J. Merced-Castellano v. PA DOC

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Joel Merced-Castellano, :
:
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 707 M.D. 2019
: Submitted: September 11, 2020
Pennsylvania Department :
of Corrections: John E. Wetzel :
(Secretary of Corrections), Dorina :
Varner (Chief Grievance Officer), :
Michael R. Clark (Facility Manager, :
SCI-Albion), Paul Ennis (Deputy :
Superintendent, SCI-Albion), Laura :
Giles (I/M Employment, SCI-Albion), :
:
Respondents :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: July 19, 2021
Before the Court are the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (Department); John E. Wetzel, Secretary of Corrections;
Dorina Varner, Chief Grievance Officer; Michael R. Clark, Facility Manager, State
Correctional Institution at Albion (SCI-Albion); Paul Ennis, Deputy Superintendent,
SCI-Albion; and Laura Giles, I/M Employment, SCI-Albion (collectively,
Respondents) to the petition for review filed in our original jurisdiction by Joel
Merced-Castellano (Inmate) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to
Inmate’s removal from his employment as a legal aide at SCI-Albion in violation of
his due process rights and property interests. We dismiss the petition for review,
and we dismiss the preliminary objections as moot.
On December 27, 2019, Inmate filed the petition for review in which
he alleged, in relevant part, that he was removed from his inmate job as a legal aide
in the prison library because of a security breach in the library’s computers. Petition
for Review ¶¶4, 6. He asserts that in the course of the grievance process, the
Department admitted that “it could not be determined who was responsible for the
breach in the library,” and that he was not identified as a security risk. Id. ¶6(b). He
contends that Department officials cited “‘security concerns’” as the basis for his
removal even though he was “‘not identified as a security risk.’” Id. As a result, he
submits that the Department erred in removing him from his position and erred in
failing to afford him “a proper hearing to present evidence, witnesses or the
opportunity to tell his story, thus violating [his] right to due process[.]” Id. ¶6(a),
(b).
Inmate also claims that only the four legal aides were removed “out of
about a dozen inmate employees,” who all had access to the same breached
computers, and that he was the only aide removed “without any legitimate citation
of [a Department] policy” or a legitimate penological interest. Petition for Review
¶6(c), Exhibit A-3. He contends that the Department “failed to involve the proper
authorities to investigate the incident” and, as a result, his removal “from his
employment was nothing more than an exaggerated response[.]” Id. ¶6(c). Finally,
Inmate asserts that the Department erred in its interpretation of its policy DC-ADM
816, “which states that inmates do not have a right to a job,” because “[w]hile
2
inmates may not have a right to employment, when given employment they receive
pay for work done at that employment which means that it has a monetary value to
the inmate, thus creating a property interest for that inmate,” and that the
Department’s “taking the inmates[’] employment without proper venue or legitimate
interest . . . blatantly tramples on the inmates[’] right to due process.” Id. ¶6(d).
Accordingly, Inmate asks this Court to declare that his rights were violated and order
the Department to reinstate him to his former legal aide position. Id. at 3. On March
5, 2020, the Department filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to
the petition for review asserting, inter alia, that Inmate’s petition for review fails to
state a claim for which this Court may grant relief.
However, we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the
claims that Inmate raises in his petition for review. As the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court has recently explained:
[P]er this Court’s decision in Bronson v. Central Office
Review Committee, [721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998)], . . . the
Commonwealth Court lacks original jurisdiction to
entertain a prisoner’s due process challenge to the actions
of prison officials, where the inmate fails to assert a
constitutionally [] protected liberty or property interest.
See id. at [359-60]; cf. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
484-85 [(1995)] (explaining that due process protections
are implicated only with reference to actions by prison
officials that “impose[] atypical and significant hardship
on the inmate in relation to ordinary incidents of prison
life,” and that “[d]iscipline by prison officials in response
to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected
perimeters of the sentence imposed by a court of law”).
Furthermore, the cases are legion confirming that inmates
have no constitutionally [] protected interest in
maintaining prison employment. See, e.g., Bush v. Veach,
1 A.3d 981, 984 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Although the Department has not identified the
above defect, a jurisdictional impediment to judicial
3
review may be raised by the appellate courts of their own
accord. See, e.g., [Department of Environmental
Protection] v. Cromwell [Township], Huntingdon
[County], [32 A.3d 639, 646 (Pa. 2011)] (“The question
whether a court has jurisdiction . . . may be raised at any
time in the course of the proceedings, including by a
reviewing court sua sponte.”); Fenati v. [Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 56 M.D.
2017, filed November 21, 2017), slip op. at 5] (holding,
sua sponte, that the Commonwealth Court lacked
jurisdiction over prisoner litigation, per Bronson).
[] Accord 2 RIGHTS OF PRISONERS §8.6 (5th ed. 2019)
(“The general rule continues to be that removal from a job
assignment is deemed to be an administrative matter with
which courts are loath to interfere[.]” (footnote omitted)).
Williams v. Wetzel, 232 A.3d 652, 653-54 (Pa. 2020) (footnotes omitted). Because
Inmate has no actionable property interest in his continued employment as a legal
aide, we are without original jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition for review
in which his claims are based on a purported violation of this property interest or his
due process rights in this regard. Id.; see also Flynn v. Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 512 M.D. 2019, filed September 3, 2020), slip op. at
9, wherein we stated:
“The general rule continues to be that removal from
a job assignment is deemed to be an administrative matter
with which courts are loath to interfere.” “Inmates do not
have a liberty or property interest in their job assignments
that would give rise to Due Process Clause protection.”
Petitioner asserts that his due process rights were violated
because the facility utilized DC-ADM 816, as opposed to
37 Pa. Code §93.10, to remove him from his kitchen work
assignment. However, because [p]etitioner does not have
a liberty or property interest in his kitchen work, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to review the Petition.
4
(Citations omitted).1
Accordingly, the petition for review is dismissed.2
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
1
See Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code
§69.414(a) (“Parties may . . . cite an unreported panel decision of this court issued after January
15, 2008, for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent.”).
2
Based on our disposition, Respondents’ preliminary objections are dismissed as moot.
5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Joel Merced-Castellano, :
:
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 707 M.D. 2019
:
Pennsylvania Department :
of Corrections: John E. Wetzel :
(Secretary of Corrections), Dorina :
Varner (Chief Grievance Officer), :
Michael R. Clark (Facility Manager, :
SCI-Albion), Paul Ennis (Deputy :
Superintendent, SCI-Albion), Laura :
Giles (I/M Employment, SCI-Albion), :
:
Respondents :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2021, the Petition for Review filed
by Joel Merced-Castellano in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED. The
preliminary objections filed by the Respondents are DISMISSED as moot.
__________________________________
MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge