Opinion
No. 35 C.D. 2012
09-12-2012
James Edward Heller, Appellant v. Pike County Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Board
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON
James Edward Heller (Heller), pro se, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County (trial court), dated December 12, 2011. The trial court denied Heller's petition for review/appeal of a disciplinary decision of the Pike County Correctional Facility Disciplinary Hearing Board (Hearing Board) based on a lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
During the relevant time period, Heller was an inmate at the Pike County Correctional Facility (PCCF) in Lords Valley, Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2011, the Hearing Board found Heller guilty of an institutional misconduct, specifically "Misuse of Facility Equipment," for using a facility computer to type and print a six(6)-page addendum to a grievance. (Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 18.) PCCF policy requires that grievances be handwritten. (Id.) The Hearing Board imposed a seven (7) day sanction of disciplinary status upon Heller. (Id. at Item No. 1, Exhibit "A.") The Board suspended the sanction pending any further misconduct and ordered Heller to pay $0.54 for unauthorized copies. (Id.) Heller appealed this decision to the trial court.
We note that Heller is now incarcerated at State Correctional Institution-Forest.
The trial court held a hearing on the matter and limited the issue to whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the matter. The trial court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over a decision of the Hearing Board. In its Rule 1925 opinion, Pa. R.A.P. 1925, the trial court explained its decision by noting that, under Brown v. Department of Corrections, 913 A.2d 301 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 705, 918 A.2d 748 (2007), trial courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of internal prison operations. On appeal to this Court, Heller argues that the trial court erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an adjudication rendered by a disciplinary board pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 933(a)(2).
Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §933(a)(2), common pleas courts have jurisdiction over "[a]ppeals from government agencies, except Commonwealth agencies, under Subchapter B of Chapter 7 of Title 2 (relating to judicial review of local agency action) or otherwise."
We begin our analysis with Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee, 554 Pa. 317, 721 A.2d 357 (1998), wherein our Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Commonwealth Court had either original or appellate jurisdiction over decisions from the Department of Correction's Central Office Review Committee (Review Committee). Bronson, 554 Pa. at 319, 721 A.2d at 357. The Review Committee was responsible for reviewing inmate appeals. Id., 721 A.2d at 358. The inmate in Bronson appealed a disciplinary decision of the Review Committee to the Commonwealth Court. Id. at 320, 721 A.2d at 358. Our Supreme Court stated that the Review Committee is an administrative body whose functions are purely internal to the Department of Corrections, and the Review Committee does not function on the level of a government agency. Id. at 321, 721 A.2d at 358. Further, the Supreme Court stated that "internal prison operations are more properly left to the legislative and executive branches, and that prison officials must be allowed to exercise their judgment in the execution of policies necessary to preserve order and maintain security free from judicial interference." Id., 721 A.2d at 358; see Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9, 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). Our Supreme Court, therefore, held:
Unlike the criminal trial and appeals process where a defendant is accorded the full spectrum of rights and protections guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions, and which is necessarily within the ambit of the judiciary, the procedures for pursuing inmate grievances and misconduct appeals are a matter of internal prison administration and the 'full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal prosecution is not necessary in a prison disciplinary proceeding . . . .' Therefore, the [C]ommonwealth [C]ourt does not have appellate jurisdiction, under 42 Pa. C.S. § 763 over inmate appeals of decisions by intra-prison disciplinary tribunals.Bronson, 554 Pa. at 321, 721 A.2d at 358-59 (citations omitted).
42 Pa. C.S. § 763 provides that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all agency appeals. --------
Subsequently in Brown, an inmate sought appellate review of a disciplinary proceeding in a court of common pleas. Brown, 913 A.2d at 303. Relying on Bronson, we held that "the limitations placed upon the judiciary to rule on issues of internal prison operations as set forth in Bronson apply to our common pleas courts as well." Id. at 305.
Here, similar to the internal prison operation in Bronson and Brown, the Hearing Board is an internal prison operation and not a government agency, and, therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 933(a)(2). Heller's disciplinary punishment is a matter of internal prison administration, and we reiterate that these disciplinary proceedings are better left to the discretion of prison officials and that the "full panoply of rights due to a defendant in a criminal prosecution is not necessary in a prison disciplinary proceeding." Bronson, 554 Pa. at 321, 721 A.2d at 358-59 (quoting Robson, 420 A.2d at 12).
Relying upon our decisions in Holloway v. Lehman, 671 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), and Mason v. Department of Corrections, 886 A.2d 724 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), Heller also attempts to argue that because he was required to pay $0.54 as a result of a disciplinary hearing, the matter involved a personal or property interest and constituted an adjudication of an agency, thereby entitling him to proceed with this action. It appears that Heller did not raise this issue before the trial court. Pa. R.A.P. 302(a); see also Victoria Gardens Condominium Ass'n v. Kennett Twshp. of Chester County, 23 A.3d 1098, 1107 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (stating that issues not raised to trial court will not be addressed on appeal). Moreover, Heller clearly waived this issue by failing to include it in his Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). See Commonwealth v. Butler, 571 Pa. 441, 446, 812 A.2d 631, 633-34 (2002) (holding that issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived).
Accordingly, because the Board is an internal prison operation, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Heller's proceeding. Thus we affirm the order of the trial court.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2012, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge