Pelzer v. Prop. Pry C01

• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
• Writing for the Court: MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
• Decision Date: 15 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 50 C.D. 2012,50 C.D. 2012
• Citation: Pelzer v. Pry, No. 50 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 15, 2013)
• Parties: Caine Pelzer, Appellant v. Property Officer Pry C01, Property Officer Jenkins C01, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 Security Officer, John Doe 4 Security Sgt.

Caine Pelzer, Appellant v. Property Officer Pry C01, Property Officer Jenkins C01, John Doe 1,John Doe 2, John Doe 3 Security Officer, John Doe 4 Security Sgt.

No. 50 C.D. 2012

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Submitted: March 8, 2013

May 15, 2013

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER

Caine Pelzer appeals, pro se, from the July 7, 2011 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County (trial court) that sua sponte dismissed with prejudice Pelzer's: (1) Writ of Seizure (Writ); (2) Action in Replevin (Action); and (3) Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) (Application), pursuant to Rule 240(j)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,¹ Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1), on the basis that Pelzer did not set forth a cause of action,thereby making the matter frivolous. On appeal, Pelzer argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the Writ and Action because he has demonstrated a right to possession of certain property under Pennsylvania law and, therefore, has asserted a colorable cause of action for an action in replevin. Moreover, Pelzer asserts the trial court should have permitted him to proceed IFP because he has established his indigence. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court's Order and remand for further proceedings.

On or about July 5, 2011, Pelzer filed the Writ, Action and Application with the trial court. These documents named John Doe 1, John Doe 2, Property Officer Pry CO1, Property Officer Jenkins CO1, John Doe 3 Security Officer, and John Doe 4 Security Sgt. (collectively, Defendants), all of whom are employed at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) - Houtzdale, as defendants in their individual and official capacities. In the Action, Pelzer avers the following facts.

10. Plaintiff, Caine Pelzer had his property packed by SCI-Somerset on November 14, 2010 to be transferred to SCI-Houtzdale which property consisted of (9) [b]oxes of property. Each box specifically had an individual inventory sheet documenting what was stored in each box, each inventory sheet was signed by [Pelzer] and (2) corrections officers at SCI-Somerset documenting its contents and the facts of it being in working/operable condition before being shipped to SCI-Houtzdale.

11. [Officers] Pry and Jenkins received [Pelzer's] property from the security department at SCI-Houtzdale on November 25, 2010, which consisted of 4 [b]oxes of property, (specifically) one (1) footlocker and three (3) brown boxes of [Pelzer's] property (one damaged television which seems like the bottom was hammered out) and (8) eight inventory slips [were] missing.

12. [Officers] Pry and Jenkins inventoried [Pelzer's] 4 boxes of property on November 25, 2010 and documented 1 damagedtelevision and 1 inventory slip was present which did not record all of [Pelzer's] property. This was conducted in the restricted housing unit [(RHU)].

13. On November 25^th, 2010, [Pelzer] filed grievance #345383 documenting [Pelzer's] lost lawsuits and caseload to case #12727-2009 [L]uzerne Courthouse and Superior Court #1385 MDA 2010. As well as (nine) law books documented as 1) The Prisoners Guerilla Handbook, @ $49.95[;] #2) The Ceiling of America @ $22.95[;] #3) Represent Yourself In Court And Win @ $39.99[;] #4) The Criminal Law Handbook @ $39.99[;] #5) Lucifer - Ancient Law @ $20.00[;] #6) Justice Denied @ $19.00[;] #7) The Movement (Value Unknown); #8) Pa. Rules of Court - State (Price Unknown at this filing)[; and] #9) The Citebook @ $49.95.

14. On November 25, 2010, [Officers] [P]ry and [J]enkins confiscated [Pelzer's] property and took it somewhere off the housing unit (allegedly to security) and wrote a misconduct on [Pelzer] because he refused to throw away any property due to the fact 5 boxes were missing.

15. On [D]ecember 9, 2010, John [D]oe 1, 2, 3 and 4 performed another inventory on [Pelzer's] property with the same 4 boxes as the November 25, 2010 inventory. No previous inventory slips were found, but this time [Pelzer] was told to take (2) boxes of property in his (RHU) cell and that (2) boxes would be stored in property rooms located in the [RHU].

16. After it was discovered the other property would not be located, grievance no. 346908 was filed and a [t]elevision of lesser value was placed somewhere in [Pelzer's] storage area. All law books and legal documents listed herein have been kept from [Pelzer] as well as all inventory sheets documenting said lost property.

17. Defendants involved acknowledged the fact that [Pelzer] was received at SCI-Houtzdale with 9 boxes of property but has failed to protect [Pelzer's] property knowing the record is clear showing such deprivation of property without due process of law.

(Action ¶¶ 10-17.) Based on these allegations, Pelzer asserts that Defendants' actions have deprived him of the due process of law guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Specifically, Pelzer stated:

This claim is for negligence of the state committed by its employees ([D]efendants, C/O 1 Pry, C/O 1 Jenkins, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 and John Doe 4 at SCI-Houtzdale for the loss and destruction of [Pelzer's] property while acting within the scope of his/her duties on November 25, 2010[,] or any date prior to [Pelzer's] initial inventory done at SCI-Houtzdale where the destruction and loss of [his] property occurred.

(Action ¶ 19.) Pelzer averred that the location of his missing property is unknown. (Action ¶ 21.) The Action sets the value of the damaged television at $245, of some of his missing books at $241.83, and states that the value of the missing books of "unknown" value would have to be determined by his family, who had purchased the books, and the value of the missing lawsuits and case load would have to be determined by the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. (Action ¶ 20.) The Writ identified the property listed in paragraph 13 of the Action and requested that the Clearfield County Sheriff seize the listed property. (Writ.) Finally, in the Application, Pelzer avers, inter alia, that he is unable to pay the fees and costs of prosecuting this action, he is unable to obtain funds from others to pay for the litigation, and he has no job or other assets to assist in funding his litigation. (Application.)

The trial court issued its Order on July 7, 2011, pursuant to Rule 240(j), dismissing the matter with prejudice based on the trial court's conclusion that thelitigation was frivolous because Pelzer did not set forth a cause of action. Pelzer now appeals to this Court.²

On appeal, Pelzer argues that he has asserted a colorable claim for an action in replevin because he had property rights associated with the five missing boxes and the damaged television, of which Defendants negligently deprived him without the minimum level of procedural safeguards available under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. According to Pelzer, his Action included, inter alia, the value of the property to be returned and his asserted right to continued possession of the taken property and, therefore, he should be permitted to proceed in this litigation.³

Defendants present numerous arguments in support of the trial court's dismissal of Pelzer's litigation as frivolous pursuant to Rule 240(j). Initially, the Defendants assert that the claims against John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3 Security Officer and John Doe 4 Security Sgt. (John Doe Defendants) as unknownindividuals are inherently frivolous under Pennsylvania's fact-pleading requirements. Next, Defendants argue that Pelzer's due process and negligence claims are frivolous because Pelzer fails to establish a property interest to which process is due where the Department of Corrections (Department) has authority to limit the amount of property an inmate may possess. Defendants further assert that Pelzer fails to plead the necessary elements of negligence. Finally, Defendants contend that they were acting within the scope of their official duties and, therefore, protected by sovereign immunity.

We first address Defendants' assertion that the Action against the John Doe Defendants is inherently frivolous because Pelzer's "failure to establish the identity of the alleged wrongdoers" prevents the Action from satisfying Pennsylvania's fact-pleading requirements. (Defendants' Br. at 10.) Defendants do not cite any support for this argument other than general case law on fact-pleading. See Feigly v. Department of Corrections, 872 A.2d 189, 196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (stating that "[a] pleading must be sufficiently specific to enable a responding party to prepare a defense" and "specific averments, rather than mere notice pleading are required"); Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166, 1171 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (requiring plaintiffs to "allege facts that, if proved, will support an inference of the combination and its intent"). While we acknowledge the argument that Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state, the use of "John Doe" where the identity of a particular defendant is unknown is a well-established practice. Indeed, this practice is engaged in by both civil plaintiffs and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in criminal matters. See, e.g., Caldwell v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 607 Pa. 99, 4 A.3d 156 (2012) (naming four John Doe defendants);Commonwealth v. Laventure, 586 Pa. 348, 894 A.2d 109 (2006) (discussing the use of "John Doe" criminal complaints and warrants); Delaware County v. Mellon Financial Corp., 914 A.2d 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (naming 300 John Doe defendants); City of Philadelphia v. John Doe, 405 A.2d 1317 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Moreover, Pelzer included each John Doe's position with SCI-Houtzdale, along with the dates relevant to his lawsuit, which narrows the list of potential defendants in his Action. Pelzer knew whom he wanted to include as Defendants, but he did not know...