Court Opinion

ID: 9388691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 14:06:48.53063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.910662
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas Washam,                                         :
                               Petitioner              :
                                                       :
                   v.                                  : No. 417 M.D. 2021
                                                       : Submitted: February 24, 2023
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas                  :
As Separate Entity and Government Unit                 :
of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Real                  :
Party in Interest and Kevin J. Ransom,                 :
Superintendent/Officer of Pennsylvania                 :
Department of Corrections, and Luzerne                 :
County Court of Common Pleas,                          :
                          Respondents                  :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
               HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                                FILED: April 21, 2023

       The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas and the Luzerne County Court
of Common Pleas (collectively, Respondents) filed preliminary objections to the pro
se petition for review (Petition) filed by Thomas Washam (Washam).1 Determining
this Court lacks jurisdiction over Washam’s claims, we sustain Respondents’
preliminary objections and dismiss Washam’s Petition.

1
  On November 29, 2021, Washam filed a Civil Action in Mandamus (also titled Interlocutory
Appeal as of Right). On March 7, 2022 this Court ordered it would treat the Action in Mandamus
filing as a petition for review (above, Petition) addressed to the original jurisdiction of this Court.
                     I.     Background and Procedural History
       The Petition arises from Washam’s conviction in 1987 in the Delaware
County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court). Because of this conviction,
Washam is currently in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) at the
State Correctional Institution at Dallas.
       In his Petition, Washam contests his conviction. He argues the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to convict him. He asserts “[t]here is no relation-duty between
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the flesh and blood man [Washam]”. Pet., at
4. He also argues there were issues with his conviction ranging from witnesses, to
money damages, to the authority of the Attorney General.               Pet., generally.
Additionally, Washam challenges his incarceration. Washam argues he is not
“subject property …and should be released from custody under a “trust transfer
deed.” Washam asserts he created a trust transfer deed in which he named himself
grantor and grantee and set forth the legal description as “WASHAM, Thomas,
D.O.B.. . . S.S.# . . . .” Pet., at 7. Washam asserts he is “not the subject property of
Department of Corrections and must be dissolved from custody and control . . . .”
Pet., at 6.
       Regarding the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, Washam asserts it
“is liable for obstructing the administration of law and the commercial transactions
of property owner on sale and grant of estate in land.” Pet., at 5. Washam does not
expound on this claim.
       In response to Washam’s Petition, Respondents filed preliminary objections
(POs) in the nature of a demurrer. Respondents argue Washam fails to state a claim

                                            2
for which relief can be granted and Washam is collaterally attacking his criminal
sentence. PO ¶ 7.2
                                         II.     Discussion
       Our review of preliminary objections is limited to the contents of the
pleadings. Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Ord. of Police v. Dep’t of Conservation &
Nat. Res., 909 A.2d 413, 415 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). We accept as true all well-pled
allegations of material fact, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible from those
facts. Key v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 185 A.3d 421, 423 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citation
omitted). We do not accept as true any conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences
from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. Torres v. Beard,
997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). For a preliminary objection to be
sustained, it must appear with certainty the law will not permit recovery, and we
resolve any doubt in favor of the non-moving party. Id. A preliminary objection in
the nature of a demurrer specifically challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading.
See Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(a)(4). A demurrer can only be sustained in cases where the
pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Torres,
997 A.2d at 1245.
       Under this standard, we consider whether Washam’s Petition states a claim
for which this Court can grant relief. Insofar as Washam seeks release from
imprisonment such a request is one for habeas relief. See Warren v. Pa. Dep’t of

2
  On January 25, 2022, after filing his Petition, Washam filed a Motion to Satisfy Lien and Charges
in Estate of Property (Motion to Satisfy Lien) seeking payment of $4,550,000 to satisfy a lien.
Motion to Satisfy Lien, at 1-2. Washam alleged the lien arose through attachment in the trial court.
Id. Also on January 25, 2022, Washam filed an Application for Relief seeking remand to the trial
court to address his requests for habeas relief. On March 7, 2022, this Court ordered both January
25, 2022 filings of Washam to be decided with the POs. See March 7, 2022 Order. As both the
January 25, 2022 Motion to Satisfy Lien and Application for Relief contain effectively the same
arguments as the Petition, we consolidate them and address them together as the Petition.

                                                 3
Corr., 616 A.2d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth 1992). Our original jurisdiction is set forth in 42
Pa.C.S. § 761. This section provides “[t]he Commonwealth Court shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: (1) Against the Commonwealth
government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity, except: (i)
actions or proceedings in the nature of applications for a writ of habeas corpus . . .
.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 761 (emphasis added). Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to
review a request for habeas relief. Without jurisdiction, we are unable to grant relief.
       Next, Washam argues generally about issues surrounding his conviction. In
the absence of any cognizable legal argument or factual basis, this Court is left to
conclude Washam is launching a collateral attack on his 1987 criminal conviction.
Washam may not collaterally attack his conviction in this Court. See Scott v. Pa.
Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 256 A.3d 483 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). By attacking his
conviction, Washam is requesting post-conviction relief.
      The Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546 “provides
for an action by which persons convicted of crimes they did not commit and persons
serving illegal sentences may obtain collateral relief.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542. Further,
such action “shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief . . . .” Id. While
the PCRA is the appropriate avenue for post-conviction relief, additionally, this
Court lacks original jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to Section 761 of the
Judicial Code. Section 761 of the Judicial Code states: “The Commonwealth Court
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: (1) Against the
Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official
capacity, except: (i) actions or proceedings in the nature of applications for a writ of
habeas corpus or post-conviction relief not ancillary to proceedings within the
appellate jurisdiction of the court[.]” Id. (emphasis added).

                                           4
                                       III.   Conclusion
        Because Washam is requesting habeas relief and post-conviction relief, this
Court is without jurisdiction to consider his requests.3 Therefore, Washam has failed
to state a claim for which this Court can grant relief. Accordingly, we sustain
Respondents’ POs and dismiss Washam’s Petition.4

                                                   ______________________________
                                                   STACY WALLACE, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.

3
  Even though Respondent Kevin J. Ransom did not file preliminary objections, we also dismiss
the Petition as to him because we are without jurisdiction to consider Washam’s Petition.

4
  On November 14, 2022, Washam filed for injunctive relief. Because this Court concludes we
are without jurisdiction to address the merits of Washam’s requests, this Court similarly lacks
jurisdiction to consider his request for injunctive relief relative to this matter. Accordingly,
Washam’s request for injunctive relief is denied.

                                               5
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas Washam,                             :
                         Petitioner        :
                                           :
               v.                          : No. 417 M.D. 2021
                                           :
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas      :
As Separate Entity and Government Unit     :
of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Real      :
Party in Interest and Kevin J. Ransom,     :
Superintendent/Officer of Pennsylvania     :
Department of Corrections, and Luzerne     :
County Court of Common Pleas,              :
                          Respondents      :

                                      ORDER

      AND NOW, this 21st day of April 2023, the Preliminary Objections filed by
the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas and the Luzerne County Court of
Common Pleas are SUSTAINED, the November 29, 2021 Petition, January 25,
2022 Motion to Satisfy Lien and the January 25, 2022 Application for Relief filed
by Thomas Washam are DISMISSED and Washam’s November 14, 2022 request
for injunctive relief is DENIED.

                                        ______________________________
                                        STACY WALLACE, Judge