Court Opinion

ID: 9961662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 14:13:26.400559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:16.077447
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

George Wayne Brooks,                               :
                               Appellant           :
                                                   :
                       v.                          :    No. 928 C.D. 2022
                                                   :    Submitted: May 19, 2023
Patricia Kelly, Supt. Thomas                       :
McGinley, Sgt. Black, C.O. Symon,                  :
V. Mirarchi, Lynette Rich and                      :
Keri Moore                                         :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
               HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
               HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER                         FILED: April 19, 2024

       George Wayne Brooks (Brooks), pro se, appeals an order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Northumberland County (trial court) dismissing his Complaint1
against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) appellees Superintendent’s
Assistant and Grievance Coordinator Patricia Kelly (Kelly), Superintendent Thomas
McGinley (McGinley), Sergeant Black (Sgt. Black), Corrections Officer Symon
(C.O. Symon), Major of the Guards and Grievance Officer V. Mirarchi (Mirarchi),
Health Care Administrator Lynette Rich (Rich), and Chief Grievance Coordinator
Keri Moore (Moore) (collectively, DOC Appellees) asserting constitutional
violations and violations of DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols. The trial court

       1
          Brooks’s initial filing with the trial court is untitled, but we refer to it as the Complaint
for ease of discussion.
dismissed the Complaint as frivolous pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 240(j)(1), Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1). After review, we vacate and remand for
further proceedings.

I.     THE COMPLAINT
       Brooks filed a praecipe to proceed in forma pauperis and the Complaint with
the trial court, averring as follows. Brooks is incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Coal Township. Brooks expressed concerns over Sgt. Black being
unvaccinated and refusing to wear a mask that covered his nose and mouth as
mandated by DOC’s COVID-19 protocols. (Complaint (Compl.) ¶ 9.) Sgt. Black
was coughing in Brooks’s unit while handling paperwork and passing food trays.
(Id.) On or about November 8, 2021,2 Sgt. Black was removed from Brooks’s unit
because Sgt. Black tested positive for COVID-19. (Id. ¶ 10.) Brooks avers that as
a direct result of Sgt. Black’s actions, Brooks, who has preexisting chronic health
issues, contracted COVID-19. (Id. ¶ 9.)
       Brooks filed a grievance, which was reviewed by Mirarchi who found
Brooks’s complaints to be frivolous because prison officials are expected to follow
DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols, including wearing masks when indoors and
when in close proximity to others. (Id. ¶ 12.) Mirarchi also indicated the security
video footage that Brooks requested in his first grievance was unable to be
recovered, but noted Sgt. Black was not present in the prison on November 6 or
November 7, 2021, and was relieved on November 8, 2021, prior to the distribution
of the evening meal. (Id.) Brooks appealed Mirarchi’s decision, and McGinley
upheld in part, and denied it in part, finding Brooks’s video retention claim had

       2
        Many dates and names of DOC Appellees in the Complaint contain errors or typos, which
we have edited by using surrounding context.

                                             2
merit, but that prison officials are expected to follow DOC’s COVID-19 safety
protocols. (Id. ¶ 14.) Brooks appealed McGinley’s determination, which Moore
upheld finding that prison officials are supposed to wear masks when in close
proximity to others in accordance with DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols. (Id.
¶ 16.)
         Brooks filed a second grievance complaining that even after Sgt. Black was
dismissed for testing positive for COVID-19, C.O. Symon did not wear a mask that
covered his nose and mouth. (Id. ¶ 17.) C.O. Symon tested positive for COVID-19
on November 18, 2021, and was sent home. (Id.) Brooks then began to “feel tired[
and] it was hard for him to breathe[,]” and he is “an elder with preexisting medical
conditions.” (Id.) Before it was known that Brooks had contracted COVID-19,
Brooks “was [] moved from [his unit] and placed in a hard cell in the prison infirmary
in[]stead of being placed in the special unit . . . used for prisoners who had contracted
the COVID-19 virus.” (Id.) Brooks avers this housing placement was in retaliation
for filing a grievance against Sgt. Black and C.O. Symon. (Id.) The hard cell had
“no privacy[,]” the “cell light stayed o[]n all day, there were two cameras in the cell
that watched [his] every move[,]” “[t]hey saw [him] every time [he] used the
toilet[,]” and he “was never allowed to clean the cell the whole time [he] was there
and no one clea[n]ed the cell.” (Id.) Brooks stated that placing him in the hard cell
“is not the way a person who ha[s] contracted COVID-19 is suppose[d] to be treated
when prison and medical staff [are] concerned about his health.” (Id.) Brooks again
requested that video footage be reviewed and maintained from November 15, 2021,
to November 18, 2021. (Id. ¶ 18.)
         Mirarchi denied Brooks’s second grievance stating his claims were frivolous
and that, again, it is the expectation that prison officials wear masks in compliance

                                           3
with DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols. (Id.) Mirarchi also stated that video
footage was maintained as requested, but that C.O. Symon was not in the prison on
November 15 or 16, 2021, and was “relieved from his post” on November 18, 2021.
(Id.)    Brooks appealed, and McGinley upheld in part and denied in part,
“conced[ing]” that security video footage showed C.O. Symon was not wearing his
mask at all times as required by DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols. (Id. ¶ 21.)
McGinley stated that he and other prison officials “will continue to impress upon []
staff the importance of mask wearing as a necessary measure to mitigate this virus,
and if need be, pursue administrative action against those who violate such.” (Id.)
McGinley ultimately denied Brooks’s requested relief because DOC had its COVID-
19 safety protocols in place and there was no validity to Brooks’s claim that any one
prison official caused Brooks to contract COVID-19. (Id. ¶ 22.) Brooks appealed,
stating that the assertion that prison officials are following DOC’s safety protocols
“is contrary to the facts in this case.” (Id. ¶ 25.) Moore upheld McGinley’s decision
because “[t]here was nothing new to add[.]” (Id. ¶ 26.)
        Brooks asserts that “consistently reminding prison staff of the importance of
adhering to the standard of mask wearing did noth[]ing to protect [him] from being
infected with COVID[-19.]” (Id. ¶ 27.) Further, “Sgt. Black and [C.O. Symon] are
lia[]ble because they are unvaccinated and willfully were not adhering to the mask
wearing protocol[, and] McGinley and Mirarchi are liable for only remi[n]ding them
to follow the protocol and expecting that they would do so.” (Id.)
        Thereafter, Brooks filed a third grievance complaining that prison officials
were acting like “closet racist[s]” in denying his first and second grievances. (Id.
¶ 28.) Brooks asserts that Kelly precluded the third grievance from being processed
because it was not presented in a “courteous manner” and violated DOC’s policies.

                                          4
(Id.) Brooks appealed Kelly’s denial, and McGinley upheld Kelly’s determination
as Brooks’s grievance contained “racially insensitive statements.”        (Id. ¶ 30.)
Brooks appealed McGinley’s determination, and Moore upheld the determinations
of Kelly and McGinley. (Id. ¶ 32.)
      In his Complaint, Brooks seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and
compensatory and punitive damages. Brooks asks the trial court to declare that
prison officials put Brooks’s life in imminent danger of being infected with COVID-
19, were indifferent to COVID-19 safety protocols, spoiled his evidence and
obstructed justice by not preserving security footage, retaliated against Brooks for
filing grievances by housing him in a suicidal hard cell before it was known that he
was infected with COVID-19, and violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment,
U.S. CONST. amends. I, XIV, rights by denying a grievance for racism. (Id.,
Requested Relief ¶¶ A.1.-A.5.) Brooks also asks the trial court to issue an injunction
ordering prison officials to wear face masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19,
maintain video footage when requested, and not to place him in a hard cell for filing
grievances. (Id. ¶¶ B.1.-B.3.)

II.   TRIAL COURT DECISION
      The trial court denied Brooks’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissed the Complaint “as without merit,” stating it could not “examine and
substitute its judg[]ment relating to COVID-19 safety protocols[;]” “[r]egulations
imposed by prison administration are entitled to judicial deference[;] and courts do
not micromanage prison policy.” (May 17, 2022 Order.) Brooks appealed, and in
his Concise Statement of Errors pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(b), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (1925(b) Statement), Brooks contended the

                                          5
trial court abused its discretion and erred in concluding the Complaint was frivolous
because prison officials were not following COVID-19 protocols and were
“deliberately indifferent” to Brooks’s health and safety in violation of the Eighth,
U.S. CONST. amend. VIII, and Fourteenth Amendments and article I, section 5 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution, PA. CONST. art. I, § 5. (1925(b) Statement ¶ 10a.) In its
Statement in Lieu of Opinion (Opinion), the trial court explained “[t]he gravamen of
[Brooks’s] action concerned the alleged refusal of S[gt]. Black and C.O. Symon to
wear a mask while being unvaccinated and working in [Brooks’s] unit causing [him]
to contract C[OVID]-19,” and this led “to alleged unconstitutional actions against
[Brooks] . . . when [he] attempted to address his concerns through the prison’s
grievance system.” (Opinion (Op.) at 1.) The trial court again stated it cannot
“substitute its judgment relating to C[OVID]-19 safety protocols and decision-
making related thereto[.]” (Id. at 2.) Further, the trial court stated “[t]here is no
possible way for [Brooks] to know and prove exactly how he contracted C[OVID]-
19.” (Id.) The trial court concluded that many other factors, such as other prisoners
or any other personnel in the prison, could have caused Brooks to contract COVID-
19. (Id. at 2-3.) Therefore, the trial court dismissed the Complaint as frivolous under
Rule 240(j)(1).
III.   DISCUSSION
       On appeal,3 Brooks asserts five issues for our review, which can be
restructured into three issues.4 First, Brooks argues the trial court erred and abused

       3
          “Appellate review of a decision dismissing an action pursuant to Pa.R.C[iv].P. [] 240(j)(1)
is limited to determining whether an appellant’s constitutional rights have been violated and
whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Jones v. Doe, 126 A.3d
406, 408 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
        4
          Brooks attaches copies of his relevant grievances to his Brief. However, we may not
consider attachments to pleadings that are not in the record. Henderson v. Unemployment Comp.
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                 6
its discretion in dismissing the Complaint as frivolous because Brooks asserted
prison officials were not following DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols, he was not
challenging the COVID-19 safety protocols, and he asserted prison officials acted
deliberately indifferent to his safety needs, which caused him to become infected
with COVID-19 and violated his Eighth Amendment rights. (Brooks’s Brief (Br.)
at 13-14, 19-20.) Further, Brooks asserts the destruction of security footage after he
requested that it be maintained amounted to spoliation. (Id. at 14-16.) Lastly, having
a grievance be denied due to “racially insensitive” language in violation of DOC’s
policies violates the First Amendment. (Id. at 17-18.)5
       Rule 240(j)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in
relevant part,

       If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or
       the taking of an 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 the allegation of poverty is
       untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is
       frivolous.

               Note: A frivolous action or proceeding has been defined
               as one that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in
               fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 . . . (1989).

Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1). A complaint is frivolous under Rule 240(j)(1) when, “on its
face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action.” Bennett v. Beard, 919 A.2d 365,
367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citing McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A.2d 797, 799 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1997)). However, a complaint will not be dismissed under Rule 240(j)(1)

Bd. of Rev., 77 A.3d 699, 713 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). To the extent Brooks cites these grievances
in his Brief to support his arguments, we may not consider them.
        5
          DOC Appellees elected not to participate in this appeal because the trial court dismissed
this matter as frivolous prior to service. (February 28, 2023 Notice of Non-Participation.)

                                                7
simply because it is unartfully pled. Williams v. Syed, 782 A.2d 1090, 1095 n.6 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2001). We must consider “all factual allegations in an inmate’s complaint
to be true when determining whether the legal claims therein are frivolous for
purposes of [Rule] 240(j)(1).” Nunez v. Blough, 283 A.3d 413, 422 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2022).
      The trial court first concluded that it may not substitute its own judgment over
DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols. (Op. at 2.) To the extent the trial court
characterized Brooks’s 1925(b) Statement as only challenging DOC’s COVID-19
safety protocols, Brooks maintains that he was not challenging any DOC protocol.
Rather, he asserts that prison officials acted deliberately indifferent to his safety by
not adhering to DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols. We agree if Brooks was only
challenging DOC’s protocols, this claim by itself would not be actionable as
“allegations that [DOC] failed to follow its regulations or internal policies cannot
support a claim based upon a vested right or duty because these administrative rules
and regulations . . . usually do not create rights in prison inmates.” Shore v. Pa.
Dep’t of Corr., 168 A.3d 374, 386 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). However, Brooks asserted
that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by not adhering to DOC’s
COVID-19 safety protocols.
      The Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” U.S.
CONST. amend. VIII. This Court has recognized Eighth Amendment violations
where there is a “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners[,
which] constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain[.]’” Tindell v.
Dep’t of Corr., 87 A.3d 1029, 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97 (1976)); see also Pew v. Wetzel (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 328 M.D. 2022, filed

                                           8
July 21, 2023), slip op. at 4.6 Whether an inmate’s medical need is sufficiently
serious to “constitute an injury amounting to cruel and unusual punishment is an
objective inquiry.” Tindell, 87 A.3d at 1038. The alleged medical need does not
necessarily need to be current, “but may result from a condition of confinement that
is sure to or very likely to pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future
health.” Id. at 1039. When the claim is based on harm to future health, an inmate
must show they have been “exposed to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to
future health and that it would violate contemporary standards of decency to expose
anyone unwillingly to such a risk.” Id. An Eighth Amendment claim also has a
subjective inquiry. Thus, in addition to satisfying the objective inquiry, the inmate
must show: “[(1)] the prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety; [(2)] the prison official was aware of facts from which an
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists; and [(3)] the
prison official drew the inference.” Id. “Incidence of disease or infection in densely
populated residence situations such as prisons, standing alone, does not necessarily
constitute unconstitutional confinement conditions.” Pew, slip op. at 6. Where a
prison official knew of a substantial risk to inmate health and safety and responded
“reasonably” to that risk, they may be free from liability, even if the harm was
ultimately not averted. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994).
       In Tindell, this Court considered whether the petitioners therein stated a viable
Eighth Amendment claim to survive preliminary objections (POs) filed by the
respondents. The petitioners argued, inter alia, that prison officials were not
adhering to DOC’s policies and violated the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, the

       6
         Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 126(b), Pa.R.A.P. 126(b), and
Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a), an
unreported opinion of this Court, while not binding, may be cited for its persuasive value.

                                            9
petitioners asserted that prison officials “show[ed] a deliberate indifference to [the]
[p]etitioners’ serious medical needs” regarding certain categories of conditions of
their confinement, including: “(a) ventilation; (b) sleep deprivation; (c) mental
health; (d) behavior modification; (e) food service; and (f) clothing.” Tindell, 87
A.3d at 1036. The Court sustained the respondents’ demurrer and dismissed the
petitioners’ mandamus petition. In doing so, the Court analyzed “whether [the
p]etitioners [] pled facts that, if proven, would satisfy the elements necessary to state
a cognizable claim for violation of the ban on cruel and unusual punishment due to
denial of medical care, thus establishing the clear legal right necessary to state a
claim for mandamus[,]” and concluded that the petitioners “fail[ed] to allege acts
taken or omitted by the named [r]espondents that have caused the constitutional
deprivation they seek to remedy” and “fail[ed] to identify harm suffered by, or
individual to, [the p]etitioners.” Id. at 1040. For example, the petitioners claimed
“isolation and reduced environmental stimulation has been shown to lead to mental
illness,” which may have satisfied the objective inquiry of an Eighth Amendment
claim. Id. However, “[w]hile a serious medical need can be demonstrated by
alleging an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health,” the petitioners also
needed to satisfy the subjective inquiry by presenting facts that showed “a prison
official acted with deliberate indifference to the unreasonable risk of serious damage
to future health[,]” which they did not do. Id.
      In another factually similar case, Pew, the Court concluded that the petitioner
therein did not allege facts that could satisfy the Eighth Amendment’s subjective
inquiry, namely, that prison officials disregarded a risk to inmate health and safety
and, thus, the petition could not survive the respondent’s PO in the nature of a
demurrer. Id. at 6-7. The Court first noted that it assumed the petitioner could meet

                                           10
the objective inquiry of an Eighth Amendment claim because COVID-19 is
contagious and can cause serious damage to health in those who are
immunocompromised. Id. at 6-7 n.10 (citing Dixon v. United States (D.N.J., No.
20-5994, filed June 16, 2020), 2020 WL 3249231, at *3).                In addition, the
respondents did “not dispute that COVID-19 presents a serious health risk.” Id. The
Court then discussed the subjective inquiry and observed that the petition
“contain[ed] multiple references to [the r]espondents’ efforts to employ preventative
measures including increased sanitation efforts, increased screening and testing of
inmates and staff members, and isolation of individuals displaying signs of COVID-
19 infection.” Id. at 7. Importantly, the petition did “not allege that [the r]espondents
ignored appreciated risks of harm presented by COVID-19[,]” or that the
respondents “responded unreasonably to the unprecedented situation or subjectively
disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health[.]” Id. Accordingly, the Court
sustained the respondents’ PO.
      Here, Brooks asserted that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when
he contracted COVID-19 because certain prison officials did not adhere to DOC’s
COVID-19 safety protocols. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 17.) An Eighth Amendment claim
contains an objective inquiry and a subjective inquiry, both of which must be
established to state a viable claim. Tindell, 87 A.3d at 1040. Regarding the objective
inquiry, that Brooks’s health was put at an unreasonable risk of serious damage,
Brooks alleges that he is “an elder with preexisting medical conditions[,]” and he
was exposed to COVID-19 because Sgt. Black and C.O. Symon did not wear masks
and tested positive for COVID-19 while stationed in Brooks’s unit, and Sgt. Black
coughed while handing out trays and handling paperwork. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 17.)
COVID-19 is very contagious and can cause serious health problems, especially in

                                           11
those with preexisting conditions, presenting an unreasonable risk of serious danger
when exposed. See Dixon, 2020 WL 3249231, at *3 (“The [objective] element of
an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim [wa]s met [] because
COVID-19 is a very contagious virus that can cause serious health complications or
death in vulnerable people.”); Mincy v. Wetzel (M.D. Pa., No. 1:20-CV-717, filed
Nov. 3, 2021), 2021 WL 5112277, at * 3 (“It is undisputed that [the petitioner] ple[d]
an objectively serious risk to inmate health or safety, as COVID-19 clearly presents
such a risk.”); Wilson v. Williams, 961 F.3d 829, 840 (6th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he
objective prong is easily satisfied” as “[t]he COVID-19 virus creates a substantial
risk of serious harm leading to pneumonia, respiratory failure, or death.”).7 Sgt.
Black and C.O. Symon did not wear masks to prevent the spread of the highly
contagious virus, Sgt. Black coughed while handling paperwork and passing food
trays in Brooks’s unit, and Sgt. Black and C.O. Symon tested positive for COVID-
19 while working in Brooks’s unit, putting Brooks’s health at an unreasonable risk
of serious danger. On these facts, it is not clear on the face of the Complaint that
Brooks has not set forth a valid cause of action as to the objective inquiry of an
Eighth Amendment claim, Bennett, 919 A.2d at 367, or that the Complaint “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.
       Regarding the subjective inquiry of Brooks’s Eighth Amendment claim, that
prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to the unreasonable risk of serious
damage to Brooks’s future health, Brooks alleges Sgt. Black, who is unvaccinated,
did not wear his mask, and even after Sgt. Black tested positive for COVID-19, C.O.

       7
         “Generally, decisions of federal district courts and courts of appeals are not binding on
this Court, . . . but they may have persuasive value.” GGNSC Clarion LP v. Kane, 131 A.3d 1062,
1069 n.15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). “Unreported federal court decisions may also have persuasive
value.” Nagle v. TrueBlue, Inc., 148 A.3d 946, 959 n.15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

                                               12
Symon, who is also unvaccinated, did not wear his mask. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 17.) Brooks
alleges that in denying his grievances, Mirarchi, McGinley, and Moore stated prison
officials are expected to follow DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols, including proper
masking “as a necessary measure to mitigate this virus,” and McGinley assured
Brooks that he would enforce those safety protocols. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 18, 21.) Brooks
also alleges that he was placed in a dirty, hard cell with no privacy before it was
known that he contracted COVID-19 in retaliation8 for filing grievances, and “this
is not the way a person who ha[s] contracted COVID-19 is suppose[d] to be treated
when prison and medical staff [are] concerned about his health.” (Id. ¶ 17.) Other
inmates who contracted COVID-19 were placed in a “special unit.” (Id.) Unlike in
Tindell and Pew, where the petitioners therein did not allege facts indicating prison
officials acted with a deliberate disregard to health risks, or that prison officials acted
unreasonably, Brooks alleges that Sgt. Black and C.O. Symon continuously ignored
COVID-19 safety protocols that required masking to mitigate the spread of the
highly contagious virus, and, in retaliation for filing grievances that complained of
this behavior, prison officials placed Brooks in a dirty, hard cell when other prisoners
who were infected with COVID-19 were placed in a special unit. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 12, 17,
18, 21.) Taking these facts as true, which we must do at this stage, it is not clear on
the face of the Complaint that Brooks has not asserted a valid cause of action
regarding his claim that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by not
adhering to DOC’s COVID-19 safety protocols or for retaliating against him,

       8
          To establish a valid prison retaliation claim, an inmate must assert: “(1) they engaged in
constitutionally protected conduct; (2) prison officials took adverse action; (3) the protected
conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the action; and (4) the retaliatory action did not
advance legitimate penological goals.” Nunez, 283 A.3d at 422 (internal quotation marks,
brackets, and citation omitted). The inmate has the burden of proof at all times, but the court must
consider all factual allegations as true when determining whether a claim for retaliation is frivolous
under Rule 240(j). Id.

                                                 13
Bennett, 919 A.2d at 367, or that the Complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing
the Complaint as frivolous.
      In conclusion, the trial court erred in dismissing the Complaint as frivolous
under Rule 240(j)(1) because it is not clear from the face of the Complaint that
Brooks has not pled a viable claim, Bennett, 919 A.2d at 367, or that the Complaint
“lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Therefore,
we vacate the trial court’s Order and remand this matter for further proceedings and
to reinstate the Complaint.

                                         __________________________________________
                                         RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

                                           14
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

George Wayne Brooks,                   :
                        Appellant      :
                                       :
                  v.                   :   No. 928 C.D. 2022
                                       :
Patricia Kelly, Supt. Thomas           :
McGinley, Sgt. Black, C.O. Symon,      :
V. Mirarchi, Lynette Rich and          :
Keri Moore                             :

                                    ORDER

     NOW, April 19, 2024, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Northumberland County, in the above-captioned matter, is VACATED, and this
matter is REMANDED for further proceedings, consistent with the foregoing
Memorandum Opinion.
     Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                     __________________________________________
                                     RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge