser v. Black Creek Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 124
               A.3d 771, 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (stating this Court may affirm
               the decision of the trial court on any grounds); see also FP Willow
               Ridge Assocs., L.P. v. Allen Twp., 166 A.3d 487, 496 (Pa. Cmwlth.
               2017) . . . (stating this Court may affirm on other grounds where
               grounds for affirmance exist).
Medina v. Harrisburg Sch. Dist., 273 A.3d 33, 35 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).

                                               7
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ralph Maldonado (JT2158),             :
                 Appellant            :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
C/O Johnson; C/O Harn;                :
LT. R. Arnold, Security;              :
Michael Zaken, Superintendent         :   No. 1147 C.D. 2022
SCI-Green                             :

                                 ORDER

            AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2023, the Greene County
Common Pleas Court’s September 20, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                    _________________________________
                                    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge