Morris v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

Full title: SHELDON LEE MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 22, 2022

Civil Action 22-cv-735 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 22, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 22-cv-735

09-22-2022

SHELDON LEE MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GEORGE M. LITTLE; MICHAEL ZAKEN, also known as M. Zaken; S. BUZAS; M. SWITZER, Ranking C.O. on Duty; J. SCOTTI; MS. TRACY SHAWLEY, as subrogee of T. SHAWLEY; J. SPIKER; and B. RUDZIENSKI, Chief Grievance Officer, Defendants.

MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ORDER

RE: ECF NO. 34

MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Sheldon Lee Morris (“Plaintiff”) has filed correspondence with the Court that is construed as a motion for an exception to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' (“DOC”) inmate policy. ECF No. 34. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

DOC's inmate mail policy distinguishes between “privileged” and “non-privileged” mail.^[1]Privileged mail includes mail from an inmate's attorney, mail from a court, and “[m]ail from an elected or appointed federal, state, or local official who has sought and obtained a control number issued by the Department's Office of Chief Counsel....Not all correspondence between an inmate and elected or appointed federal, state, or local official will require privileged correspondence processing. Control numbers will only be issued when the underlying matter involves matters related to a confidential investigation process or similar concerns.” See DC-ADM 803 - Glossary of Terms (emphasis added). Under DC-ADM 803, privileged legal mail is delivered directly to an inmate's facility. The presence of a control number on the envelope is how prison officials determine that the mail is privileged and must be opened in the inmate's presence. Non-privileged mail is all other mail.

[1] See DC-ADM 803 §1.A.3, https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Documents/DOC%20Policies/803%20Inmate%20Mail%20and%20Incoming%20Publications.pdf.

DOC policy requires non-privileged mail to be forwarded to a contracted central incoming inmate mail processing center.^[2] Mail is scanned and electronically delivered to the inmate's facility and then downloaded and printed by facility staff. The printed copies are delivered to the inmate. See DC-ADM 803 §1.C.

[2] See DC-ADM 803 §1.A.3, https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Documents/DOC%20Policies/803%20Inmate%20Mail%20and%20Incoming %20Publications.pdf

Plaintiff states that mail from opposing counsel is not subject to the non-privileged mail policy and thus counsel should be required to bypass the established process due to potential delivery delays and privacy concerns. Thus, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants' counsel to use the privileged mail process. ECF No. 34.

The Court sympathizes with Plaintiff's concerns regarding potential mail delays, but the Court declines to direct a change in prison mail policy. Mail from Defendants' counsel does not involve a confidential matter given the availability of the public docket. Further, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has considered and rejected challenges to the policy that was developed to resolve legitimate institutional safety concerns. See Pelino v. Wetzel, No. 211363, 2022 WL 1239050, at *1 (3d Cir. Apr. 27, 2022) (rejecting First and Fourteenth Amendment liberty and due process challenges to mail policy implemented “after correctional staff were purportedly exposed to drug-soaked mail and became ill”). Considering the “intractable problems of prison administration,” Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8^th Cir. 1995), the Court will not exercise its discretion to order a change in prison policy in this instance.

Going forward, should Plaintiff need an extension of time to file a specific motion or response because of a mail delivery delay, he may file a short motion requesting an extension of time. This Court routinely grants such timely requests.

Accordingly, this 22^nd day of September 2022, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for an exception to the DOC mail policy, and the relief requested therein, and for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any appeal is to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.