Summary
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considers whether an inmate whose account was subjected to Act 84 deductions before the Court’s decision in Bundy v. Wetzel is entitled to relief for the absence of pre-deprivation procedural safeguards. The Court holds that, when pre-deprivation process was not feasible, due process requires the Department of Corrections to provide notice and an opportunity to challenge past or intended deductions through an administrative grievance. The Court remands for further factual development concerning whether the required information and opportunity to object were provided, and also addresses the inmate’s asserted entitlement to an ability-to-pay hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Johnson's claim that the Department failed to provide pre-deprivation notice and an opportunity to object was properly characterized as negligence or instead as an intentional deprivation subject to sovereign immunity.
- Whether the two-year limitations period barred Johnson's claim concerning Act 84 deductions made beginning in 2013.
- Whether an inmate whose Act 84 deductions began before Bundy and Montanez were decided is entitled to meaningful post-deprivation process when he later grieves the absence of pre-deprivation safeguards.
- Whether Johnson was entitled to an administrative ability-to-pay hearing based on an alleged change in circumstances affecting his ability to obtain meaningful review of his sentence or pursue post-conviction proceedings.
Holdings
- A claim alleging that the Department intentionally deducted money from an inmate account but failed to provide constitutionally required pre-deprivation process is a procedural due process claim, not a negligence claim. Sovereign immunity therefore shields the Department from liability for the alleged intentional conduct.
- When an inmate's Act 84 deductions began before Bundy and Montanez were decided and the inmate later files an administrative grievance accurately stating that no Bundy process was provided before the first deduction, due process requires the Department to provide post-deprivation process analogous to the pre-deprivation procedures required by Bundy.
- The record was insufficient to determine whether the Department's temporary suspension of deductions and related grievance response supplied all information and procedures required by Bundy. The due process claim therefore required further factual development and an appropriate procedural remedy if necessary.
- Johnson failed to establish a valid basis for an administrative ability-to-pay hearing, and the Commonwealth Court properly dismissed that claim.
Key quotations
“We now hold that that aspect of Bundy applies to inmates whose accounts were subject to Act 84 deductions without the benefit of pre-deprivation safeguards.” (12-13)
“Thus, due process requires that the Department, in response to an administrative grievance which accurately recites that no Bundy process was afforded prior to the first Act 84 deduction, must give the grievant notice of the items required by Bundy and a reasonable opportunity to explain why the past and/or intended deductions should not take place notwithstanding the dictates of Act 84.” (13)
“The order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed in part and vacated in part.” (16)
Factual background
Johnson was sentenced in March 2013 to an aggregate term of approximately 20 to 40 years and was ordered to pay $1,166 in court costs and Victims' Fund contributions. The Department began deducting money from his inmate account in June 2013 without providing advance notice or an opportunity to object. After later decisions established due process safeguards for Act 84 deductions, Johnson sought a refund of approximately $860 and alleged that the Department had violated his procedural due process rights and had acted negligently. The Department temporarily suspended deductions in 2018 to allow him to challenge the deductions, but the record did not establish whether all required information and procedures had been provided.
Procedural history
Johnson was sentenced in 2013 to pay court costs and a Victims' Fund assessment, after which the Department of Corrections began making Act 84 deductions from his inmate account without advance notice. He filed administrative grievances and then a Commonwealth Court petition seeking recovery of the deducted funds, nominal damages, and other relief. The Commonwealth Court sustained the Department's preliminary objections and dismissed the amended petition, concluding that the negligence claim was based on intentional conduct and that the due process claim was time-barred. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the negligence and ability-to-pay claims, vacated dismissal of the due process claim, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further factual development concerning whether the Department provided Johnson all Bundy and Montanez information and an adequate post-deprivation opportunity to challenge the past or intended Act 84 deductions, and for an appropriate procedural remedy if additional process is required.