The opinion
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Anthony S. Twitty, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
The Pa. Dep’t of Corr., : No. 532 M.D. 2022
Respondent : Submitted: August 8, 2025
BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: September 25, 2025
Before the Court are the Preliminary Objections to the Amended
Petition for Review (Preliminary Objections) filed by the Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections (DOC) to the Amended Petition for Review (Amended PFR) filed
pro se by Anthony S. Twitty (Twitty) in this Court’s original jurisdiction. DOC
contends that Twitty has failed to demonstrate a clear right to relief. For the reasons
that follow, we sustain the Preliminary Objections and dismiss the Amended PFR
with prejudice.
I. Background and Procedural Posture
On October 31, 2022, Twitty filed his original petition for review in
which he alleged that, while he was incarcerated at State Correctional Institution
Houtzdale (SCI-Houtzdale), a waterpipe burst, flooding his cell and damaging or
destroying his personal property, including his footlocker and its contents.1 See
Petition for Review filed October 31, 2022 (Original PFR) at 1. The Original PFR
alleged that DOC violated Twitty’s constitutional rights to adequate due process
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution,2 and
requested this Court to compel DOC to admit wrongdoing and stop violating
Twitty’s rights. See Original PFR at 1-2. The Original PFR also included seven
documents attached as exhibits as purported support for Twitty’s claims. See
Original PFR, Exhibits A-G.3
On January 11, 2023, DOC filed preliminary objections to the Original
PFR in the nature of demurrers, challenging the legal sufficiency of the Original PFR
on several grounds. See Preliminary Objections to the Petition for Review filed
January 11, 2023 (Original POs). First, the Original POs argued that the Original
PFR should be dismissed on due process grounds because a grievance process was
both available to and utilized by Twitty. See Original POs at 4-6. Next, the Original
POs argued that Twitty’s Takings Clause – Fifth Amendment argument should be
dismissed as inapplicable. See Original POs at 6-8. Third, the Original POs argued
1
The contents allegedly destroyed included Twitty’s legal documents, book, family
pictures, a gig bag, a surge protector, and a painting/canvas. See Petition for Review filed October
31, 2022 (Original PFR) at 1.
2
U.S. CONST. amends. V & XIV.
3
The documents attached to the Original PFR as exhibits included the following documents
related to Twitty’s use of the grievance process available at SCI-Houtzdale: Official Inmate
Grievance dated June 6, 2022 (Exhibit A); Initial Review Response dated July 1, 2022 (Exhibit
B); Inmate Appeal to Facility Manager dated July 17, 2022 (Exhibit C); Facility Manager’s Appeal
Response dated July 29, 2022 (Exhibit D); Inmate Appeal to Final Review dated August 12, 2022
(Exhibit E); Rejection Form dated June 9, 2022 (Exhibit F); Final Appeal Decision Dismissal dated
September 20, 2022 (Exhibit G).
2
that the Original PFR should be dismissed because DOC is not a “person” subject to
suit for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Original POs at 8-9.
In a decision filed December 6, 2023, this Court determined that Twitty
had an opportunity to be heard by utilizing the DOC grievance process, and therefore
sustained DOC’s due process preliminary objection. See Twitty v. The Pa. Dep’t of
Corr. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 532 M.D. 2022, filed December 6, 2023) (Twitty I), slip op.
at 3-5. The Court also sustained DOC’s Takings Clause preliminary objection after
determining that Twitty failed to plead facts explaining how the damage to Twitty’s
private property amounted to a violation of the Takings Clause. See id., slip op. at
5-6. Lastly, the Court sustained DOC’s preliminary objection that argued that DOC
is not a “person” subject to a Section 1983 claim. See id., slip op. at 6-7. The Court
ultimately dismissed the Original PFR without prejudice and granted Twitty 30 days
in which to file an amended petition for review. See id., slip op. at 7 & Order.
Twitty thereafter timely filed the Amended PFR.4 As in the Original
PFR, Twitty again alleges in the Amended PFR that on May 24, 2022, as a result of
faulty repair of a recurring problem, a waterpipe at SCI-Houtzdale burst, flooding
his cell and destroying his personal property. See Amended PFR at 1 (pagination
supplied).5 The Amended PFR also purportedly raises claims against three new
4
While the Amended PFR was received by the Court on January 9, 2024, the postmark on
the envelope indicates Twitty mailed the Amended PFR on January 5, 2024.
5
We observe that, generally, “[a]n amended complaint has the effect of eliminating the
prior complaint.” Hionis v. Concord Twp., 973 A.2d 1030, 1036 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Freeze
v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 470 A.2d 958, 960 n. 5 (Pa. 1983)). Thus, once an amended complaint
is filed, the original complaint is no longer operative or effective. See id. We note that the
Amended PFR, the operative pleading herein, does not specify, as did the Original PFR, the
personal property allegedly damaged or destroyed by the burst waterpipe and instead merely states:
“Wherefore, [Twitty] request [sic] that this Honorable Court to [sic] grant the following relief: ‘the
replacement value or identical item, new or used, except [sic] the footlocker and gig bag.’”
3
respondents in addition to DOC: Ms. Richards, a unit manager within SCI-
Houtzdale; Major Barrows, Major of Unit Management; and Maintenance Officer 1,
an unknown maintenance officer (collectively, Additional Respondents). See id. On
February 6, 2024, DOC filed Respondent’s Motion to Stay the Time for Answering
Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Review (Motion to Stay), in which DOC
explained that Twitty had not yet properly served the Additional Respondents. See
Motion to Stay at 3. On February 8, the Court entered an order directing Twitty to
serve the Amended PFR on the Additional Respondents, or the Additional
Respondents would be dismissed from the action. See Commonwealth Court Order
dated February 8, 2024. Twitty did not serve the Additional Respondents, and on
March 20, 2024, this Court entered an order dismissing the Additional Respondents.
See Commonwealth Court Order dated March 20, 2024 (March 20 Order). Twitty
sought reconsideration of the March 20 Order, which request this Court denied by
order dated April 18, 2024. See “Petition for Remand to the Court’s Order Dated
March 20, 2024” filed March 27, 2024; Application to Amend Certificate of Service
filed April 3, 2024; Commonwealth Court Order dated April 18, 2024. The Court
thereafter directed DOC to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Amended PFR.
See Commonwealth Court Order dated June 20, 2024.
On July 16, 2024, DOC filed the Preliminary Objections, raising a
demurrer based on Twitty’s failure to state a negligence claim against DOC and re-
raising the objection that DOC is not a “person” subject to suit for constitutional
violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preliminary Objections at 4-8. DOC asks
Amended PFR at 2. We further observe that the Amended PFR as filed does not include the seven
exhibits Twitty attached to the Original PFR. See id.
4
this Court to sustain the Preliminary Objections and dismiss the Amended PFR. See
Preliminary Objections at 9.
The Preliminary Objections are now before this Court for review.6
II. Discussion
Initially, we note that
[i]n ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as
true all well-pleaded material allegations in the petition for
review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced
therefrom. The Court need not accept as true conclusions
of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative
allegations, or expressions of opinion. In order 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.
A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits
every well-pleaded fact in the [petition for review] and all
inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. It tests the
legal sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be
sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed
to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When
ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to
the [petition for review].
Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
6
After DOC filed its brief, Twitty requested an extension of time in which to file his brief,
which the Court granted. See filing entitled “Petitioner Seeks (30) Day Exstension [sic] to Mitigate
Circumstances Outside of Petitioner’s Control” filed October 21, 2024; Commonwealth Court
Order dated October 29, 2024. On February 25, 2025, the Court entered an order directing Twitty
to file and serve copies of his brief on or before March 11, 2025, or the Court would proceed
without Twitty’s brief. See Commonwealth Court Order dated February 25, 2025. To date, Twitty
has not filed a brief.
5
A. Demurrer as to Twitty’s Negligence Claim Against DOC
DOC first argues that this Court should dismiss the Amended PFR
because, while the Amended PFR claims that the Additional Respondents were
individually negligent, the allegations of the Amended PFR fail to state a claim of
negligence as to DOC individually. See DOC’s Br. at 12-14.
“To state a negligence claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the
defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the
breach resulted in injury to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or
damage.” Young v. Wetzel, 260 A.3d 281, 289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (quoting Martin
v. Evans, 711 A.2d 458, 461 (Pa. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
DOC argues that Twitty’s broad claims of negligence are insufficient
to support claims for negligence against the Additional Respondents or DOC. See
DOC’s Br. at 12-14. DOC states that “[t]he crux of Twitty’s negligence claim lies
in his bald allegations that some unknown maintenance worker allowed alleged
inexperienced inmate laborers to repair a reoccurring problem.” Id. at 13. DOC
notes that Twitty levels no allegations of specific involvement or misconduct against
DOC in relation to waterpipe repairs, the burst waterpipe, or his damaged property.
See id. DOC argues that the Amended PFR fails to plead facts regarding any specific
duty owed by DOC or any failure to conform to such a duty. See id. DOC also
argues that the Amended PFR fails to include any specific allegations of misconduct
on DOC’s part. See id. DOC further argues that the Amended PFR fails to connect
the performance of an unknown maintenance worker, or the performance of
unknown laborers under the direction of the unknown maintenance worker, to
negligence on DOC’s part. See id. DOC argues that the Amended PFR fails to
explain details about the allegedly reoccurring problem, how Twitty knew of the
6
experience level of any inmate laborer purportedly assigned to repair such problem,
and/or how the unknown maintenance worker would have known of the alleged
inexperience of the inmate laborers under his/her control. See id. at 13-14. The
Amended PFR also fails, DOC alleges, to establish the role of DOC in the unknown
maintenance worker’s use of inmate laborers to perform the allegedly inadequate
repairs of the unspecified recurring problem. See id. at 14.
Even a cursory review of the Amended PFR reveals that DOC is correct
in its assessment as to the paucity of the averments contained therein. The Amended
PFR fails to make any specific allegations as to either DOC’s duty of care in relation
to Twitty or how DOC allegedly breached any such duty. The Amended PFR
likewise makes no allegations regarding DOC’s part in the allegedly insufficient
repair efforts of the unidentified recurring problem or as to the unknown
maintenance worker generally or the unknown maintenance worker’s use of
allegedly inexperienced inmate laborers to repair the unspecified recurring problem
specifically. In short, the Amended PFR fails to demonstrate an alleged duty of
DOC or a breach of such duty and therefore fails to state a claim for negligence
against DOC. We accordingly sustain the Preliminary Objections in this regard.
B. DOC Not a Person for Section 1983 Purposes
Next, DOC objects to the Amended PFR on the basis that Twitty’s
constitutional claims are improperly directed toward DOC, which is not a “person”
subject to suit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Section 1983).
See DOC’s Br. at 14-15.
Section 1983 provides, in pertinent part:
7
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, 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.
As this Court previously explained when addressing this particular
preliminary objection in Twitty I:
Under Section 1983, to state a prima facie claim, a
petitioner must allege a violation of a right secured by the
United States Constitution and the laws of the United
States and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a “person” acting under color of a state law.
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). A state or state
agency, however, is not a “person” under Section 1983.
Will v. Mich[.] Dep[’]t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 69-71
(1989). It is well settled that DOC is an administrative
agency of the Commonwealth and, consequently, is not a
“person” subject to suit under Section 1983. Watkins v.
Dep[’]t of Corr[.], 196 A.3d 272, 275 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018);
Warren v. Dep[’]t of Corr[.], 616 A.2d 140, 142 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1992); see Section 201 of the Administrative
Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, as amended,
71 P.S. § 61 (DOC is an “administrative department”).
Twitty I, slip op at 6-7. Thus, as in Twitty I, we sustain the Preliminary Objections
because Twitty cannot state a claim against DOC under Section 1983. Further,
because this is not a defect that can be corrected by further amendment, we dismiss
the Amended PFR with prejudice.
8
III. Conclusion
For the reasons above, we sustain the Preliminary Objections and
dismiss the Amended PFR with prejudice.
__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
9
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Anthony S. Twitty, :
Petitioner :
:
v. :
:
The Pa. Dep’t of Corr., : No. 532 M.D. 2022
Respondent :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2025, the Preliminary
Objections to the Amended Petition for Review filed by the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections to the Amended Petition for Review (Amended PFR)
filed by Anthony S. Twitty are SUSTAINED. The Amended PFR is DISMISSED
with prejudice.
__________________________________
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge