Commonwealth Court Rebukes Trial Court for 'Retransferring' Inmate's ADA Case
A prisoner's Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit continues to ping-pong back and forth between the Greene County Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court, with each claiming it does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue.
February 01, 2018 at 01:22 PM
3 minute read
A prisoner's Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit continues to ping-pong back and forth between the Greene County Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court, with each claiming it does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue.
In a Jan. 31 ruling, a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel consisting of Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini, President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt and Judge Michael H. Wojcik transferred Francis Harris' case back to the common pleas court, admonishing the court for “retransferring” a case that the Commonwealth Court has already said it does not have the authority to review.
Harris, serving time at SCI Greene for murder, sued the prison system for failing to accommodate his foot pain with orthotic shoes. All of his claims were tossed except for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the dismissal of all but Harris' ADA claim. He alleged that he was denied afternoon yard time instead of morning yard time, which he requested because his foot pain is worse in the morning. The appeals court said it did not have jurisdiction to address the issue and remanded the case back to the trial court.
After that, however, the Greene County Court granted the state's motion to transfer the case back to the Commonwealth Court. The trial judge reasoned that the Commonwealth Court had jurisdiction because Harris sought a writ of mandamus and monetary damages.
“It is improper for a trial court to 'retransfer' a matter back to this court if we originally transferred the matter to the trial court for jurisdictional reasons,” Pellegrini said in the court's opinion.
He continued, “Simply put, while the trial court may disagree with this court's original transfer order or how we interpreted Harris' action against the department, it is nonetheless obligated to follow that order.”
Pellegrini noted that it was the trial court that had jurisdiction because of the monetary damages Harris sought.
“Here, it is clear that Harris's ADA claim falls within Section 761(a)(1)(v) because he is seeking money damages under a statutory provision and, accordingly, his ADA claim constitutes an action in tort,” Pellegrini said. “While Harris may also be seeking mandamus relief, our Supreme Court has made clear that this does not operate to transform a trial court's jurisdiction as it would arguably permit forum shopping through pleading.”
Harris represented himself in the litigation. Theron Perez represents the Department of Corrections and did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readCivil RICO's Expanding Reach: From Foreign Schemes to Lost Employment
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 2'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 3Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 4Supreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
- 5Defense Verdict: Alston & Bird Beat Back $35M Claim Against Nokia
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250