Opinion
No. 2025 C.D. 2011
03-23-2012
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY
Randall Eugene Parran (Parran) appeals pro se from the May 20, 2011 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County (trial court) denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing this action under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j), Pa.R.C.P. No. 240(j). The issue for this Court's review is whether the trial court properly determined that Parran's complaint is frivolous. We affirm.
The facts as alleged in Parran's complaint are as follows. Parran is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Somerset. On June 15, 2009, while in the prison exercise yard, Parran asked Corrections Officer Strait (Officer Strait) for permission to use the bathroom. Officer Strait denied permission and told Parran that he would have to wait 30 minutes. Parran explained to Officer Strait that he had a hernia, and would be physically unable to wait that long, but his request was again denied. Notwithstanding, Parran began to walk to the bathroom. Officer Strait ordered him to stop and comply with his direction. When Parran refused, he was handcuffed by Corrections Officer Lenz (Officer Lenz), and verbally threatened for failing to follow directions. Once the handcuffs were applied, Officer Lenz began to pull and jerk on the handcuffs causing injury to Parran's arms and wrists. Parran screamed due to his injuries, and he was thrown to the ground, and assaulted by Officer Lenz and other corrections officers. Parran was choked to the point that he was rendered unconscious. After the incident, Parran was taken to the medical unit and treated. He was then taken to a cell without clothing, sheets or a blanket.
The misconduct reports completed by several of the corrections officers involved in the incident were attached to Parran's complaint. Those reports represented the June 15, 2009 incident very differently, describing Parran as confrontational, belligerent, and physically aggressive, attempting to kick and bite the corrections officers. The incident was investigated by the Department of Corrections (Department), which determined that the unplanned use of force by the corrections officers was appropriate, based upon their statements and a video of the incident.
On May 19, 2011, Parran submitted to the trial court a request to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action against Gerald Rozum, Superintendent, Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the Department, and numerous individual corrections officers. On May 20, 2011, the trial court issued its order denying Parran's request to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissing his action with prejudice. Parran appealed to this Court.
When reviewing the decision of a trial court, this Court is limited to considering whether the plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated, or whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Brown v. Beard, 11 A.3d 578 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). --------
Parran argues that the trial court erred by failing to hold him to a lesser pro se standard and by dismissing his complaint without ruling on the merits. Specifically, Parran contends that his allegation of use of force by prison staff is sufficient to make out a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. We disagree.
Initially, we recognize that "[t]he allegations of a pro se complainant are held to a less stringent standard than that applied to pleadings filed by attorneys." Danyish v. Dep't of Corrs., 845 A.2d 260, 262-63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), aff'd, 584 Pa. 122, 881 A.2d 1263 (2005). However, Parran's allegations still have to articulate a factual or legal basis to support his claims. Thomas v. Holtz, 707 A.2d 569 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
If, 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 in forma pauperis, 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.Bundy v. Beard, 924 A.2d 723, 726 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (citing Pa.R.C.P No. 240(j)), aff'd, 596 Pa. 103, 941 A.2d 646 (2007).
Here, Parran's complaint is eleven pages long and single spaced. The first two and a half pages is a recitation of facts. The next four and a half pages are a list of questions. The last page is a list of constitutional claims. With the exception of the caption and Officers Strait, Lenz, and Miller being named in the recitation of facts, there are no allegations as to which Defendant violated which constitutional rights and/or by what actions.
Inquiry by the courts into prison management is limited to constitutional violations, which must be established in factual averments. Thomas v. Holtz. "[P]rison officials must be accorded wide ranging deference in the execution of policies with regard to the day-to-day administration of prisoners under their care." Id., 707 A.2d at 571. Moreover, "corrections officers, as employees of a Commonwealth agency, are immune from suit when acting within the scope of their employment as long as the claim [does] not fit into any category in which sovereign immunity ha[s] been waived . . . ." Id., 707 A.2d at 571 n.3. Parran did not allege that Defendants acted outside the scope of their employment or that any of the sovereign immunity exceptions applied. In fact, the exhibits attached to his complaint said they acted appropriately.
In its opinion, the trial court held as follows.
We find that the pleading fails to assert any arguable cause of action. The action relates to [Parran]'s treatment during an alleged disciplinary infraction which occurred out in the yard when [Parran] disobeyed orders denying him the privilege of return to the unit when he requested. Allegedly, an altercation occurred which resulted in [Parran] being confined to the [Restricted Housing Unit]. [Parran] alleges that he was mistreated and demands damages for various unspecified constitutional rights violations. None of the claims are couched in terms of the specific conduct for which a potential compensation claim would be appropriate even if the facts were to be deemed true. The civil courts will not intercede in the disciplinary methodologies employed by the SCI's absent a clearly articulated factual basis for constitutional scrutiny.Trial Ct. Op. at 2. We agree with the trial court's analysis.
For all of the above reasons, the trial court properly dismissed Parran's complaint as frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2012, the May 20, 2011 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge