Opinion
No. 1737 C.D. 2014
07-24-2015
Brian Parnell, Troy Connelly, Taveren Robinson, Simeon Bozic, individually and on behalf of all other Inmates of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections similarly situated, Appellants v. John Wetzel, Secretary of The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Corporation
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
Brian Parnell, Troy Connelly, Taveren Robinson, and Simeon Bozic (Appellants), individually, and on behalf of all other inmates incarcerated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) in the Commonwealth, appeal, pro se, a March 14, 2014 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County (trial court). The trial court's Order sustained the Preliminary Objections (POs) of the DOC and Secretary John Wetzel (together, Department) to Appellants' Amended Pleading in Support of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint (Amended Complaint) and dismissed Appellants' class action without prejudice to file individual habeas corpus actions. On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it sustained the Department's POs because the POs were rendered moot, pursuant to Rule 1028 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by the filing, as of right, of Appellants' Amended Complaint. In response, the Department asserts that the trial court's error should be excused as harmless because it was merely an "arid technicality." (Department's Br. at 10.) Because we hold that Appellants had the right to file an Amended Complaint and the trial court's error was not harmless or a technicality, we vacate and remand.
Appellants filed their original class action Complaint on January 3, 2014. (Compl., C.R. Item 19.) The Complaint alleges that the Department did not comply with Sections 9764(a)(8) and 9764(b)(5)(i) of the Sentencing Code requiring the sheriff or other transporting officer to provide the Department with "[a] copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed against the inmate which the county has notice" and "[a] written, sealed sentencing order from the county," when handing an inmate over to the custody of the Department. 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9764(a)(8), 9764(b)(5)(i). Appellants sought immediate release from incarceration and civil damages in the amount of ten million dollars each, plus an additional one million dollars for every additional year each class member is incarcerated. (Compl. at "Wherefore" paragraph.)
The Department filed POs, in the nature of a demurrer, to the original Complaint on February 20, 2014. (POs, C.R. Item 15.) In its POs, the Department avers that the Complaint must be dismissed on procedural grounds. (POs ¶ 4.) According to the POs:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 81 A.3d 814 (Pa. 2013), was just recently confronted with this exact situation and held that the petition sounded in habeas corpus because it requested the inmate's release from prison. Because matters sounding in habeas corpus lie in the jurisdiction and venue of the court of record from which the order of detention came, the Supreme Court held that such cases should be transferred to the relevant Court of Common Pleas as habeas corpus petitions. . . . Because plaintiffs did not file individual complaints, the appropriate action in this case is to dismiss the class action Complaint without prejudice for each individual plaintiff, if he so chooses, to bring an individual habeas corpus petition in the Court of Common Pleas of his respective sentencing county.(POs ¶¶ 5-6.)
Appellants responded to the POs by timely filing their Amended Complaint on March 10, 2014. (Amended Compl., C.R. Item 12.) In their Amended Complaint, Appellants drop their demand for immediate release and only pursue monetary damages. (Amended Compl. ¶ 22.)
Four days after Appellants filed their Amended Complaint, the trial court issued an Order sustaining the Department's February 20, 2014 POs. The Order reads, in its entirety:
AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2014, in consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections, filed on February 20, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed on March 10, 2014, We hereby SUSTAIN Defendants' Preliminary Objections and ORDER this class action dismissed without prejudice to allow each individual plaintiff to bring individual habeas corpus actions in the Court of Common Pleas of their respective sentencing counties, pursuant to [Rule 108(A)
of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,] Pa. R.C.P. [No.] 108(A).(Trial Ct. Order, March 14, 2014.) The trial court issued no decision explaining the reasoning behind the Order. This appeal by Appellants followed.
The trial court ordered Appellants to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement on April 14, 2014. (Trial Ct. Order, April 14, 2014, C.R. at Item 8.) On the same day, the trial court issued a second Order, stating that it relies on its March 14, 2014 Order and that no 1925(a) Statement would be filed. (Trial Ct. Order, April 14, 2014, C.R. at Item 7.)
In reviewing a trial court's decision on preliminary objections, our review of pure questions of law is plenary. Banacol Marketing Corporation v. Penn Warehousing & Distribution, Inc., 904 A.2d 1043, 1046 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
Appellants argue that the trial court erred by not complying with Rule 1028(c)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: "A party may file an amended pleading as of course within twenty days after service of a copy of preliminary objections. If a party has filed an amended pleading as of course, the preliminary objections to the original pleading shall be deemed moot." Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(c)(1) (emphasis added). Objections to the amended complaint must "be made by filing new preliminary objections." Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(f). Appellants claim that they properly filed an Amended Complaint as of right and, as such, that the Department's POs became moot and further objections would need to be made by filing new POs. Appellants further argue that this procedural error of the trial court is not harmless because the trial court obstructed the orderly administration of justice and stripped them of their opportunity for a fair hearing on their claims. Appellants also contend that the legal reasoning underpinning the Department's POs does not apply to the Amended Complaint because Appellants dropped their demand for release from incarceration, while the Department's POs focused on the fact that a demand for release from incarceration must be brought through a habeas corpus petition to Appellants' respective sentencing courts. The POs did not, according to Appellants, address their demand for monetary relief.
The Department acknowledges that Appellants "would ordinarily be right" in arguing that the trial court's sustaining of the Department's POs was not in accordance with Rules 1028(c)(1) and 1028(f) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (Department's Br. at 10.) However, the Department contends that under the specific circumstances in this case, the trial court's error is either harmless or not an error at all. The Department challenges whether Appellants' March 10, 2014 filing should be considered a true Amended Complaint, as opposed to a brief in opposition to the POs, and argues that the POs remained pertinent and applicable to the claims presented. Department argues that even though the trial court technically erred, constructively speaking, the trial court did not err because, with the single exception of the relief sought, "the so-called [A]mended [C]omplaint did not significantly alter the original [C]omplaint in any way that substantively rendered the original preliminary objections . . . no longer pertinent." (Department's Br. at 11.) According to the Department, Appellants' "Amended Pleading" is not laid out as a complaint and, because nothing substantive is added, we should read the "Amended Pleading" as a supplement to the original Complaint instead of an amended complaint subject to Rule 1028(c)(1). Pursuant to Rule 126 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the court "may disregard any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Pa. R.C.P. No. 126. Since the only effect of vacating the Order would be to delay the inevitable, the Department argues that we should excuse the error in the interest of justice.
In this case, the trial court's sustaining of the Department's POs did not comply with Rules 1028(c)(1) and 1028(f). In recent opinions, both this Court and the Superior Court have found such non-compliance to be in error. For example, in The Ballroom, LLC v. Commonwealth, 984 A.2d 582, 585 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, as of course, in response to the defendants' preliminary objections. On the same day that plaintiff filed the amended complaint, the trial court sustained the defendants' preliminary objections and dismissed the plaintiff's action. Id. Citing Rules 1028(c)(1) and 1028(f), this Court held that the trial court committed procedural errors reasoning that, by "improperly" sustaining preliminary objections rendered moot by the filing of an amended complaint "the trial court failed to afford [the defendants] an opportunity to respond to the amended complaint." Id. at 586. Similarly, in Francesco v. Group Health Inc., 964 A.2d 897, 899 (Pa. Super. 2008), the Superior Court held that a trial court's order sustaining preliminary objections, mooted by an amended complaint, "was of no effect, inasmuch as [the] Appellant filed the amended complaint prior to the trial court's order."
Appellants filed their Amended Complaint in compliance with Rule 1028(c)(1), it was timely, and filed as of right. The trial court provided no reasoning for its Order, and the Department's arguments to this Court regarding why the trial court's Order should be affirmed are based upon the alleged infirmities in Appellants' Amended Complaint, to which they filed no POs or other responsive pleadings. As such, these arguments must be filed in new POs to the Amended Complaint, or in some other responsive pleadings, for the trial court to consider.
Therefore, because the trial court's procedural error was not a harmless or a mere technical error, we must vacate the Order of the trial court and remand for the trial court to reinstate Appellants' Amended Complaint.
We do not fault the Department for not filing new preliminary objections in response to Appellants' Amended Complaint since the trial court sustained the Department's POs only four days after Appellants filed their Amended Complaint and the Department was not given sufficient time to file new preliminary objections. --------
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge ORDER
NOW, July 24, 2015, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas to reinstate Appellants' Amended Pleading in Support of Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge