Morgalo v. Gorniak
| Citation | 134 A.3d 1139 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 489 M.D. 2013,489 M.D. 2013 |
| Parties | Michael MORGALO, Petitioner v. Sandra GORNIAK, (SCI Albion Accountant) v. Montgomery County Clerk of Courts, Respondents. |
| Court | Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
Michael Morgalo, pro se.
Chase M. Defelice, Assistant Counsel, Mechanicsburg, for respondents.
BEFORE: DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge,1 BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge,2 RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge,3 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, and ANNE E. COVEY, Judge.
OPINION BY Judge COVEY
.
Michael Morgalo (Morgalo), pro se, filed a Request to Stop Deduction(s) and Return of Monies from Inmate's Account (Petition) in this Court's original jurisdiction on September 27, 2013. Therein, Morgalo requests this Court to direct the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) Inmate Accounting Office/Inmate Accountant Sandra Gorniak (Gorniak) to stop deducting monies from his inmate account and to order the Inmate Accounting Office and the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts to return funds previously deducted therefrom because his sentencing orders do not authorize deductions until he is paroled. In response, the Department filed preliminary objections to dismiss Morgalo's Petition pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Number 1028(a)(4) on the grounds that it (1) is time-barred, and (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.4 The Department's preliminary objections are currently before the Court.
This Court's review of preliminary objections is limited to the pleadings. Pa. State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police v. Dep't of Conservation & Natural Res., 909 A.2d 413 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006)
, aff'd, 592 Pa. 304, 924 A.2d 1203 (2007).
[This Court is] required to accept as true the well-pled averments set forth in the ... complaint, and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Moreover, the [C]ourt need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. In order to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and, where any doubt exists as to whether the preliminary objections should be sustained, the doubt must be resolved in favor of overruling the preliminary objections.
(citations omitted).
According to Morgalo's Petition, and his Memorandum of Law and exhibits incorporated therein, Morgalo is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Albion (SCI–Albion), Pennsylvania. On June 23, 2003, the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court (trial court) sentenced Morgalo to 6 to 23 months' incarceration, followed by a consecutive two years of probation (Docket No. 7235 of 2002). The sentencing order stated: "[Morgalo] is sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, and a fine of $500.00 and restitution of $____ to ____ within the first 17 months of supervision/release from custody in monthly installments as directed." Morgalo Pet. Ex. A.
On April 26, 2004, the trial court sentenced Morgalo to 6 to 23 months' incarceration, to be served concurrently with his Docket No. 7235 of 2002 sentence, followed by a consecutive two years of probation (Docket No. 1849 of 2002). The sentencing order stated, in pertinent part: "[Morgalo] is sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, and a fine of $ -0- and restitution of $ 0 to 0 within the first parole months of supervision/release from custody in monthly installments as directed." Morgalo Pet. Ex. B.
On September 13, 2004, the trial court sentenced Morgalo to 9 to 23 months' incarceration, followed by one year of consecutive probation (Docket No. 3911 of 2004). The sentencing order stated, in relevant part: " Morgalo Pet. Ex. C.
On July 10, 2008, the trial court sentenced Morgalo to 16 to 32 years' incarceration (Docket No. 139 of 2007). The sentencing order stated: "[Morgalo] is sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, and a fine of $ - and restitution of $ - to - within the first ____ months of supervision/release from custody in monthly installments as directed." Morgalo Pet. Ex. E.
Also on July 10, 2008, the trial court sentenced Morgalo to 5 to 10 years' incarceration (Docket No. 9197 of 2006) to be served concurrently with his Docket No. 139 of 2007 sentence. The sentencing order stated: "[Morgalo] is sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, and a fine of $ - and restitution of $ - to - within the first ____ months of supervision/release from custody in monthly installments as directed." Morgalo Pet. Ex. D.
On September 5, 2008, the Department began making monthly deductions from Morgalo's inmate account to satisfy his court costs and restitution obligation pursuant to Section 9728(b) of the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)
, commonly known as Act 84.5 Act 84 provides in pertinent part:
42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)
(emphasis added). Section 3.A of Department DC–ADM 005 (Collection of Inmate Debts Procedures Manual) (Debt Collection Manual) provides:
Collection of Restitution, Reparation, Fees, Costs, Fines and Penalties 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728
, Act 84 of 1998 (Act 84)
1. When the County Clerk of Courts provides a copy(s) of an order(s) for restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines, and/or penalties associated with the criminal proceedings, the records office shall file the original and shall forward a copy of the order to the business office of the facility having custody of the inmate. The court order, the DC–300B, Court Commitment Form, or supporting information, must indicate the status of the debt including the current balance due and any special conditions, which would [a]ffect payments.
2. The business office, through inmate account deductions, makes:
a. payments of 20% of the inmate's account balance and monthly income for restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines, and/or penalties associated with the criminal proceedings pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728, Act 84 of 1998, provided that the inmate has a balance that exceeds $10.00; and
b. payments of 10% of all the inmate's account balance and monthly income, for the Crime Victim's Compensation and Victim/Witness Services Funds, provided that the inmate has a balance that exceeds $10.00.
3. The business office shall send the funds deducted to the county probation department or other designated agency.
....
5. Court orders that require payment upon, or within a certain amount of time after parole or release, may not be collected as set forth in this section unless the sentencing court stipulates, via court order, that the Department is to begin collection prior to the inmate being paroled or released. In the event that a court order states payment is required on or after parole or release, the Facility Records Office Supervisor/designee shall contact the court and request clarification of the court order using the Court Order Clarification Memo (Attachment 3–A).
Morgalo Pet. Ex. F (bolded in original).
Morgalo initially sought relief from the deductions and for return of monies from his inmate account through the Department's inmate grievance system.7 On March 22, 2010, he filed Grievance No. 311819 regarding the allegedly improper Act 84 deductions, but claims he was unable to complete that process due to a transfer to an out-of-state prison. On May 28, 2013, Morgalo filed inmate Grievance No. 461892 with the Facility Grievance Coordinator alleging the unlawful deductions of monies from his prison inmate account stating, "I submitted previous paperwork to no avail." Morgalo Pet. Ex. H. That grievance was denied as having been addressed in 2010. Morgalo Pet. Ex. I. Thus, Morgalo contends that he exhausted his administrative remedies and now seeks an order from this Court declaring that the Department was not authorized to make deductions from his inmate account, ordering reimbursement of the funds deducted to date, and enjoining further deductions.
The Department objects to Morgalo's Petition on the ground that Morgalo's claims are time-barred. Initially, the Department contends that since Morgalo's requested relief is a mandamus action, the statute of limitations is six months.
We acknowledge that this Court has historically applied a six-month limitations period to inmate account deduction claims. See Curley v. Smeal, 41 A.3d 916 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012)
(Curley I ), aff'd but criticized, 623 Pa. 226, 82 A.3d 418 (2013) (Curley II ); see also Lepre v. Susquehanna Cnty. Clerk of Judicial Records, 2013 WL 5508784 (Pa.Cmwlth. No. 2121 C.D.2012, filed October 2, 2013) ; Richards v. Dep't of Corr., 2013 WL 5614254 (Pa.Cmwlth. No. 546 M.D.2010, filed October 11, 2013) ; Lusick v. Defacto Judge Pam Pryor Cohen Dembe (Pa.Cmwlth. No. 549 M.D.2012, filed November 7, 2012), aff'd, 624 Pa. 222, 84 A.3d 1056 (2014) ; Pierre–Louis v. Dep't of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Wetzel
...of limitations had expired by the time Appellant filed his petition for review in 2018, see id . at *8-*10. See generally Morgalo v. Gorniak , 134 A.3d 1139, 1147-48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (holding that the two-year limitation period of Section 5524(6) of the Judicial Code applies to Act 84 ded......
-
Stodghill v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.
...these steps, he fails to exhaust his administrative remedies.’ Kittrell v. Watson , 88 A.3d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).Morgalo v. Gorniak , 134 A.3d 1139, 1150–51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). Although a final decision on a grievance is not appealable to this Court, a prisoner may bring an action ......
- Croft v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment
-
Dougherty v. Pa. State Police of Pa.
...or that he is improperly classified. We shall, therefore, overrule this PO.11 This Court recently overruled Curley I in Morgalo v. Gorniak et al., 134 A.3d 1139, 1144–45 (Pa.Cmwlth.2016) (en banc ).12 The instant case was argued with Taylor and six other cases.13 Act of November 24, 2004, P......