Opinion
No. 17 M.D. 2010
02-08-2013
George Rahsaan Brooks-Bey, Petitioner v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT
George Rahsaan Brooks-Bey is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Frackville (SCI-Frackville), who has filed, pro se, a petition for review in the nature of a declaratory judgment action, challenging several of the policies of the Department of Corrections (Department). The gravamen of Brooks-Bey's action is that the Department has failed to provide him and other inmates with the physical exercise at SCI-Frackville mandated by law. Believing his right to relief is clear and no material issue of fact is in dispute, Brooks-Bey has filed a motion for summary and special relief. We deny the motion.
Brooks-Bey's amended petition for review was filed on March 18, 2010. His petition is founded upon Section 5901 of the Prisons and Parole Code (Prisons Code), 61 Pa. C.S. §5901, which requires the Department to provide inmates with two hours of daily physical exercise. Section 5901 states:
Brooks-Bey's first petition for review was filed on January 8, 2010, and it was amended in response to the Department's preliminary objections.
Brooks-Bey's petition for review, cites Sections 1 and 2 of the prior Act of June 14, 1923, P.L. 775, as amended, 61 P.S. §§101-102, repealed by Act of August 11, 2009, P.L. 147, effective October 13, 2009. Section 1 read:
Every warden, board of prison managers, prison inspectors, or any other person in authority, in charge of any prison or penitentiary, who may or shall have in charge any person confined therein whether such person be a tried or an untried prisoner, shall provide that such person shall have at least two hours daily, physical exercise in the open, weather permitting, and upon such days on which the weather is inclement, such person shall have two hours, daily, of physical exercise indoors of such prison or penitentiary: Provided, however, the same is safe and practical, and the judges of the several courts are to be the judges thereof. Prisoners in segregation or disciplinary status shall receive a minimum of at least one hour of daily exercise five days per week.Former 61 P.S. §101 (emphasis added). Section 2 of the pre-codified statute provided that in-cell exercise did not count towards the two hours of mandatory physical exercise. Former 61 P.S. §102. The codification at 61 Pa. C.S. §5901 is substantively the same as Sections 1 and 2 of the pre-codified Act at former 61 P.S. §§101-102. Thus, we will refer to Section 5901.
(a) Physical Exercise.—
(1) A chief administrator who may or shall have in charge any inmate, whether the inmate has been tried or not, shall provide the inmate with at least two hours of daily physical exercise in the open, weather permitting, and, upon such days on which the weather is inclement, with two hours of daily physical exercise inside of the correctional institution.
(2) The physical exercise must be safe and practical, and the judges of several courts are to be the judges thereof.
(3) Inmates in segregation or disciplinary status shall receive a minimum of at least one hour of daily exercise five days per week.
(b) Limitation.—The physical exercise required by subsection (a) shall not be taken by an inmate within the confines of his cell or room in which the inmate is confined.61 Pa. C.S. §5901 (emphasis added). Brooks-Bey alleges that he has been deprived of his statutory right to daily exercise because the Department requires inmates to sign up for outdoor exercise. Further, it regularly, and improperly, cancels outdoor physical exercise at SCI-Frackville by invoking the "inclement weather" exception to the outdoor exercise requirement. Amended Petition for Review ¶4 (Amended Petition ¶___).
(c) Applicability.—This section shall not apply to inmates who are confined and not physically able to take the required physical exercise.
Brooks-Bey argues that the Department's use of the "inclement weather" exception is improper because inmates can simply wear protective raingear outside and should be allowed to do so. The Department then follows this unjustified cancellation of outdoor exercise with a failure to provide meaningful exercise indoors; instead the Department provides inmates with "blockout," where inmates are only offered board games, television, and walking as their means of exercise within their cell block's dayroom. Brooks-Bey argues that the Department should give inmates the opportunity to exercise in the prison's indoor gymnasium when the weather is inclement. Amended Petition ¶5.
Brooks-Bey next challenges the Department's policy requiring inmates who leave the dayroom to use the bathroom during blackout to return to their cells. He asserts that the Department's policy of requiring inmates to remain in their cells after using the bathroom is "arbitrary and capricious" and that they should be allowed to return to the dayroom. Amended Petition ¶¶ 9, 16.
Finally, Brooks-Bey alleges that the Department has different exercise policies at the 21 other state prisons it operates. These prisons do not require the inmates to sign up for outdoor exercise; have bathrooms in the dayroom or allow an inmate to return to blockout after using the bathroom; allow inmates to use their raingear outside when it rains or snows; and allow restricted housing unit inmates to exercise outdoors when it rains or snows. Amended Petition ¶¶ 9-14, 16-18.
Brooks-Bey's amended petition for review seeks a declaratory judgment (1) that the Department's policies violate statutory and constitutional law because they are arbitrary and capricious; (2) that in inclement weather inmates must be permitted to exercise outdoors with raingear or be permitted to exercise in the indoor gymnasium; (3) that inmates at SCI-Frackville, who are similarly situated to the inmates in the 21 other state prisons, have been disparately treated in violation of equal protection; and (4) that the Department must provide Brooks-Bey with the policies of the other prisons.
We note that Brooks-Bey's original petition requested mandamus relief and declaratory relief. See Petition ¶¶19-26, "Wherefor[e]" Clause (a)-(d). However, his amended petition only requests declaratory relief; thus, we will only entertain that request. See Amended Petition ¶¶29-32, "Wherefore" Clause (a)-(d).
The Department filed an answer to the amended petition for review with new matter. It countered that proper outdoor and indoor physical exercise is provided; inmates are not required to sign up for exercise; inmates have no right to exercise in inclement weather and decisions to cancel outdoor exercises are discretionary with the institution. Brooks-Bey attempted twice to answer the new matter, but each answer was stricken as non-responsive. See Orders of April 29, 2010 and May 13, 2010. Thereafter, the Department filed an amended answer to which Brooks-Bey responded with a series of "declarations." See Order of May 18, 2010; Declarations 1-4. On April 17, 2012, this Court issued a rule to show cause against Brooks-Bey since his action had been dormant for an extended period of time. See Order of April 17, 2012. On May 1, 2012, Brooks-Bey filed a reply to the Department's amended answer. On May 17, 2012, he filed a motion for special and summary relief, which the Department answered. On June 14, 2012, the Court ordered the Department and Brooks-Bey to file briefs. See Order of June 14, 2012. The motion has been briefed by both parties and is ready for disposition.
Brooks-Bey argues that the Department's policy renders his absolute right to outdoor exercise discretionary, not mandatory, and this is not the situation at other state prison facilities. He also argues that not allowing him to exercise during rainy weather by wearing appropriate gear improperly limits his right to outdoor exercise. Raingear, he notes, is sold in the prison canteen. He is the victim of discrimination because restrictive housing unit inmates are permitted outside during rainy weather. The bathroom policy, again, is used to limit his exercise right and only at SCI-Frackville, which makes those inmates the victims of disparate treatment.
A party is entitled to summary relief where the right to relief is clear and there are no factual issues in dispute. Williams v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 47 A.3d 162, 165 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b). As we have previously explained, an application for summary relief in our original jurisdiction is "generally the same as a motion for peremptory judgment filed in a mandamus action...." Marshall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 638 A.2d 451, 453 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (footnote omitted). It is the moving party that has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that judgment may be entered as a matter of law. Advantage Development, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Jackson Township, 743 A.2d 1008, 1012 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1532(b) provides:
(b) Summary relief. At any time after the filing of a petition for review in an appellate or original jurisdiction matter the court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant thereto is clear.Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b). --------
In his first claim, Brooks-Bey challenges the sign-up policy. The Department's answer specifically denied that a sign-up policy exists for, or that it must be used as a condition to, outdoor exercise. This is a material fact, and it is in dispute. Summary relief is not available on that point.
Brooks-Bey's second claim is that he should be permitted to exercise outdoors in the rain and snow and given raingear to do so. The Department explains that the chief administrator at SCI-Frackville cancels outdoor exercise in the rain or snow for sound reasons. The inclement weather limits visibility, making it difficult to respond to fights or attempted escapes. There are health concerns about sending prison staff and prisoners outside during bad weather. Although SCI-Frackville affords restricted housing unit inmates outdoor exercise when it rains or snows, this is because these inmates exercise singly in a small enclosed exercise area where visibility is not an issue.
We agree with the Department that Brooks-Bey does not have a clear right to exercise outdoors in bad weather. Section 5901(a)(1) of the Prisons Code only requires outdoor exercise where the weather permits it. The "inclement weather" exception vests prison administrators with substantial discretion with regard to allowing outdoor exercise on any given day. Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9, 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). In Robson, we explained that "[t]he operation of correctional facilities is peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of the government and not the judicial branch." Id. Where that exercise takes place is within the sound discretion of prison administrators because it involves a discretionary judgment call necessary to "preserve internal order" and "maintain institutional security." Id.
Further, physical exercise in prisons "must be safe and practical, and the judges of the several courts are to be the judges thereof." 61 Pa. C.S. §5901(a)(2). "This is the only question subject to judicial review" in regards to inmate exercise. Buehl v. Beard, 54 A.3d 412, 417 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). "[S]afe and practical" review does not permit a court to review every decision of a prison administrator with respect to physical exercise on a particular day. Id. "[I]t is well established that prison administrators must be given wide-ranging deference in adopting and carrying out policies that in their reasonable judgment, are necessary to preserve order, discipline, and security within the prison." Id. (citing DeHart v. Horn, 694 A.2d 16, 19 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)).
Brooks-Bey's final claim is that it serves no penological purpose to prohibit inmates from returning to the dayroom if they must leave to use the bathroom. The Department responds that this is a matter committed to the discretion of the prison administrator, who must maintain prison safety and control the movement of prisoners. As noted, prison administrators are permitted to adopt policies necessary to preserve internal order and security within the prison. Robson, 420 A.2d at 12. Courts must defer to the judgment of prison administrators "[i]n the absence of substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the officials have exaggerated [their] response to these considerations...." Id. There is no clear basis for holding that the Department's bathroom policy is improper or interferes with Brooks-Bey's exercise rights.
Brooks-Bey has the burden of proving that he has a clear right to relief, and cannot do so. There are factual disputes about the Department's policies and whether they are necessary to maintain order and security, which precludes summary relief. Accordingly, Brooks-Bey's motion for special and summary relief is denied.
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2013, George Rahsaan Brooks-Bey's Motion for Special and Summary Relief filed May 17, 2012, in the above-captioned matter is hereby DENIED.
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge