Smolsky v. Pennsylvania Gen. Assembly

• Decision Date: 02 December 2011
• Citation: 34 A.3d 316
• Parties: Raymond J. SMOLSKY, and All Pennsylvania Prisoners, Petitioners v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY and Legislatures of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., and the State Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondents.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

34 A.3d 316

Raymond J. SMOLSKY, and All Pennsylvania Prisoners, Petitioners

v.PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY and Legislatures of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., and the State Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondents.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted on Briefs Sept. 30, 2011.Decided Dec. 2, 2011.

Raymond J. Smolsky, pro se.

Karl S. Myers, Philadelphia, for respondent the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Debra Sue Rand, Assistant Counsel, Camp Hill, for respondent Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

BEFORE: LEADBETTER, President Judge, and SIMPSON, Judge, and KELLEY, Senior Judge.

OPINION BY SENIOR Judge KELLEY.

Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the preliminary objections filed by the Department of Corrections (Department) and the Pennsylvania General Assembly (General Assembly) (collectively, Respondents) to the petition for review of Raymond J. Smolsky (Smolsky). For the reasons that follow, the Court sustains Respondents' preliminary objections and dismisses Smolsky's petition for review.

On June 4, 2010, Smolsky, an inmate incarcerated with the Department, filed a pro se petition for review “on behalf of all Pennsylvania inmates” in this Court. The petition for review seeks declaratory judgment relief against the Department and the General Assembly on the basis that Section 6602(f)(1) of the act known as the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)(1),¹ is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the Remedies Clause of Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Section 6602(f)(1) of the PLRA permits a court to dismiss a complaint challenging prison conditions where the prisoner has had three prior prison conditions complaints dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Smolsky claims he has been “injured” by the PLRA because he has been identified by this Court as an “abusive litigator” and his cases have been dismissed on this basis by the courts. Smolsky also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which this Court granted on June 9, 2010.

In June 2010, both the Department and the General Assembly filed applications for relief in the nature of a request to revoke in forma pauperis status and dismiss the petition for review pursuant to Section 6602 of the PLRA, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602. The applications were denied by opinion and order of this Court dated May 5, 2011. Therein, we explained that although Smolsky has been adjudicated an “abusive litigator,” the instant petition for review does not constitute “prison conditions litigation” and was, therefore, not subject to dismissal under Section 6602 of the PLRA.² Smolsky v. Pennsylvania General Assembly (Pa.Cmwlth., No. 513 M.D.2010, filed May 5, 2011). The Court directed Respondents to file responsive pleadings.

The Department and the General Assembly filed preliminary objections and briefs in support thereof. In response, Smolsky has filed answers and a brief in support of his petition for review. The Department's objection in the nature of a demurrer asserts that Smolsky has failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law because there is a legitimate governmental interest in deterring frivolous law suits. The General Assembly echoes the Department's objection in the nature of a demurrer and further objects on the basis that Smolsky's claims are non-justiciable with respect to the General Assembly because they fall within the scope of legislative immunity.

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading on the grounds of legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer). Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(4). In ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the petition for review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. Meier v. Maleski, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 458, 648 A.2d 595, 600 (1994). The court need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion. Id. In order to sustain preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain them. Id. With these principles in mind, we shall consider Respondents' preliminary objections.

1. Demurrer

We begin by first addressing the common objection raised by both the Department and the General Assembly that Smolsky's petition for review fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Respondents contend that the abusive litigator provisions of the PLRA do not violate the court access provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution. We agree.

A strong presumption of constitutionality attaches to the acts of the General Assembly and a heavy burden of persuasion falls on the party seeking to rebut the presumption. Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158, 175, 507 A.2d 323, 331–332 (1986); Stephens v. Pennsylvania State Board of Nursing, 657 A.2d 71, 74 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 544 Pa. 650, 664 A.2d 978 (1995). An act of the General Assembly will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 583 Pa. 275, 292, 877 A.2d 383, 393 (2005); Daly v. Hemphill, 411 Pa. 263, 271, 191 A.2d 835, 840 (1963). All doubt is to be resolved in favor of sustaining the legislation. Singer v. Sheppard, 464 Pa. 387, 393, 346 A.2d 897, 900 (1975).

At the heart of this case is whether Section 6602(f)(1) of the PLRA, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)(1), violates the Remedies Clause of Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides:

All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the Commonwealth in such manner, in such courts and in such cases as the Legislature may by law direct.

Pa. Const. Art. I, § 11. Although we have not addressed this particular clause of the Constitution in connection with Section 6602(f), Section 6602(f) has withstood similar constitutional challenges.

In Jae v. Good, 946 A.2d 802 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied,

598 Pa. 790, 959 A.2d 930 (2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1156, 129 S.Ct. 1042, 173 L.Ed.2d 474 (2009), we determined that Section 6602(f) of the PLRA did not violate the equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution or the Pennsylvania Constitution. Therein, we explained that the right of access to the courts is not absolute. Jae, 946 A.2d at 808. Because there is no fundamental right to proceed in court in forma pauperis and a suspect class is not involved,³ we do not apply the strict scrutiny test but, rather, the rational basis test. Id. at 808–809. We determined that “requiring a prisoner to pay the filing fees that are imposed on all litigants in a civil case does not, standing alone, violate that prisoner's right of meaningful access to the courts.” Id. The rational basis test requires a two-step analysis:

[F]irst, we determine whether the challenged statute seeks to promote any legitimate state interest or public value; and if so, we then determine whether the legislative classification is reasonably related to accomplishing that articulated state interest.Id. at 809 (quoting Kramer v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Rite Aid Corp.), 584 Pa. 309, 335, 883 A.2d 518, 534 (2005)). We continued:

The “three strikes rule” of Section 6602(f) of the PLRA does not prevent prisoners from filing any number of civil actions challenging prison conditions. It only restricts their ability to pursue such actions in forma pauperis. There is a legitimate governmental interest in deterring frivolous law suits, and Section 6602(f) advances that goal rationally by depriving an abusive litigator of the ability to proceed in forma pauperis. Further, the legislation balances the need to deter prisoners from filing frivolous litigation against the need to protect prisoners from physical harm.

Id. at 809 (footnote omitted).

Additionally, this Court has held that Section 6602(f) does not violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ⁴ or Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.⁵ Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 913 A.2d 301, 306 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 591 Pa. 705, 918 A.2d 748 (2007). We explained, “no litigant is permitted to prosecute a lawsuit which fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Id. “Depriving someone of a frivolous claim ... deprives him of nothing at all, except perhaps the punishment of ... sanctions.” Id. (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 n. 3, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996)).

In both Jae and Brown, as here, the inmates claimed they were being denied access to the court system. Although each asserted a different constitutional violation, Section 6602(f) of the PLRA withstood the rational basis test. As we stated in Jae, 946 A.2d at 809, “[t]here is a legitimate governmental interest in deterring frivolous law suits, and Section 6602(f) advances that goal rationally by depriving an abusive litigator of the ability to proceed in forma pauperis.” We can find no reason to diverge from this precedent.⁶

Because we conclude that Smolsky's challenges to the constitutionality of Section 6602(f) of the PLRA are without merit, we sustain Respondents' preliminary objections in the nature of demurrer.

2. Immunity

Additionally, the General Assembly objects on the ground that Smolsky's claims against the General Assembly are barred by legislative immunity.⁷ We agree.

Article II, Section 15...