“DOC is not an adjudicative body. Rather, it is an executive branch agency charged with faithfully implementing the sentences imposed by the courts.”
How later courts described this case
- “DOC is not an adjudicative body. Rather, it is an executive branch agency charged with faithfully implementing the sentences imposed by the courts.”
- “DOC must follow the sentencing court’s order.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Luis Rodriguez, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Laurel R. Harry, Secretary of the :
Pennsylvania Department of :
Corrections, : No. 277 M.D. 2024
Respondent : Submitted: July 7, 2025
BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY FILED: August 20, 2025
Before this Court are the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (DOC) Laurel R. Harry’s (Secretary Harry) preliminary objections
(Preliminary Objections) to Luis Rodriguez’s (Petitioner) Petition for Review
(Petition). After review, this Court overrules Secretary Harry’s first Preliminary
Objection, sustains her second Preliminary Objection and dismisses the Petition.
On or about September 9, 2020, Lehigh County1 arrested Petitioner and
charged him with one count of Possession of Paraphernalia, and three counts of
Manufacture/Sale/Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance.2 See
Petition ¶ 4. The Pennsylvania Parole Board paroled Petitioner to an inpatient drug
1
The Petition does not specify whether it was the Lehigh Township Police Department,
the Allentown Police Department, or the Lehigh County Sheriff’s Office that arrested him.
2
Petitioner does not aver in the Petition on what date the Lehigh County Common Pleas
Court convicted him thereof or what sentence it imposed therefor.
rehabilitation program on January 26, 2021. See Petition ¶ 5. On April 26, 2021,
Petitioner left the inpatient program and did not return. See id. On November 9,
2022, Lehigh County rearrested Petitioner and charged him with one count of
Manufacture/Sale/ Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance and one
count of Carrying a Firearm Without a License. See id. Petitioner remained in
custody at the State Correctional Institution at Chester until October 30, 2023. See
Petition ¶ 6. While incarcerated, Petitioner wrote a letter to his “counselor” seeking
an updated copy of his sentence “status sheet.” Petition ¶ 7. The status sheet
indicated that DOC credited 355 days from November 9, 2022 to October 30, 2023,
to Petitioner’s case number CP0004548 CT1/2018. See id. DOC allegedly should
have credited the time from November 9, 2022 until October 30, 2023, to his
overlapping, concurrent sentences imposed for case numbers CP0002548 CT1/2020,
CP0002549 CT1/2020, CP0002547 CT1/2020, CP0004057 CT5/2022, and
CP0004057 CT1/2022 because he was continuously confined while these cases were
pending plea agreements and sentencing. See Petition ¶ 8.
On May 16, 2024, Petitioner filed the Petition in this Court’s original
jurisdiction seeking to have this Court direct DOC to properly recognize and
calculate his 355 days of total confinement time from November 9, 2022 to October
30, 2023, and apply that time to his sentences for case(s) CP0002548 CT1/2020,
CP0002549 CT1/2020, CP0002547 CT1/2020, CP0004057 CT5/2022, and
CP0004057 CT1/2022 according to the law. Also, on May 16, 2024, Petitioner filed
an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which this Court granted on May 29,
2024. On June 27, 2024, Secretary Harry filed the Preliminary Objections. On
2
September 11, 2024, Secretary Harry filed her brief in support of the Preliminary
Objections.3
Initially,
[i]n ruling on preliminary objections, [this Court] must
“accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the
petition for review,” as well as inferences reasonably
deduced therefrom. Garrison v. Dep’t of Corr., 16 A.3d
560, 563 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). Th[is] Court need not
accept as true conclusions of law, “unwarranted inferences
from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of
opinion.” Id. To sustain preliminary objections, “it must
appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery,
and any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain
them.” Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2010).
A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits
well-pleaded facts and inferences reasonably deduced
therefrom in order to test the legal sufficiency of a petition
for review. Id. A demurrer can “be sustained only in cases
where the pleader has clearly failed to state a claim for
which relief can be granted.” Id.
Robinson v. Pa. Parole Bd., 306 A.3d 969, 972 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023), aff’d, 328
A.3d 467 (Pa. 2024).
Secretary Harry first argues that Petitioner failed to plead the requisite
level of personal involvement against Secretary Harry because a theory of
respondeat superior is not sufficient under the law. Specifically, Secretary Harry
contends that personal involvement of defendants in an alleged constitutional
violation is a prerequisite under Section 1983 of the United States Code (Section
1983).
3
On November 19, 2024, this Court issued a dormant Order for Petitioner’s failure to file
a brief, giving Petitioner until December 3, 2024, to file his brief or risk the Court proceeding
without it. Petitioner did not file a brief.
3
Section 1983 provides, in relevant part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any [s]tate . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress[.]
42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, here, Petitioner does not mention Section 1983 in his
Petition against Secretary Harry, and a Section 1983 claim cannot be implied. See
Hill v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 271 A.3d 569, 573 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (emphasis omitted)
(quoting West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)) (“[T]o state a claim under [Section]
1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed
by a person acting under color of state law.”). Rather, Petitioner’s claim is akin to a
mandamus action, as he is asking this Court to compel DOC to recalculate his
maximum sentence release date to give him proper credit for all time he was
incarcerated.4 Accordingly, Secretary Harry’s first Preliminary Objection is
overruled.
4
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy “designed to compel
performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty where there
exists a clear legal right in the petitioner, a corresponding duty in the
respondent, and want of any other adequate and appropriate
remedy.” Toland v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 263 A.3d 1220, 1232
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (cleaned up). A petitioner may not use
mandamus “to compel a purely discretionary act.” Coady v.
Vaughn, . . . 770 A.2d 287, 290 ([Pa.] 2001). “[T]he purpose of
mandamus is not to establish legal rights, but to enforce rights
[that] are already established.” Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155, 159
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
Robinson, 306 A.3d at 972-73 (emphasis added).
4
Secretary Harry next asserts that Petitioner failed to state a claim for
which relief can be granted because Petitioner did not provide any support for his
conclusory statements that he is entitled to additional credit. Specifically, Secretary
Harry proclaims that when DOC calculates an inmate’s sentence, it must rely on the
sentencing court’s orders and commitment forms.
This Court has held:
[M]andamus is an appropriate remedy to correct an error
in DOC’s computation of maximum and minimum dates
of confinement where the sentencing order clearly gives
the inmate credit for the time period in question and
DOC’s computation does not comply with that credit.
However, mandamus is not available to challenge
DOC’s failure to give credit where the sentencing
order is either ambiguous or does not specify the credit
at issue.
Allen v. Dep’t of Corr., 103 A.3d 365, 370 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (emphasis added;
citation omitted).
Here, Petitioner alleged that the 355 days from November 9, 2022 until
October 30, 2023, should be credited to the overlapping, concurrent sentences
imposed for case numbers CP0002548 CT1/2020, CP0002549 CT1/2020,
CP0002547 CT1/2020, CP0004057 CT5/2022, and CP0004057 CT1/2022.
However, although Petitioner referenced specific docket numbers, Petitioner did not
make clear what credit he is currently receiving on which dockets, nor what
additional credit he is seeking. Further, Petitioner did not attach any corresponding
sentencing court orders to his Petition. Without sentencing orders indicating the
particular credit Petitioner claims should be awarded for each criminal docket
number, DOC does not have the authority to alter, adjust, or change time credit dates.
See Hoyt v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 79 A.3d 741, 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (“DOC must
follow the sentencing court’s order.”); see also Detar v. Beard, 898 A.2d 26, 30 (Pa.
5
Cmwlth. 2006) (“DOC is not an adjudicative body. Rather, it is an executive branch
agency charged with faithfully implementing the sentences imposed by the courts.”).
Because it is not clear in the Petition what credit, if any, should have
been applied to his concurrent sentences, Petitioner does not have a “clear legal right
to relief” warranting mandamus. Robinson, 306 A.3d at 973 (quoting Toland v. Pa.
Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 263 A.3d 1220, 1232 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, because Petitioner has “failed to state a claim for which relief can be
granted[,]” Robinson, 306 A.3d at 972 n.7 (quoting Torres, 997 A.2d at 1245),
Secretary Harry’s second Preliminary Objection must be sustained.
For all of the above reasons, Secretary Harry’s first Preliminary
Objection is overruled and her second Preliminary Objection is sustained.
Petitioner’s Petition is dismissed.
_________________________________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
6
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Luis Rodriguez, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
Laurel R. Harry, Secretary of the :
Pennsylvania Department of :
Corrections, : No. 277 M.D. 2024
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2025, the Secretary of the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Laurel R. Harry’s (Secretary Harry) first
preliminary objection to Luis Rodriguez’s Petition for Review (Petition) is
OVERRULED, Secretary Harry’s second preliminary objection is SUSTAINED,
and the Petition is DISMISSED.
_________________________________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge