Com. ex rel. Saunders v. Creamer
Decision Date | 03 October 1975 |
Citation | 464 Pa. 2,345 A.2d 702 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Clarence V. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. J. Shane CREAMER, Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 9, 1975.
Michael D. Fioretti, Philadelphia, for appellant.
J Andrew Smyser, Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, Allen C Warshaw, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert P. Kane, Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Before JONES C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT
Appellant, Clarence Saunders, is an inmate in the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. The appellees are the former attorney general of Pennsylvania and the superintendent, deputy superintendent, and correctional counselor at Graterford. The proceedings from which this appeal arises began when appellant filed in the Commonwealth Court [1] a pro se complaint charging that the appellees had violated his constitutional rights by denying him admission to the community treatment services and temporary home furloughs programs [2] and seeking relief under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871. See 17 Stat. 13, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. [3] The appellees responded with preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and a motion for a more specific complaint. The Commonwealth Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed appellant's complaint. 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 160, 312 A.2d 454 (1973). This appeal followed. [4]
Appellant's complaint avers the following facts: Appellant has been incarcerated for seven years and has an excellent conduct record. Between May of 1971 and August of 1972 he repeatedly applied for admission to the community treatment services program, and during September and October of 1972 he made four requests for temporary home furloughs. All of these applications and requests were either ignored or denied without explanation. Between February 2, 1972, and September 28, 1972, eighty-one inmates, all of whom entered Graterford after appellant, were admitted to the community treatment services program. On October, 3, 1972 appellant filed a formal 'complaint' requesting a hearing upon the denial of his applications for participation in prerelease programs. This request for a hearing was denied.
The complaint further alleges that the appellees, acting in bad faith and under color of state law, were administering the community treatment services and temporary home furloughs programs in a discriminatory manner and were conspiring to deny appellant participation in these programs, all in violation of his rights to the equal protection of the laws and to due process of law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Appellant's prayer for relief sought a declaratory judgment, actual damages in the amount of $10,000, punitive damages in the amount of $10,000 and an injunction against further violations of his constitutional rights.
In passing upon the sufficiency of a complaint, we must bear in mind
Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 436 Pa. 279, 291, 259 A.2d 443, 449 (1969).
Appellant's complaint is written in broad and general terms and is far from a model of clarity. It is doubtful that it complies with Rule 1019 of our Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that '(t)he material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form.' Nevertheless we are unable to conclude with confidence that appellant would not be entitled to relief if he proved the facts which are averred.
Section 3 of the Act of 1968, Supra, provides in part that Pursuant to this statutory directive, the Bureau of Correction has promulgated regulations establishing various prerelease programs and governing the selection of inmates for participation in these programs. See 37 Pa.Code §§ 95.21--95.27 ( ), §§ 95.31--95.42 (temporary home furloughs), §§ 95.111--95.128 (prelease status). The selection of participants for the community treatment services program and temporary home furloughs is made by the deputy superintendent for treatment services, subject to final approval by the superintendent, upon the recommendations of the applicant's support team, caseworker, housing officer, work supervisor, educational supervisor, and other appropriate staff. 37 Pa.Code §§ 95.127(a), 95.128(a). The regulations establish minimum requirements for eligibility for all prerelease programs, but also provide that Among the factors to be considered are the applicant's 'previous offense and incarceration history; work, family, educational and religious history, marital history and status; past and present life style in its social context, and history of mental health disorders.' 37 Pa.Code § 95.121(a)(3).
A reading of the applicable regulations in their entirety leaves no doubt that the institutional staff, deputy superintendent for treatment services, and superintendent are left with much discretion; the decision as to whether a particular inmate shall participate in prerelease programs depends in large part upon the subjective evaluation which these officials make of the individual characteristics, problems and needs of an inmate. Thus, i would seem that successful challenges to decisions upon applications for admission to prerelease programs would be rare indeed.
The administrative determination may not, however, be conclusive. If it were shown that the institutional officials were in fact exercising their broad discretion in a discriminatory fashion or that they were disregarding the guidelines set forth in the regulations, a fourteenth amendment violation would be made out. Appellant would then be entitled to relief pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871 although his remedies might be limited if it were to be determined that the official action involved falls within some form of official privilege or immunity. See Skinner v. Spellman, 480 F.2d 539 (4th Cir. 1973); 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 26.06 (1958); see generally Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). The failure to provide for some type of hearing upon applications for participation in prerelease programs may also constitute a denial of procedural due process. See Wolff v. McDonell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (prison disciplinary proceedings); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (probation revocation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (parole revocation); Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102, 305 A.2d 701 (1973) (probation revocation). See also the plurality opinion by Mr. Justice O'Brien, the concurring opinion of this writer, and the concurring and dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Eagen, joined by Mr. Chief Justice Jones, in Commonwealth ex rel. Rambeau v. Rundle, 455 Pa. 8, 314 A.2d 842 (1973) (parole revocation). See generally Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975).
Because a fair reading of appellant's complaint leads to the conclusion that he has imperfectly pleaded facts which, if properly pleaded and proved, may entitle him to relief, the demurrer should not have been sustained. [5] The order dismissing the complaint is vacated and the case is remanded to the Commonwealth Court with a Procedendo, including consideration of the appellees' motion for a more specific complaint.
---------
Notes:
[1] The Commonwealth Court had original jurisdiction of this case by virtue of the Act of July 31 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. IV, § 401, 17 P.S. § 211.401 (Supp.1974).
[2] Prerelease programs for prison inmates such as the community treatment services and temporary home furloughs programs, are authorized by the Act of July 16 1968, P.L. 351, No. 173, § 1 et seq., as amended, 61 P.S. § 1051 et seq. (Supp.1974). The regulations governing prerelease programs, promulgated by the Bureau of Correction pursuant to Section of of the Act of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. ex rel. Saunders v. Creamer
...345 A.2d 702 464 Pa. 2 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Clarence V. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. J. Shane CREAMER, Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 9, 1975. Decided Oct. 3, 1975. [464 Pa. 3] Michael D. Fioretti, Philadelphia, f......