Rev. Augustus Simmons Enoxh v. Carter
| Docket Number | 243 C.D. 2022 |
| Decision Date | 25 August 2023 |
| Parties | Rev. Augustus Simmons Enoxh, Appellant v. J. Carter, T. Pauley, K. Patterson, Mr. Geardner, Librarian, B. Hoffman, T. Stewart, N. Wilson |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Appellant Rev. Augustus Simmons Enoxh (Appellant)[1] appeals from the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County (trial court) on November 17, 2021, denying him in forma pauperis (IFP) status and dismissing his pro se "Complaint in Civil Action" (Complaint) as frivolous.[2] Appellant filed his Complaint against: J. Carter; T. Pauley; K. Patterson; Mr. Geardner, Librarian (Mr. Geardner); B. Hoffman; T. Stewart; and N. Wilson (collectively, Appellees), individuals employed at various State Correctional Institutions (SCI), namely SCI- Greene, where Appellant was housed when he brought his cause of action,[3] and SCI-Forest and SCI-Coal Township, where Appellant previously had been housed.[4](Complaint ¶¶ 6-7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 25.) In his Complaint, Appellant makes numerous allegations regarding his inability to receive his Social Security card, his birth certificate, and his inmate identification. He also claims numerous legal documents belonging to him were lost and challenges the prison law library policies at SCI-Greene. (Id. ¶¶ 6-20.) Following our review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
In his Complaint, Appellant alleges that on April 7, 2021, he filed a grievance against SCI-Greene inmate accounts when his request slip filed on June 12, 2019, for his Social Security card and birth certificate went unanswered. (Id. ¶ 21.) Appellant avers he received a response to his grievance that his Social Security card was at SCI-Greene, but his birth certificate was not. (Id. ¶ 22.) Appellant then filed a second request slip on June 17, 2018,[5] asking for two copies of his Social Security card, and that they be personally delivered to him or given to his counselor. (Id.) In a response dated June 20, 2019,[6] Appellant was told his Social Security card would be "safeguarded in [his] property envelope only." (Id. ¶ 23.) On March 26, 2021, Appellant states he asked that a copy of his birth certificate, Social Security card, and inmate identification be sent to his mother, and he was told the "[d]ocuments have not been received yet." (Id. ¶ 24.) Appellant states he was "stonewalled for information about his birth certificate for several months," which prompted him to file a grievance related to the missing document. (Id. ¶ 25.) According to Appellant, he was told SCI-Greene contacted SCI-Coal Township to inquire as to the whereabouts of his Social Security card and birth certificate. He avers he was told the Social Security card had arrived at SCI-Greene and was placed in the safe there, but the birth certificate had not yet been received by either SCI-Coal Township or SCI-Greene; he would be notified of its arrival. (Id.) Appellant claims he has a "stub" from Albany, New York, which reflects his birth certificate was delivered to SCI-Greene, which SCI-Greene denies. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27.) Appellant avers Appellees J. Carter, T. Pauley, and K. Patterson, the only individuals with access to the institutional safe, are responsible for, among other things, securing the personal property of inmates held in the safe, which they did not do in this case, and that T. Stewart, B. Hoffman, and N. Wilson as business managers ignored their duty to investigate the missing birth certificate. (Id. ¶¶ 28-30, 32, 46.) Appellant also alleges Mr. Geardner who, consistent with Department of Corrections (DOC) policy should personally collect legal mail, "mis[]plac[ed] recklessly" multiple pages of Appellant's legal documents by requiring him to place those documents in the inmate mailbox, despite flaws in the inmate mail system. (Id. ¶¶ 33-35, 48, 54.)
Appellant posits that Appellees were at all times "acting under the color of the law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinance, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania[,]" and engaged in willful misconduct; thus, Appellees are not immune from liability under Section 8550 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8550. (Id. ¶¶ 7-20, 44-45, 48.) Appellant contends Appellees committed fraud and numerous criminal offenses, tampered with public documents, and violated his constitutional rights, including due process. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 36-65.) Specifically, Appellant argues that Appellees have deprived him of clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights while committing violations of the following statutory provisions:
(Id. ¶ 64 ().) Appellant seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of changing law library policies and the manner in which personal property is secured, along with compensatory and punitive damages in an amount of $750,000.00. Appellant also requests that Appellees be terminated. (Id. ¶¶ 66-70.)
Simultaneously with his Complaint, Appellant filed his petition seeking IFP status. Prior to service of the Complaint on Appellees, on November 17, 2021, the trial court issued its Order denying Appellant IFP status and dismissing the Complaint upon its determination that the Complaint is frivolous. (Trial Court Order, filed 11/17/2021 (Order) at 7.) In doing so, the trial court relied upon Section 6602(e)(2) of the Act known as the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(2), which states:
Notwithstanding any filing fee which has been paid, the court shall dismiss prison conditions litigation at any time, including prior to service on the defendant, if the court determines . . . [t]he prison conditions litigation is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or the defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense, including immunity, which, if asserted, would preclude the relief.
42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(2).
In dismissing the Complaint, the trial court concluded Appellant's claims constituted prison conditions litigation that fell within the PLRA because Appellant "challenges [] Department of Corrections [(DOC)] policies and procedures relating to inmate personal property and the procedures to secure such personal property, i[.]e.[,] [S]ocial [S]ecurity cards, in the institutional safe." (Order at 6.) The trial court further reasoned:
[I]t is the understanding of the instant [c]ourt that [] [DOC] rules and regulations regarding personal property are policies implemented by [] [DOC] to ensure, among other things, health and safety concerns within the institution. Therefore, based on [] [DOC] procedures, the PLRA, and precedent related to challenges to [] [DOC] policies and procedures relating to inmate personal property and the procedures to secure such personal property, i[.]e.[,] [S]ocial [S]ecurity cards, in the institutional safe, [Appellant]'s Complaint is determined to be frivolous.
(Id. at 7.)
Appellant filed a notice of appeal with the trial court, which was stamped filed December 28, 2021.[7] On January 6, 2022, the trial court filed its Opinion Pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) (1925(a) Op.), wherein it indicated that it had not ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and that it would be relying upon its reasoning contained in its Order for this appeal, with no additions to the record. (1925(a) Op. at 1 (unnumbered).)[8]
Before we address Appellant's substantive issues, we first must determine whether this appeal is properly before us, for when an appeal has been untimely filed, the defect is jurisdictional and may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Miller, 570 A.2d 1386, 1388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Generally, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the docket entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a); see also Pa.R.A.P. 105(b) (providing "[a]n appellate court . . . may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal"). Herein, the trial court's Order was entered on November 17, 2021, but Appellant's notice of appeal was not filed until December 28, 2021, making it facially untimely. Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).
However a review of the record reveals that Appellant completed a handwritten notice of appeal dated December 16, 2021, wherein he indicated that he had been transferred from SCI-Greene to SCI-Phoenix and had not received notice of the trial court's Order until that date. (Original Record No. 13). The Greene County Prothonotary Docket Entries support this assertion as they indicate that mail for Appellant had been returned as...
To continue reading
Request your trial