J-S41033-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
RICKY TEJADA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
CAPTAIN PAINTER, LT. GAFF, AND
HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATOR
DREIBELBIS,
Appellees No. 2148 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered November 26, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Civil Division at No.: 2014-00958
BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED JUNE 17, 2015
Appellant, Ricky Tejada, appeals pro se from the order dismissing his
complaint. He raises issues that are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth Court. Therefore, we transfer to that Court.
On July 28, 2014, Appellant initiated this civil rights action against
Appellees, employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. He
alleged a violation of his constitutional rights based on excessive and
unnecessary force and inhumane conditions of confinement, specifically,
placing him in an intermediate restraint system for twenty-four hours.
Appellees responded by filing preliminary objections in the nature of a
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41033-15
demurrer. On November 26, 2014, the trial court sustained the objections
and dismissed the complaint. Appellant timely appealed.
It is well-settled that this Court may “raise[] the question of subject
matter jurisdiction sua sponte . . . .” Commonwealth v. Danysh, 833
A.2d 151, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 751(a),
752(a).
Civil rights claims against prison officials are properly heard in the
Commonwealth Court. See Danysh, supra; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(1)(i).
Here, Appellant has appealed the dismissal of his civil rights action
brought against three employees of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections. (See Appellant’s Brief, at 5). Accordingly, the Commonwealth
Court has jurisdiction and we transfer this matter to that Court. See
Danysh, supra.
Appeal transferred to the Commonwealth Court.1
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/17/2015
____________________________________________
1
Appellant’s Motion to Reinstate Appeal filed March 25, 2015 is dismissed as
moot. Appellees’ Application for Relief filed April 10, 2015 is dismissed as
moot.
-2-