Appellant was incarcerated at a state correctional institution. His family sent photographs to a company with instructions to develop the film and forward the photographs to appellant. The mail room supervisor confiscated the photographs as an unpermitted article and appellant was told the photos were confiscated because the company was not an approved vendor and he was asked to provide cash slips so the photos could be returned to the sender. Appellant filed a grievance and argued that DC-ADM 803 permitted inmate possession of incoming photographs where no criteria had been violated. Institution denied the grievance because the photos were not received from an approved vendor. Appellant filed an appeal to the facility grievance manager who found that the rejection of the photos was in accordance with policy. Appellant continued to grieve the confiscation until the photos were destroyed because appellant did not provide the cash slips to return them to the sender. He then asserted that the destruction of the photos before the department completed its final review of the matter was a violation of his constitutional rights. The department found that appellant had requested the institution to forward the photos to him at the conclusion of the grievance process and that the institution destroyed the photos. The department upheld that part of appellant's grievance because policy required the return of the photographs on completion of the grievance. However, the department also found that appellant did not provide the signed cash slips and the address label to return the unpermitted article as requested by mailroom staff, which would have prevented the destruction. Appellant sued alleging the retention and destruction of his personal property violated the United Sates and Pennsylvania constitutions and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The trial court dismissed the matter as frivolous, citing a lack of jurisdiction and want of arguable legal grounds. Appellant appealed.