Keeling, M., Aplt. v. Fagan
This text of Keeling, M., Aplt. v. Fagan (Keeling, M., Aplt. v. Fagan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT
MICHAEL E. KEELING, : No. 30 EAP 2022 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of : Commonwealth Court dated : July 7, 2022, at No. 166 M.D. 2021 v. : : : MR. FAGAN AND MRS. NEWBERRY, : BOTH GRIEVANCE COORDINATORS : FOR DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, : : Appellees :
ORDER
PER CURIAM DECIDED: September 28, 2023 AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2023, the decision of the Commonwealth
Court is AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED IN PART and the matter is REMANDED
to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings consistent with this Order. In his
petition for review addressed to the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction,
Petitioner/Appellant Michael E. Keeling (Keeling) alleges that he filed a grievance
(perhaps more than one) relating to the confiscation of his “Venda Card,” which had a
monetary value (or balance), while he was an inmate at the State Correctional Institution
at Dallas (Venda Card Grievance). Keeling further alleges that Appellees have refused
to process this particular grievance(s). Keeling sought, inter alia, an order from the
Commonwealth Court, directing that Respondents/Appellees decide the Venda Card
Grievance. “It is beyond dispute that money is property” and that “[p]rivate property
cannot be taken by the government without due process.” Holloway v. Lehman, 671 A.2d 1179, 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). In Bronson v. Central Office Review
Committee, 721 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1998), the Court recognized that inmates retain
constitutional protections for personal or property interests not limited by Department of
Corrections regulations. Accordingly, an inmate grievance final determination that affects
such a personal or property interest is an adjudication subject to appellate review by the
Commonwealth Court. See Bronson, 721 A.2d at 359. As the Commonwealth Court’s
stated reasons for dismissing Keeling’s claim related to his Venda Card Grievance do not
include consideration of the alleged property interest involved or whether the alleged
inaction on Keeling’s Venda Card Grievance has frustrated Keeling’s ability to receive a
final adjudication that would be appealable under Bronson, the Commonwealth Court’s
July 7, 2022 Order dismissing Keeling’s petition for review in the nature of a complaint in
mandamus is VACATED as to that particular claim only and REMANDED to the
Commonwealth Court for further consideration. In all other respects, the Commonwealth
Court’s July 7, 2022 Order is AFFIRMED.
Keeling’s application for relief requesting leave to file a reply brief nunc pro tunc is
DENIED as moot.
-2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Keeling, M., Aplt. v. Fagan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keeling-m-aplt-v-fagan-pa-2023.