Garcia v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 1631 C.D. 2012
| Decision Date | 11 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1631 C.D. 2012,1631 C.D. 2012 |
| Parties | Miguel Jose Garcia, Appellant v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Ms. Viglione (P.B.P.P.), Mr. Parker (P.B.P.P.), John E. Wetzel (D.O.C. Secretary), Dorina Varner (S.O.I.G.A.), David W. Pitkins (Superintendent), Raymond Moore (D.S.F.M), John Cree (Unit Manager) Mike Wilson (Unit Counselor) |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Appellant Miguel Jose Garcia (Garcia) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County (trial court). Garcia filed a Complaint against (1) the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Board); (2) two Board employees, named only by their surnames, Ms. Viglione and Mr. Parker; (3) two administrative officials of the Department of Corrections (DOC);1 (4) David W. Pitkins, Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Laurel Highlands (SCI-Laurel Highlands); (5) Raymond Moore, Deputy Superintendent for Facilities Management; and (6) two employees of SCI-Laurel Highlands, Unit Manager John Cree and Counselor Mike Wilson. The Complaint consists primarily of claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks equitable and declaratory relief, as well as damages. The two defendant groups, the Board and DOC, filed preliminary objections to the Complaint. Garcia appeals from the order of the trial court, which dismissed the Complaint with prejudice based upon the trial court's resolution of the preliminary objections. We affirm the order of the trial court.
Garcia, who is an inmate at SCI-Laurel Highlands, asserted the following pertinent facts in the Complaint. On August 31, 2011,2 Cree and Wilson interviewed, or "staffed", Garcia for the purpose of considering whether to recommend to the Board that it grant Garcia parole. Garcia averred that he had completed all programs in which DOC required him to participate and that he had received above average work reports and average housing reports, and that he had not committed any misconducts since 2008.
During the interview, Cree asked Garcia to describe his crime. Garcia averred that during his previous parole interview, staff concluded that he minimized his crime in his oral recitation. Consequently, Garcia averred, in order to avoid minimizing his crime again, he informed Cree that he would provide a written, rather than oral, description of his crime. Cree insisted that Garcia orally provide a description of his crime, and Garcia complied.
Garcia averred that Wilson, without explanation, later informed Garcia that he did not receive an institutional recommendation for parole. Garcia sent an inmate request slip to Cree, asking why he was denied an institutional recommendation for parole, and Cree indicated only that Garcia was not a good candidate for parole. Garcia filed a grievance against Cree, contending that (1) Cree should have explained why Garcia was denied a recommendation; (2) Cree improperly condoned Wilson's conduct as Garcia's counselor in failing to respond to Garcia's request slips for six months and refusing to prepare and submit "documents for post minimum pre-release and outside clearance;" (3) Cree refused to provide Garcia with a copy of the "staffing" paper; and (4) Cree allegedly failed to train Wilson properly.
Garcia averred that he submitted correspondence regarding Cree's and Wilson's alleged misconduct to DOC. Garcia averred that Deputy Superintendent Moore denied his grievance, indicating to Garcia that the allegations in his grievance against Wilson were found to be frivolous and redundant. Garcia averred that the investigation DOC employees conducted with regard to the grievance was invalid because the employees investigated DOC's denial of institutional parole recommendation for the previous year, rather than for the then-present year. Garcia appealed the grievance denial to Superintendent Pitkins, who denied the appeal, noting that it is a privilege (not a right) to know the reasons for DOC's denial of a positive parole recommendation.3 In December 2011, DOC's Central Office Chief Grievance Officer Varner rejected Garcia's appeal of SCI-Laurel Highlands' denial of his grievance. In that decision, Chief Grievance Officer Varner concluded that inmates are not entitled or allowed to receive a copy of the recommendation vote sheet.
In essence, the Complaint challenges and seeks relief related to the fact that DOC and its officers and/or employees did not provide a positive recommendation for parole, did not perform duties associated with potential pre-release and outside work clearance, and did not address Garcia's grievances and correspondence in a manner that satisfied Garcia.
With regard to the Board and Board-related defendants, Garcia alleged that Board employees Viglione and Parker interviewed him on January 10, 2012, for parole eligibility. Garcia averred generally that Viglione and Parker ignored the substance of his plea agreement, which he contends called for him to plead guilty to a number of crimes, but to admit guilt only to an aggravated assault charge. Garcia averred that Viglione and Parker rejected Garcia's claim that a conflict of interest existed with regard to a district attorney, who Garcia claims was "instrumental" in his prosecution. Garcia claims that the victim in the case was the ex-spouse of the district attorney. Garcia averred that Viglione and Parker responded to his claims by concluding that he was minimizing his crime. Garcia specifically averred that he submitted a parole application with exhibits, which he claims substantiated his assertion regarding the alleged conflict of interest. In other words, he apparently attempted to repudiate the process by which he was convicted, which, of necessity, included all of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty as well as the crime to which he affirmatively admitted guilt.
Garcia characterized Viglione and Parker's conduct as "conducting their own trial." (Complaint ¶ 40.) Garcia also asserted that Parker was verbally abusive and wrongfully accused Garcia of exhibiting a poor attitude toward Viglione. Garcia essentially claimed that Parker's treatment of Garcia during the interview caused him to become shocked and confused and prevented him from capably responding to questions because he could not concentrate, and he became nervous and speechless.
In summary, Garcia claimed that the actions of the Board defendants denied him rights that are constitutional in nature, namely the right to an "untainted" parole hearing. Garcia requested affirmative injunctive relief, relating to the manner and process by which DOC and the Board conduct and consider parole matters, declaratory relief in the nature of a declaration that DOC and the Board's parole practices violate Garcia's constitutional rights, and compensatory and punitive damages.
The Board's preliminary objections to the Complaint consisted of the following contentions: (1) this Court, rather than the trial court, had subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint; (2) Viglione and Parker enjoyed absolute immunity from suit as officials who were engaged in the parole decision-making process by making a recommendation to the Board; (3) the Complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) the Complaint failed to state a cause of action regarding the Board's refusal of parole because a decision to deny parole is not subject to judicial review; and (5) the state tort claim in the Complaint should be dismissed based on sovereign immunity.
DOC's preliminary objections consisted of demurrers. First, DOC demurred to the claims against Superintendent Pitkins, Deputy Superintendent Moore, Secretary Wetzel, and Chief Grievance Officer Varner for their alleged failure to respond to or act on his grievances and correspondence. DOC asserted that the failure to process a grievance properly does not provide support for a claim that a constitutional violation occurred. Additionally, DOC asserted that an official's receipt of correspondence claiming that an employee of DOC has violated an inmate's civil rights is insufficient to state a cognizable claim. On the basis of these arguments, DOC requested that the trial court dismiss the claims against Moore, Wetzel, Pitkins, and Varner, with prejudice.
DOC also demurred to Garcia's claims that Wilson violated Garcia's civil rights by allegedly retaliating against him because of grievances Garcia filed. DOC asserted that Garcia's factual pleadings were insufficient, because he failed to identify specific details regarding an alleged second interview he had with Wilson and Cree. Further, with regard to Garcia's claims relating to DOC's alleged denial of pre-release or outside clearance, DOC asserted that Garcia failed to set forth facts indicating that any such decision was not supported by legitimate penological purposes. DOC also asserted that Garcia failed to plead facts in support of a claim against Cree for retaliation with respect to DOC's denial of pre-release or outside clearance.
With regard to claims relating to the denial of an institutional recommendation for parole, DOC asserted that inmates do not have any right to a favorable recommendation and that no legal authority dictates the manner by which DOC must conduct its staffing process for parole recommendation purposes. Moreover, DOC contended, there is absolutely no support for the proposition that an inmate has a right to know why staff denied a favorable recommendation. DOC also pointed out that DOC recommendations are not binding on the Board's parole decision.
As to Garcia's alleged negligence and intentional tort claims, DOC asserted that it was immune from suit based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial