Court Opinion

ID: 9894626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 15:09:58.026777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:06.589021
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Derrick Gibson,                           :
                           Appellant      :
                                          :
             v.                           :   No. 1275 C.D. 2022
                                          :   SUBMITTED: October 10, 2023
Bernadette Mason, et al.                  :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
             HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER                                 FILED: November 2, 2023

             Inmate, Derrick Gibson, appeals pro se from an order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Schuylkill County determining that his complaint was frivolous
under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j)(1), Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1), and,
therefore, denying his petition to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) as moot. We
reverse and remand.
             On October 13, 2022, Inmate filed a complaint against Appellees,
Superintendent Bernadette Mason and two corrections officers, stemming from an
October 13, 2020 incident when he was housed in a restricted housing unit at State
Correctional Institution (SCI)-Mahanoy and sprayed with pepper spray. His claims
include assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence,
and breach of a duty to protect. By way of damages, Inmate seeks $1,200,000—
$600,000 from each corrections officer.
              Subsequently, the trial court’s prothonotary sent Inmate a praecipe for
certification with an attached petition to proceed IFP form to complete. Inmate
completed the petition and returned it to the prothonotary’s office where it was time-
stamped October 24, 2022. Notwithstanding Inmate’s compliance, the trial court
dismissed the petition as moot and concluded that his cause of action was frivolous
under Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1). Inmate’s appeal followed.1
              Pa.R.Civ.P. 240 (j)(1) provides:

                      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 [IFP], 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.

An action is deemed frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
              In finding Inmate’s complaint to be frivolous, the trial court initially
stated: “The cause of action alleged occurred on October 13, 2020, and [Inmate]
filed on October 24, 2022, therefore outside the two-year statute of limitations
pursuant to [Section 5524 of the Judicial Code,] 42 [Pa.C.S.] § 5524.” October 26,
2022 Trial Ct. Order at 1. In an opinion rendered pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), the trial court asserted two
additional grounds. It determined that Inmate did not file a written statement with
the Office of Attorney General within six months of the alleged cause of action
advising of the commencement of a civil action against a government unit for

    1
      Appellees advised that they will not be participating in the appeal because the trial court
dismissed the matter prior to service. April 12, 2023 Notice of Non-Participation at 1.

                                               2
damages thereby warranting dismissal under Section 5522(a)(2) of the Judicial
Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)(2). In addition, the trial court determined that the facts
as alleged in the complaint indicated that the employees at SCI-Mahanoy were acting
within the scope of their employment such that the doctrine of sovereign immunity
applied.
             The trial court erred in determining that the action is frivolous due to
the filing date of the complaint. The complaint is time-stamped October 13, 2022,
and the trial court’s docket entries reflect that filing date. An action may only be
commenced by filing with the prothonotary a praecipe for a writ of summons or a
complaint. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1007. “No pleading or other legal paper that complies with
the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure shall be refused for filing by the
prothonotary based on a requirement of a local rule of civil procedure or judicial
administration, including local Rules 205.2(a) and 205.2(b).” Pa.R.Civ.P. 205.2.
The trial court’s prothonotary sent Inmate a praecipe for certification requesting that
he fill out a petition to proceed IFP pursuant to Schuylkill County Local Rule
205.2(b). Consequently, Inmate’s failure to file a petition with the complaint should
not have affected the timely filing date of the complaint, which the trial court’s
prothonotary presumably recognized. It might have been different had Inmate failed
to comply with the prothonotary’s directive. Nonetheless, Inmate’s October 13,
2022 complaint pertaining to the October 13, 2020 alleged incident was filed within
the two-year statute of limitations period.
             In addition, the trial court erred in concluding that Inmate had to comply
with the statutory notice provision found in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)(1). The six-month
limitation provision provides:

                                          3
            (a) Notice prerequisite to action against government unit-
            -
                   (1) Within six months from the date that any injury
            was sustained or any cause of action accrued, any person
            who is about to commence any civil action or proceeding
            within this Commonwealth or elsewhere against a
            government unit for damages on account of any injury to
            his person or property under Chapter 85 (relating to
            matters affecting government units) or otherwise shall file
            in the office of the government unit, and if the action is
            against a Commonwealth agency for damages, then also
            file in the office of the Attorney General, a statement in
            writing, signed by or in his behalf, setting forth:
                      (i) The name and residence address of the person
            to whom the cause of action has accrued.
                      (ii) The name and residence address of the person
            injured.
                      (iii) The date and hour of the accident.
                      (iv) The approximate location where the accident
            occurred.
                      (v) The name and residence or office address of
            any attending physician.
                   (2) If the statement provided for by this subsection
            is not filed, any civil action or proceeding commenced
            against the government unit more than six months after the
            date of injury to person or property shall be dismissed and
            the person to whom any such cause of action accrued for
            any injury to person or property shall be forever barred
            from proceeding further thereon within this
            Commonwealth or elsewhere. The court shall excuse
            failure to comply with this requirement upon a showing of
            reasonable excuse for failure to file such statement.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)(1) and (2). “Government unit” is defined as “[t]he General
Assembly and its officers and agencies, any government agency or any court or other
officer or agency of the unified judicial system.” Section 102 of the Judicial Code,

                                         4
42 Pa.C.S. § 102. “Commonwealth agency” is defined as “[a]ny executive agency
or independent agency.” Id.
               In the present case, Inmate sued the Superintendent and two corrections
officers, not the Department of Corrections or other Commonwealth agency. While
the definition of “government unit” includes officers of the General Assembly or the
judicial branch, it does not similarly include officers or employees of executive
agencies. Consequently, Inmate’s failure to file a statement with the Office of the
Attorney General does not bar him from proceeding further with his cause of action.
               We turn next to the trial court’s determination that the facts alleged in
the complaint established that the employees at SCI-Mahanoy were acting within
the scope of their employment such that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied.
An employee of a Commonwealth agency is immune from suit when he or she is
acting within the scope of employment and the claim against him or her does not fit
into any category in which sovereign immunity has been waived. 2 La Frankie v.
Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). Immunity is not waived for
intentional torts committed within the scope of employment. Id. at 1149.
               In the present case, Inmate’s claims included assault and battery
causing physical injury, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and
breach of a duty to protect, specifically alleging that he was sprayed with a chemical
that caused severe pain and physical injury and that this unprovoked act was done in
retaliation for his having filed an administrative grievance. Taking these allegations
at face value, which we must do at this preliminary juncture, one certainly cannot

    2
        The exceptions to sovereign immunity pertain to: vehicle liability; medical professional
liability; care, custody or control of personal property; Commonwealth real estate; highways and
sidewalks; potholes and other dangerous conditions; care, custody or control of animals; liquor
store sales; National Guard activities; toxoids and vaccines; and sexual abuse. Section 8522(b) of
the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b).

                                                5
say that such actions were so clearly within the legitimate scope of Appellees’
employment as to make them entitled to sovereign immunity and render Inmate’s
complaint frivolous. While this may be the ultimate conclusion, there needs to be a
more complete factual development before any such determination can be made.
             Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court with
directions to grant the petition to proceed IFP so long as Inmate satisfies the financial
requirements.    In addition, we will order Inmate to serve Appellees with his
complaint and for Appellees to file a responsive pleading within twenty days of such
service.

                                         _____________________________________
                                         BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                         President Judge Emerita

                                           6
           IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Derrick Gibson,                             :
                           Appellant        :
                                            :
             v.                             :   No. 1275 C.D. 2022
                                            :
Bernadette Mason, et al.                    :

                                       ORDER

             AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2023, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is hereby REVERSED and this matter is
REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
Further Appellant is ORDERED to serve the Defendants/Appellees with his
complaint and Appellees shall file a responsive pleading within twenty days of such
service.
             Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                          _____________________________________
                                          BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                          President Judge Emerita