Opinion
No. 267 C.D. 2013
09-06-2013
Hilton Karriem Mincy, Petitioner v. Department of Corrections, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
Hilton Karriem Mincy (Mincy), representing himself, seeks review of an order of the Board of Claims (Board) that denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and dismissed his complaint as frivolous pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 240(j). In this appeal, Mincy contends the Board abused its discretion or erred as a matter of law by refusing to permit him to proceed with this action. Discerning no error, we affirm.
In forma pauperis describes the permission given to an indigent person to proceed without liability for court fees or costs. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 779 (6th ed. 1990).
In January 2013, Mincy, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset, filed a complaint against the Department of Corrections (DOC) and several individual employees of DOC (collectively, Defendants) asserting a breach of contract claim. Mincy also filed a motion to proceed IFP.
In the complaint, Mincy alleged he and Defendants entered into a contract for his admission to a therapeutic community program. He asserted Defendants breached this contract by removing him from the waitlist for the program.
Mincy did not attach a copy of any writing he considered a contract to his complaint. Instead, he attached various communications between himself and Defendants. These communications pertain to his initial participation in the therapeutic community program, his subsequent dismissal for disciplinary reasons, and his alleged "contract" to participate in the program a second time. These documents also indicate that Defendants placed Mincy on a waitlist for the program and then removed him because he did not meet the admission criteria.
Mincy did not attach the alleged contract to his complaint averring Defendants have this and other relevant documents in their possession. Rule 202 of the Board of Claims Rules of Procedure requires a plaintiff to attach copies of the contract unless the "plaintiff avers in the claim that all copies of the contract are in possession of the defendant ...." BOC R.P. No. 202. However, Mincy did not file a discovery request until after he filed his petition for review in this Court, which DOC denied on the basis that discovery is improper in an appeal. See Pet. for Review, Appendix D. Thereafter, Mincy filed a motion to compel Defendants to produce and provide documents, which this Court denied.
The Board reviewed the complaint and its attachments. The Board found Mincy's alleged "'contract' is, at best, an application or consent to participate in the [therapeutic community] [p]rogram and nothing more." Bd. Op., 2/14/13, at 6-7. As such, there is no binding agreement between Mincy and any of the Defendants. The Board determined Mincy's attempt to make a contract out of his application or consent to participate in the program is a frivolous claim. Accordingly, the Board denied the IFP motion and dismissed the complaint pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j).
Mincy requested reconsideration, which the Board denied. Mincy now appeals to this Court, asserting the Board abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law by not granting his IFP motion and determining his appeal was frivolous. Mincy argues his breach of contract claim is not frivolous. Specifically, he contends he signed an Admission/Consent Form agreeing to participate in a therapeutic community program. According to Mincy, this created a binding contract with Defendants. He maintains Defendants violated the contract by removing him from the list.
Our review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Makoroff v. Dep't of Transp., 938 A.2d 470 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
Both the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Board of Claims Rules of Procedure apply to matters before the Board. BOC R.P. No. 102(a). Pursuant to Rule 240(j)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure:
If a discrepancy between the rules arise, the Board of Claims Rules of Procedure govern. BOC R.P. No. 102(a).
[I]f, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to proceed [IFP], the court prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous.Pa. R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1) (emphasis added). An action is frivolous under Rule 240(j)(1) "if, on its face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action." Bennett v. Beard, 919 A.2d 365, 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (quoting McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A.2d 797, 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)). A frivolous action is one that lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Id.; accord Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). An individual seeking to proceed IFP is responsible for presenting a valid cause of action. Conover v. Mikosky, 609 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. 1992).
"A breach of contract claim is made out where there was a contract, a duty imposed by that contract was breached, and damages resulted from the breach." Reed v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Pub. Educ., 862 A.2d 131, 134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). "In order to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration or a mutual meeting of the minds." Ribarchak v. Mun. Auth. of City of Monongahela, 44 A.3d 706, 708 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 57 A.3d 73 (2012). Without mutual assent of the contracting parties, a valid contract does not exist. Degenhardt v. Dillon Co., 543 Pa. 146, 669 A.2d 946 (1996).
DOC's Alcohol and Other Drugs Treatment Programs Policy, No. 7.4.1 (Treatment Policy) provides various treatment programs, including the therapeutic community program, to inmates eligible for such services. As part of the admission process, the inmate must consent to treatment by signing an "Admission/Consent Form" as well as a "DC-108, Release of Information Form." Section 6.C.4.a(1) of the Treatment Policy at 6-6. The Treatment Policy clearly states it "does not create rights in any person." Section VIII of the Treatment Policy at 3.
The policy, which DOC issued on December 19, 2005, is available on DOC's portal: http://www.cor.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/doc_policies/20643 (last visited 8/12/13). --------
Here, Mincy's complaint, on its face, does not set forth a valid cause of action. Mincy signed the Admission/Consent Form and, in doing so, agreed to participate in the therapeutic community program. As Mincy himself recognizes, "an inmate must consent to treatment." Pet'r's Br. at 10 (emphasis in original). "[Defendants] can't force [him] to take treatment programs and must gain his consent to do so; and the only way to gain said consent is through written agreement." Pet'r's Reply Br. at 5 (emphasis in original).
The fact that Mincy agreed in writing to participate in the program does not elevate his consent to a binding contract. The fundamental elements of a contract are missing as there is no mutual assent or consideration. See Degenhardt; Ribarchak. Mincy's unilateral consent to participate in the program did not impose any obligations or duties on the part of Defendants. Mincy did not allege any facts to support his contention that the Admission/Consent Form is a contract but instead relies on bald conclusions as to the nature of the document.
Contrary to Mincy's assertions, the Admission/Consent Form, by its very nature, is not a contract. Rather, the form is part of the admission application process and is just one element needed to establish program eligibility. See Section 4.B of the Treatment Policy at 4-1 (placement criteria); Section 6.C.4.a(1) of the Treatment Policy at 6-8 (administrative documents). Inmates must also complete a DC-108, Release of Information Form and satisfy other eligibility criteria. See Sections 6.C.4.a(1)(a) and 6.E.3 of the Treatment Policy at 6-8, 6-13. As Mincy acknowledges, Defendants removed him from the waitlist for the program because he refused to complete the DC-108, Release of Information Form in its entirety. Pet'r's Br. at 12.
Moreover, even if Mincy met the minimum eligibility criteria for admission, an inmate is not automatically entitled to participate in a prerelease program. Reider v. Bureau of Corr., 502 A.2d 272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). Participation in a prerelease program is not a right but a special privilege. Auberzinski v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 690 A.2d 776 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). "Evaluating an inmate for prerelease status is a matter of skilled administrative discretion." Reider, 502 A.2d at 274; see Section 3.G of the Treatment Policy at 3-5 (admission is based on eligibility of the inmate, the need for treatment, and availability of beds).
For these reasons, we conclude the Board did not err in determining a contract between Mincy and Defendants did not exist. There is no basis in law or fact for Mincy's breach of contract claim. Thus, the Board did not err in denying Mincy's IFP motion and dismissing his complaint as frivolous.
Accordingly, we affirm the Board's order.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2013, the order of the Board of Claims is AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge