Williams, K. v. PA Dept. of Corrections
This text of Williams, K. v. PA Dept. of Corrections (Williams, K. v. PA Dept. of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S64019-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
KEVIN WILLIAMS A/K/A KIRBY STEWART IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant
v.
PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Appellee No. 838 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered on April 13, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Civil Division at No.: CP-54-MD-0000278-2015
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., WECHT, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY WECHT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2015
Kevin Williams a/k/a Kirby Stewart appeals the April 13, 2015 order
affirming the Schuylkill County District Attorney’s Office’s disapproval of his
private criminal complaint. We affirm.
On October 28, 2014, Williams, an inmate at SCI-Forest, filed a private
criminal complaint with the Schuylkill County District Attorney’s Office.
Therein, Williams set forth various allegations of mistreatment and theft by
prison officials at SCI-Mahanoy.1 The district attorney denied Williams’
private criminal complaint, noting that Williams’ allegations concerned
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 In his complaint, Williams listed as defendants John Kerestes, Sharon Lequis, “Program Review Committee,” “Griffin,” “Hart,” and “Bisco.” See Private Criminal Complaint, 10/28/2014, at 1. J-S64019-15
internal prison disputes that could be resolved best by the prisoner litigation
system available to Williams pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6601, et seq. The
district attorney also concluded that it was not in the best interests of the
Commonwealth, nor the best use of the office’s resources, to investigate and
prosecute alleged prison misconduct. Williams then filed with the Schuylkill
County Court of Common Pleas a petition for review of the district attorney’s
denial of his private criminal complaint pursuant to Rule 506 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(B)(2). On
April 13, 2015, the trial court issued an order dismissing Williams’ petition.
In that order, the trial court explained that the district attorney did not
abuse her discretion in denying Williams’ private criminal complaint.
On May 1, 2015, Williams timely filed a notice of appeal. On May 11,
2015, the trial court ordered Williams to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Williams timely
complied. On June 26, 2015, the trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)
opinion.
Williams raises six issues for our consideration:
1. Did the district attorney abuse her discretion by not pursuing criminal charges?
2. Did the district attorney have the matter investigated by the police and/or state police?
3. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by dismissing [the] private-criminal-complaint?
4. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by not granting [Williams] in forma pauperis?
-2- J-S64019-15
5. Did the lower court abuse its discretion according to the valuation of property under Rule-3212?
6. Did the [district attorney and the trial] court abuse their discretion by not holding the Defendant(s) accountable for theft?
Brief for Williams at 2.
All of Williams’ issues concern the district attorney’s denial of his
private criminal complaint. Accordingly, we address them collectively. To
proceed with a private criminal complaint, a complainant must secure the
approval of an attorney for the Commonwealth. Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(A). If the
attorney for the Commonwealth disapproves the complaint, he or she must
notify the complainant of the reasons supporting disapproval. Pa.R.Crim.P.
506(B)(2). Thereafter, the complainant may petition the trial court for
review of the district attorney’s decision. Id.
In a Rule 506 petition for review, the trial court’s standard of review is
dependent upon the district attorney’s rationale for the disapproval.
Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 80 (Pa. Super. 1998). In the
case sub judice, the district attorney concluded that Williams’ allegations
were civil, rather than criminal, in nature, and that adequate civil and
administrative remedies are available to address those allegations.2 ____________________________________________
2 The fact that, over the last decade, Williams routinely has brought civil actions against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and its agents based upon similar circumstances supports the district attorney’s reading of the instant complaint as civil in nature. See, e.g., Williams v. Sec’y Penna. Dep’t of Corr., 566 F. App’x 113 (3d Cir. 2014) (summarily affirming the district court’s dismissal of Williams’ civil complaint alleging, (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3- J-S64019-15
Therefore, the district attorney disapproved of Williams’ complaint and
forwarded it to the investigative division of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections.
Where, as is the case here, the district attorney’s disapproval is based
upon policy considerations,3 the trial court must defer to that decision, and
will not interfere absent a showing of bad faith, fraud, or unconstitutionality.
Id. at 79-80.
[T]he private criminal complainant must demonstrate the district attorney’s decision amounted to bad faith, fraud, or unconstitutionality. The complainant must do more than merely assert the district attorney’s decision is flawed in these regards. The complainant must show the facts of the case lead only to the conclusion that the district attorney’s decision was patently discriminatory, arbitrary, or pretextual, and therefore not in the public interest. In the absence of such evidence, the trial court cannot presume to supervise the district attorney’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and should leave the district attorney’s decision undisturbed.
In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 215 (Pa. Super. 2005).
This Court’s standard of review also depends upon the district
attorney’s rationale for declining to bring criminal charges. As explained
_______________________ (Footnote Continued)
inter alia, that prison officials misappropriated his personal property without justification, and noting that Williams has filed multiple state tort actions alleging same). 3 See Cooper, 710 A.2d at 80 (classifying as a valid policy determination a district attorney’s conclusion that a civil action would be more prudent where the complainant is attempting to use the justice system for private purposes).
-4- J-S64019-15
above, the district attorney disapproved of Williams’ complaint based upon
policy considerations. Therefore, our task is to “review the trial court’s
decision for an abuse of discretion, in keeping with settled principles of
appellate review of discretionary matters.” Id. at 215. Stated simply, we
too must yield to the district attorney’s policy determination absent a
showing of bad faith, fraud, or unconstitutionality. Cooper, 710 A.2d at 80.
Williams has failed to make such a showing. He offers only a single
conclusory assertion in his brief that “District Attorney Holman[’s] decision
not to prosecute [was] not in good faith.” Brief for Williams at 7. Williams
has not substantiated that allegation. Moreover, we have held that a district
attorney’s decision not to prosecute carries with it a presumption of good
faith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams, K. v. PA Dept. of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-k-v-pa-dept-of-corrections-pasuperct-2015.