IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sherman Coleman,
Appellant
v.
Jeffrey A. Beard and
Brian V. Coleman
BEFORE:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 110 C.D. 2011
Submitted: July 22, 2011
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge
HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE SIMPSON
FILED: September 19, 2011
Appellant Sherman Coleman (Plaintiff), a state prison inmate, appeals
an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) that (1)
denied Coleman’s petition to amend the caption of his complaint to include the
Department of Corrections (DOC) and (2) sustained the preliminary objections of
Jeffrey A. Beard, former DOC Secretary, and Brian V. Coleman, Superintendent of
the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Fayette, (collectively, Defendants).
Plaintiff, representing himself, contends the trial court erred in denying him
permission to amend his complaint to include DOC after the applicable limitations
period expired. In light of our Supreme Court’s decision in Piehl v. City of
Philadelphia, 604 Pa. 658, 987 A.2d 146 (2009), we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
In May 2008, while an inmate at SCI-Fayette, Plaintiff sustained
injuries while eating lunch in a dining room. The table at which Plaintiff sat
became detached from the floor, causing him to fall and strike his head, resulting
in various personal injuries.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Defendants
Beard and Coleman.
In response, Defendants, represented by the Office of
Attorney General, filed preliminary objections.
In addition, Plaintiff filed a
petition to amend the caption to include DOC as a defendant.
Through preliminary objections, Defendant Beard asserted that as
DOC Secretary at the time of the incident, he is protected from Plaintiff’s suit by
qualified official immunity. Defendant Coleman asserted that as Superintendent of
SCI-Fayette at the time of the incident, he is protected from Plaintiff’s suit by
sovereign immunity. The trial court agreed, sustained their objections and struck
them from the complaint.
The trial court also denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the caption. It
noted that an amendment which results in the addition of a new party after the
statute of limitations expires is prohibited. Tork-Hiis v. Commonwealth, 558 Pa.
170, 735 A.2d 1256 (1999). The trial court found DOC was a separate and distinct
party from either Defendant Beard or Defendant Coleman. Therefore, the trial
court denied Plaintiff’s request to amend his caption to include DOC as a
defendant after the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s injury claim expired. See
Hall v. Acme Markets, Inc., 532 A.2d 894 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (a party may be
allowed to correct the name of a party where the right person was sued but under a
2
wrong designation, but not where the wrong person was sued and the amendment
seeks to substitute another distinct party).
Plaintiff appealed, citing Piehl and Hall. Pursuant to these cases,
Plaintiff asserts his failure to name DOC in the caption is a curable technical
defect. Although the statute of limitations on his injury claim expired, Plaintiff
asserts he refers to DOC as a defendant throughout the complaint and DOC has
been involved in the matter since Plaintiff filed suit. Thus, Plaintiff urges the trial
court erred in denying his petition to amend. Piehl.
Further, the Attorney General concedes that Plaintiff is correct.
Plaintiff’s complaint names DOC and discusses it as it were a named defendant in
the caption. Therefore, the Attorney General asserts, Plaintiff is entitled to amend
his complaint. Id.
After reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, we agree with both parties.
Plaintiff’s complaint discusses DOC as if it were a defendant in this matter. See,
e.g., Compl. at ¶19 (DOC personnel were aware of defective table floor studs and
should have replaced them earlier). Referring to DOC as a defendant in the body
of his complaint renders Plaintiff’s failure to name DOC in the caption a curable
technical defect even after the statute of limitations expired. Piehl.
In addition, Plaintiff’s complaint named Defendant Beard, Secretary
of DOC at the time of the incident. See Compl. at ¶2. Naming DOC’s Secretary in
3
the complaint warranted a conclusion that DOC was involved in the litigation since
the filing of the complaint. Hall.
For the above reasons, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
4
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sherman Coleman,
Appellant
v.
Jeffrey A. Beard and
Brian V. Coleman
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 110 C.D. 2011
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2011, the order of the Court
of Common Pleas of Fayette County is REVERSED and the case is
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.
Jurisdiction is relinquished.
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
