Opinion
No. 304 M.D. 2011
06-22-2012
Manuel M. Cabral, III, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by Manuel M. Cabral, III, (Cabral) and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department) in an action filed by Cabral, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, seeking declaratory judgment that Department policy DC-ADM 815 conflicts with the Department regulation at 37 Pa. Code §93.4. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction.
Although the Department has not objected to the petition on this basis, an objection to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of a case, even on the appellate level, by the parties or by the court sua sponte. Porreco v. Maleno Developers, Inc., 717 A.2d 1089 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
The regulation at 37 Pa. Code §93.4 states as follows:
§93.4. Purchase for inmates by family and friends
(a) Family and friends, who are on the inmate's approved visiting list, may purchase approved items for inmates under this section. The facility may disapprove and decline to accept any purchase which does not meet this section.
(b) Only those items listed on the current Approved Master Commissary List may be purchased from approved vendors. Copies of the list are provided to the inmates. Publications may be purchased by means of this procedure, but shall be subject to §93.2 (relating to inmate correspondence).
(c) Purchases shall be approved prior to the time the item is received by the facility.
(d) Only those items shipped directly from the vendor to the facility will be accepted.
(e) Unauthorized or disapproved items will be returned to the sender at the expense of the inmate.
Department policy governing outside purchases is set forth in DC-ADM 815. In relevant part, section 2B of DC-ADM 815 provides that inmates are permitted to purchase approved items from approved vendors. Section 2(B)(22) states that only items identified as Approved Outside Purchases may be purchased from outside vendors and is followed by a list of approved items. The list is limited; it includes musical instruments and accessories, arts and craft supplies and other miscellaneous items. With certain exceptions not relevant here, the policy further provides that items available in the prison commissary cannot be purchased from an outside vendor. Also pursuant to Department policy, all purchases must be approved before being ordered. Requests for outside purchases are initiated by an inmate using an Outside Purchase Approval Form, DC-815A, which is reviewed by a designated official.
As set forth in section 2(B)(18), the policy restricts outside purchases from family or friends to those allowed under the Gift Pack Program. Under section 2C of DC-ADM 815, a Gift Pack Program may be authorized by the Secretary, permitting an inmate and the inmate's family members and friends to purchase items for an inmate from a pre-selected list from a vendor approved by the Department.
On February 16, 2011, Cabral submitted an Outside Purchase Approval Form seeking permission for a family member or friend to purchase a cordless mustache and beard groomer, two pairs of running shoes, three cotton bath towels, and ten packages of candy from a specified vendor. The request was disapproved for the stated reasons that only inmates may order approved items and the items listed are not on the outside approved purchase list. Cabral filed a grievance, complaining that the Department's outside purchase policy conflicts with the provisions of 37 Pa. Code §93.4, permitting purchases for inmates by family and friends. The grievance was denied, with the explanation that the disapproval of Cabral's outside purchase request was in accordance with the Department's policy.
Cabral filed a first level appeal to the Facility Manager, explaining that he was not contesting the application of the policy but was challenging the legality of the policy. The Facility Manager upheld the initial response of the Department Grievance Officer denying Cabral's grievance. Cabral next filed a final level appeal of the grievance, repeating his assertion that DC-ADM 815 is not in accordance with the law. This appeal also was denied, with the explanation that Cabral's outside purchase request was properly disapproved under DC-ADM 815 and that the allegation that the policy violates the law is unfounded.
Cabral then filed the instant petition for review, asserting that the policy as reflected in DC-ADM 815 conflicts with the provisions of 37 Pa. Code §93.4 because the policy prevents inmates and their families and friends from ordering any items on the current Approved Master Commissary List from an approved outside vendor. Cabral seeks a declaration that the Department's interpretation of §93.4 as set forth in DC-ADM 815 is illegal, and he requests an order directing the Department to change DC-ADM 815 to allow inmates and/or their families to order any item so long as it is on the current Approved Master Commissary List and otherwise satisfies the requirements of §93.4. Cabral also asks for legal fees, monetary relief in the amount of $5,000.00, and/or any other relief the court would consider just and proper.
In its answer to the petition, the Department denied that §93.4 allows inmates' family members to make purchases from the approved master commissary list at any time. Further, the Department asserted that DC-ADM 815 is compliant with the regulation in that the Department's policy allows family and friends to purchase items for an inmate during periods in which the Gift Pack Program is running.
The parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings repeat the above assertions and arguments. Initially, however, we note that Commonwealth Court usually does not have original jurisdiction over an inmate's petition for review following a grievance proceeding. Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 554 Pa. 317, 721 A.2d 357 (1998).
We may grant judgment on the pleadings only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Montgomery County v. Department of Corrections, 879 A.2d 843, 846 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff'd, 587 Pa. 500, 901 A.2d 494 (2006).
In Bronson, an inmate sought reimbursement for what he claimed was the improper seizure and destruction of his civilian clothing. After his grievances were denied, the inmate filed a petition for review with this Court, ostensibly addressed to our original jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S. §761, seeking compensation for the confiscated property. We construed the petition for review as an attempt to appeal the denial of the inmate's grievances, docketed the case under our appellate jurisdiction, 42 Pa.C.S. §763, and quashed the appeal. Our Supreme Court affirmed that ruling and further held that Commonwealth Court does not have original jurisdiction "in a case not involving constitutional rights not limited by [the Department." Bronson at 322-23, 721 A.2d at 359. The court also noted that even if the inmate had attempted to characterize the confiscation of his clothing as a constitutional deprivation, his claim would fail because prison inmates do not enjoy the same level of constitutional protections as those afforded non-incarcerated citizens. "[I]ncarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Id. at 323, 721 A.2d at 359 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the court held in Bronson that unless an inmate can identify a personal or property interest that is not limited by Department regulations and that has been affected by a final decision of the Department, the inmate fails to state a claim within this Court's original jurisdiction.
Commonwealth Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over inmate appeals of decisions by intra-prison disciplinary tribunals. Bronson; Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
Cabral does not assert, nor can he assert, any constitutional right implicated by the Department's policy governing outside purchases. In addition, any rights Cabral may have related to outside purchases are limited by Department regulations. Therefore, this Court lacks original jurisdiction over his petition for review. Id.; Portalatin v. Department of Corrections, 979 A.2d 944 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Weaver v. Department of Corrections, 829 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
Moreover, we conclude that Cabral's claim that the Department's policy concerning outside purchases conflicts with the provisions of 37 Pa. Code §93.4 is without merit, as there is no language in the regulation to suggest that the Department may not limit the circumstances under which an inmate's family and friends may purchase approved items. --------
Accordingly, Cabral's petition for review is dismissed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 2012, the Petition for Review filed by Manuel M. Cabral, III, is dismissed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge