HARRISBURG – The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has transferred a state prisoner’s complaint over the legality of his mail service to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.
Commonwealth Court judges Ellen Ceisler, Michael H. Wojcik and Renée Cohn Jubelirer ruled to send petitioner William E. Webster III’s complaint to state court, citing a lack of jurisdiction. Ceisler authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
Webster, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution – Somerset (SCI-Somerset) has filed a “Verified Complaint and Attached Exhibits” complaint in our original jurisdiction. Webster named the following as respondents in this matter: Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas Judge Edward Reibman, Judge Douglas G. Reichley, the Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney James B. Martin, Chief Deputy District Attorney Heather Gallagher and Senior Deputy District Attorney Christine F. Murphy, Official Court Reporter Elizabeth Rocchino and Attorney General Josh Shapiro.
“Webster claims that Gallagher, Murphy, and Rocchino have each improperly sent legal mail to him through an intermediary service, rather than to him directly, and seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other relief as a result. The County Judiciary, the District Attorney, and Rocchino have filed preliminary objections to the Complaint. After thorough review, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider Webster’s complaint. We therefore transfer this matter to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas,” Ceisler said.
Ceisler said the Department of Corrections instituted new mail handling policies in August 2018, ostensibly to help control the influx of illicit substances into the Pennsylvania state prison system. Under these policies, regular, non-legal mail addressed to inmates was diverted to Smart Communications in Tampa, Florida. Smart Communications would open these items, scan and copy them, and then send the copies (rather than the originals) to the intended recipients.
“The Department’s legal mail policy was subsequently challenged in federal court, leading to a consent decree barring the Department from photocopying legal mail and permitting inmates to both directly receive and maintain possession of such mail,” Ceisler said.
“As of April 5, 2019, Department policy now requires ‘attorneys, courts, and federal, state, and local elected officials’ to obtain what is known as an ‘Attorney Control Number’ from the Department, which is used by the Department to assist in properly identifying and processing legal mail.”
Ceisler explained that on Dec. 12, 2019, Webster filed his complaint in the Commonwealth Court. Webster alleges that, on a number of occasions between Sept. 25, 2018, and Nov. 20, 2019, Gallagher, Murphy and Rocchino each improperly sent certain items of Webster’s legal mail to Smart Communications, rather than to Webster himself at SCI-Somerset.
“In addition, Webster claims that “[they] have sent, and continue to send [Webster’s] legal mail to Smart Communications, despite the fact that they are fully capable of obtaining an Attorney Control Number from the [Department],” Ceisler said.
Webster seeks a declaratory judgment that this behavior violated a number of his rights secured by the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions and an injunction mandating that his legal mail be henceforth sent to him directly, as well as punitive damages, reimbursement for costs and expenses, and other, unspecified relief. In response, the District Attorney, the County Judiciary and Rocchino have each respectively filed preliminary objections to Webster’s complaint, to which Webster has replied in opposition.
“Upon review of Webster’s complaint, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to consider this matter, because Webster has failed to assert that any of the respondents over whom we could have had such jurisdiction perpetrated actionable conduct against him,” Ceisler stated.
“Both the Attorney General and the county judiciary could, as named respondents, theoretically bring this matter within our original jurisdiction. However, Webster fails to specifically assert in his complaint that either the Attorney General or the county judiciary has sent his legal mail to Smart Communications or otherwise handled delivery of such mail in an unlawful manner.”
Ceisler added the Commonwealth Court also lacked jurisdiction over the matter due to Webster’s request for punitive damages, costs and expenses, and that trespass actions are excluded from its original jurisdiction.
Ceisler said suits against the Commonwealth government or its officials that seek purely declaratory relief or an injunction restraining government action are not in the nature of trespass and, thus, may fall within its original jurisdiction.
“Though Webster requests declaratory and injunctive relief due to respondents’ alleged infringement of his constitutional rights, it remains that he also desires monetary damages as a remedy for the same putative violations. Webster does not even bother to separate his claims and requests for redress into separate counts, instead presenting them as a mélange under the umbrella headings,” Ceisler said.
“We conclude, then, that his complaint also sounds in trespass. As such, we have no authority to consider Webster’s complaint as an original jurisdiction matter or pursuant to our powers of ancillary jurisdiction.”
Ceisler and her colleagues authorized the transfer of the case to a Lehigh County court.
“In line with the foregoing analysis, we conclude we lack original or ancillary jurisdiction to hear Webster’s complaint. Rather than dismissing his complaint outright, however, we will transfer it to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas for disposition of respondents’ preliminary objections,” Ceisler said.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case 687 M.D. 2019
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com