Africa v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN

BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN

Before this court are the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) to the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Charles Sims Africa seeking to compel DOC to provide him with a single cell. We sustain DOC's preliminary objections and dismiss Africa's petition.

Africa, who is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat (SCI-Retreat), filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court's original jurisdiction. According to the petition, Africa has been incarcerated for almost 35 years, primarily in a single cell. (Africa's Pet. at 1.) In 2010, DOC transferred him to SCI-Retreat and placed him in a double cell. (Id. at 2.) Africa fears for his safety and the safety of others. (Id.)

DOC filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. DOC maintains that the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution does not require single cell placement and that an inmate does not have a right to choose his cell. (Prelim. Obj., ¶¶17-19.) We agree.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. Taglienti v. Department of Corrections, 806 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). "This [c]ourt may only issue a writ of mandamus where the petitioner possesses a clear legal right to enforce the performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty, the defendant possesses a corresponding duty to perform the act, and the petitioner possesses no other adequate or appropriate remedy." Detar v. Beard, 898 A.2d 26, 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

The Eighth Amendment states that neither "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to provide humane conditions of confinement and ensure that inmates receive food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. See Neely v. Department of Corrections, 838 A.2d 16, 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Africa does not allege that he has been deprived of his basic needs; rather, he argues that DOC has violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by placing him in a double cell.

Placing an individual in a double cell does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). "An inmate does not have a right to be housed in a particular facility or in a particular area within a facility." 37 Pa. Code §93.11(a). Prison officials in Pennsylvania have broad discretion to select where to house inmates in a prison facility. See Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155, 160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

Therefore, we conclude that Africa fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. DOC has determined that Africa must share a cell, a decision that is well within its discretion, and we cannot substitute our judgment for DOC's. If he so chooses, Africa can seek redress in the inmate grievance system. See Waters v. Department of Corrections, 509 A.2d 430, 433 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) ("[M]andamus is not a proper procedure for testing the constitutionality of a statute, regulation or policy.")

Accordingly, we sustain DOC's preliminary objections and dismiss Africa's petition.

/s/_________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

AND NOW, this 3 day of December, 2013, we hereby sustain the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Charles Sims Africa.

/s/_________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge