Harris v. Pa. Dep't of Corrs.
| Docket Number | 1199 C.D. 2021 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 2023 |
| Parties | Terrence Andrew Harris, Appellant v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Terrence Andrew Harris (Harris), an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset (SCI-Somerset), appeals pro se, from the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County (trial court) on September 28, 2021, sustaining in part and overruling in part the Department of Corrections, et al.'s[1] (collectively, Appellees) preliminary objections (POs) to Harris's Complaint and dismissing Harris's Complaint as sovereign immunity bars Harris's causes of action against Appellees. After review, we affirm.
Harris filed the Complaint with the trial court in March 2018, listing 40 causes of action against Appellees, including "civil rights/criminal injustices & violations[;]" "failure to properly investigate inmate grievances[;]" annoyance, anxiety, emotional distress, false security, harassment, mental anguish, profane abuse, psychological distress[;]" "violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1986, & § 1987[;]" and "conduct unbecoming under color of law or in personal capacity[.]" (Complaint (Compl.) at 19.)[2] Appellees removed the case to federal court, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (district court) dismissed the entire Complaint. Harris v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. (W.D. Pa., No. 3:18-cv-99, filed June 26, 2019). The Third Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for the district court to consider whether to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over two of Harris's state law claims: (1) deprivation of lawful property and loss of use; and (2) theft of property. Harris v. Wetzel (3d Cir., No. 19-2582, filed July 30, 2020), 2020 WL 4362113 (per curiam). Upon remand, the district court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the trial court for the purposes of addressing only the two state law claims. Harris v. Pa. Dep't of Corr. (W.D. Pa., No. 3:18-cv-99, filed Aug. 26, 2020), Original Record (O.R.) Item 19. As a result, relevant here are only Harris's claims for "deprivation of lawful property & loss of use"[3] and "theft of property."[4] (Compl. at 19.)
Notwithstanding that the Third Circuit limited Harris's suit to his two state law claims, Harris's factual allegations in his Complaint encompass all 40 of his claims. As such, we reiterate that we are constrained by the Third Circuit to consider the factual allegations in the context of Harris's two state law claims of deprivation of property and loss of use and theft of property.
Harris avers that "[o]n three [] separate dates, Correctional Emergency Response Team(s), a.k.a. (CERT), [] subjected the entire [SCI-]Somerset to emergency lockdowns[,]" during which time his cell was searched. (Compl. at 15.) In the first search, Harris avers guards confiscated "legal paper exhibits/personal credentials," issued Harris a misconduct for possessing such material as "contraband and implements of escape[,]" and gave Harris a 30-day cell restriction and 6-month commissary restriction. (Id.) In the second search, Harris asserts "there w[ere] no notable violations other than the removal of excess items without a confiscation slip being written[.]" (Id.) In the third search, Harris contends he experienced "a massive retaliatory search[.]" (Id.) During the strip-down portion of the search, Harris alleges he was "verbally assaulted with very unkind language, degraded for [his] physical size and appearance, harassed for having a good supply of commissary, and was asked very inappropriate question[s] unrelated to the search at hand, all whil[]e standing nude and without [his] eyeglasses on." (Id.) Further, Harris alleges he was handcuffed, removed from his cell, and told to look at the floor and stand for over an hour. (Id.) According to the Complaint, during this time Harris heard two guards discuss his food supply, so he glanced into the cell and saw two guards eating his "Hershey's chocolate bar and vanilla cookies[.]" (Id.) When the guards saw Harris "peeking[,]" he contends he was "verbally attacked" and moved to a spot where he could no longer see the guards inside his cell. (Id.) Once the search was complete, Harris avers he was uncuffed and escorted back to his cell where he saw "a rather full and large bag of confiscated items . . . of which [he] could easily see was the vast majority of [his] non-perishable food/commissary, which was legally purchased and stored in [his] foot locker at [the] time." (Id. at 16.) Harris includes a list of confiscated items, which is included on page 29c of his Complaint. Harris estimates the value of the confiscated items was $47.44, listing the Hershey's chocolate bar as being worth $0.86 and the vanilla cookies as being worth $1.22. (Id. at 29c.) Harris states he did not receive a confiscation slip for the third search, which is required for all confiscations when items are removed for any reason. (Id. at 16.) Harris asserts he exhausted the internal grievance process. (Id. at 8, 16.)
Harris seeks "actual cost/loss of property," damages for "legal time, preparation of documents, cost(s) of filing," and "exemplary, punitive, emotional/mental/physically traumatic damages." (Id. at 30.) He also requests that the Court "issue judicial corrective orders, cease and desist orders, civil and criminal sanctions, administrative training and/or firing recommendations, and all other relief as deemed appropriate," including "prospective relief, preliminary relief, permanent relief, exemplary relief, special relief, relevant relief, customary monetary relief, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive relief, actual relief, administrative sanctions, criminal charges, civil liberties re-edu[ca]tion and training, et al." (Id. at 31.)
Appellees filed POs asserting, inter alia, Harris's Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (demurrer) because Appellees are immune from suits alleging negligent or replevin acts.[5] (POs ¶¶ 18; Brief in Support of POs at 7-8.)[6] Following briefing and argument, the trial court issued a Memorandum and Order on September 28, 2021 (Memo. & Order). As to Appellees' demurrer, the trial court explained that, while sovereign immunity is generally pleaded as an affirmative defense, when on the face of a complaint the cause of action does not fall into an exception to sovereign immunity, it is appropriate to decide the issue on a preliminary objection. (Memo. & Order at 10.) The trial court stated that Appellees are Commonwealth parties for the purposes of sovereign immunity as they are employees of a Commonwealth agency, the Department of Corrections (DOC), and acted within the scope of their employment during the incidents in question. (Id. at 10-11.) The trial court found the facts alleged by Harris to be analogous to those in Williams v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 695 M.D. 2016, filed September 11, 2017), in which this Court, acting in its original jurisdiction, sustained preliminary objections by DOC respondents on the basis of sovereign immunity in an action for replevin brought by an inmate seeking to recover damages for items that were confiscated.[7] (Memo. & Order at 12.) Further, the trial court reasoned Harris did not allege negligent acts, rather he alleged intentional acts, which do not fall into the exceptions to sovereign immunity enumerated in Section 8522(b) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b), commonly known as the Sovereign Immunity Act. (Memo. & Order at 13-14.) As such, the trial court concluded sovereign immunity barred Harris's claims against all Appellees and dismissed Harris's Complaint. (Id. at 15 & Order page.) Harris filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, Harris argues the trial court erred in dismissing his Complaint on sovereign immunity grounds because he averred negligent conduct on the part of all Appellees. Harris also addresses the other POs, asserts a number of other arguments, and makes a number of allegations not pertinent to the two state law claims before the Court. Appellees respond that the trial court correctly determined Appellees are Commonwealth employees who acted within the scope of their employment, Harris alleged intentional wrongdoing, and intentional torts are protected by sovereign immunity. Further, Appellees contend that Harris failed to address the trial court's sovereign immunity analysis pertaining to his two state law claims and instead he focused on the other claims that the federal courts dismissed. Thus, Appellees assert the trial court appropriately dismissed the Complaint.
"In an appeal from a trial court order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing a complaint, our scope of review is to determine whether an error of law was committed, or an abuse of discretion occurred." In re Est. of Bartol, 846 A.2d 209, 213 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (citation omitted). Further, "we must . . . keep in mind that preliminary objections admit as true all well-pled facts and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, but not conclusions of law." Id. (citation omitted).
"When ruling on preliminary objections, this Court shall sustain such objections and dismiss the action only in cases that are clear and free from doubt that the law will not permit recovery." DeHart v. Horn, 694 A.2d 16, 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
In Paluch v....
To continue reading
Request your trial