FIGUEROA v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PAROLE AND PROBATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

REYNALDO FIGUEROA, )

)

Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 22-36J

)

v. ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

)

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PAROLE ) Re: ECF No. 18

AND PROBATION; and )

BARRY SMITH, Superintendent, )

)

Respondents. )

ORDER OF COURT

Reynaldo Figueroa (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner currently held at the State Correctional

Institution at Houtzdale (“SCI-Houtzdale”) in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania. Petitioner initiated this

action on March 9, 2022, by submitting a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”), in which he seeks relief from a decision of

Respondent Pennsylvania Board of Parole and Probation denying him parole. ECF No. 8 at 5.

Currently before this Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 18, in which he seeks

an order compelling Respondents to serve their pleadings on him directly at SCI-Houtzdale’s address

for legal mail, rather than sending it through a Florida-based contractor used by the Department of

Corrections (“DOC”) for non-privileged mail. Id. at 1. Petitioner is concerned that prison officials

might read Respondents’ pleadings, which he believes “should remain a private matter between the

parties for right now to avoid ridicule and embarrassment.” Id. Petitioner also raises concerns that

mail from Respondents may become lost; however, Petitioner does not indicate that that actually has

occurred in this case. Id.

1

Under the DOC’s prior policy, mail from Respondents sent directly to Petitioner under the

circumstances of this case would not have qualified as “privileged mail,” and would not have been

delivered to Petitioner by prison officials. See McLaughlin v. Zavada, No. 19-422, 2019 WL

5697347, at *1-3 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2019) (discussing prior DC-ADM 803). Instead, in order to be

delivered, mail from Respondents would have to have been sent through the third-party contractor in

Florida, which would have sent it on to the DOC for eventual delivery to Petitioner.

However, the current DOC policy was amended on August 10, 2020, to include certain

“[m]ail from an elected or appointed federal, state, or local official who has sought and obtained a

control number issued by the Department’s Office of Chief Counsel” in the definition of “Incoming

Privileged Correspondence.” See DC-ADM 803.1.A.4, 803.1.D, and “Glossary of Terms.”

(available at https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Documents/DOC%20Policies/803%20Inmate

%20Mail%20and%20Incoming%20Publications.pdf (last visited June 30, 2022)). Accordingly, it

appears at least arguable that mail from Respondents would be delivered to Petitioner if it were

stamped with a DOC-issued a control number and mailed to SCI-Houtzdale’s address for legal mail.

This Court is not aware whether Respondents have DOC-issued control numbers.

That said, Petitioner does not indicate, nor that the docket suggest, that Petitioner has not

received service of any pleading or motion filed by Respondents and served via the Florida-based

contractor. There also is no indication that Respondents’ use of the Florida-based contractor has

otherwise interfered with Petitioner’s ability to timely prosecute this case. To the contrary, the

public docket indicates that Petitioner was able to timely file a Traverse to Respondents’ Answer to

the Petition, and that this case is fully briefed. ECF Nos. 15 and 17. Furthermore, to the extent that

2

Petitioner needs an extension of time due to any mail delay, this Court routinely grants such

requests.

In addition, to the extent that Petitioner would prefer that the pleadings in this matter remain

private, he should be aware that every filing is made on the docket that is accessible by the general

public. See generally In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662 (3d

Cir. 2019) (discussing the First Amendment and common law rights of access to judicial records in

the context of sealing those records). Simply put, none of the pleadings or motions in this case is

private.

Accordingly, this Court will decline to issue an order compelling Respondents to serve their

filings on Petitioner through the prison’s legal mail address. However, if Respondents’ use of the

Florida contractor in the future causes delay in receipt of pleadings or motions, or otherwise results

in unfair prejudice to Petitioner, Petitioner may move for further relief from this Court.

Accordingly, the following Order is entered:

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2022, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED that Petitioner’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 18, and is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to seeking further relief if necessary.

In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of the

Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an

appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any appeal is to be

3

submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110,

Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Maureen P. Kelly

MAUREEN P. KELLY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Reynaldo Figueroa

NZ 4912

SCI-Houtzdale

P.O. Box 1000

209 Institution Drive

Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

All counsel of record (via CM/ECF)

4