Destruction of Inmate Property Exceeding Property Allowance Waiver Sovereign Immunity
DeShields v. Bennett, PICS Case No. 17-1047 (Pa. Commw. June 20, 2017) (memorandum) Leadbetter, J. (8 pages).
Sovereign immunity barred an inmate's claim that a corrections officers intentionally destroyed the inmate's property confiscated as violating the DOC's prisoner property limitation. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Robert DeShields, an inmate, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to Thomas Bennett, a corrections officer, and dismissing DeShields' complaint with prejudice. DeShields averred that two corrections officers conducted a full inventory of all his personal property upon his transfer to a different corrections facility. Upon his transfer, DeShields' property was sent to the restricted housing unit where it was unpacked and reinventoried in his absence.
DeShields was later given the opportunity to view and access his property, where he noticed it had been divided into two categories: commissary and personal property items. Bennett took custody of approximately $60 worth of approved and authorized commissary, and instructed a fellow officer to list the remaining commissary items on a confiscated items receipt. DeShields advised Bennett he would file a grievance regarding those items. In his complaint, DeShields made contradictory allegations regarding whether he signed the confiscated items receipt, although the receipt in question did not bear his signature.
When DeShields requested the return of the confiscated property, Bennett advised that the items had been destroyed. DeShields then lodged an inmate grievance, proceeding through all appropriate levels of appeal. In the final decision, the chief grievance officer ruled that, even if an inmate could purchase more than $70 worth of commissary items, the inmate could not do so if it resulted in him possessing property exceeding the limit of one footlocker and 2 record boxes, or 4 record boxes.
DeShields filed the present complaint, alleging that Bennett improperly destroyed and refused to replace DeShields' property. In his answer, Bennett raised sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense. Following discovery, Bennett moved for summary judgment, arguing that DeShields waived the right to bring his action by agreeing in writing that any excess property would be confiscated, and that claims for intentional torts filed against a commonwealth party were barred. The trial court granted Bennett's motion without including reasoning.