Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CLAUDE E. FAWBER ET AL. v. WALTER W. COHEN (09/10/85)

decided: September 10, 1985.

CLAUDE E. FAWBER ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v.
WALTER W. COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL., DEFENDANTS



Original jurisdiction in the case of Claude E. Fawber, Bonnie Gettys, Luther J. Knisely, Connie L. Moffitt, Ralph L. Moffitt, Beverly L. Stottlemyer, Rae Taylor, Rebecca Trego, and Shirley Washington v. Walter W. Cohen, individually, and as Secretary, Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania, Jack A. Avigliano, individually, and as Executive Director, Cumberland County Board of Assistance and Larry Reidell, individually, and as Employment Officer, Cumberland County Board of Assistance.

COUNSEL

Samuel W. Milkes, with him, Jane Muller-Peterson, for plaintiffs.

Ellis M. Saull, Deputy Attorney General, with him, Allen C. Warshaw, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for defendants.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, Craig, MacPhail, Barry, Colins and Palladino. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 560]

Plaintiffs invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against state and county officials of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) charged with the administration of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program. Plaintiffs contend that the Community Work Experience Program (CWEP) is being improperly administered in violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983). Before us are cross-motions for summary judgment.

Because the gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint are violations of Section 1983, we requested the parties to address the nature of this Court's jurisdiction at oral argument in light of our Supreme Court's recent decision, Balshy v. Rank, 507 Pa. 384, 490 A.2d 415 (1985). The Balshy Court held that "actions against the Commonwealth or its officers acting in their official capacity for money damages based on tort liability are outside the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court and are properly commenced in the

[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 561]

Courts of Common Pleas." Balshy v. Rank, 507 Pa. 384, 396, 490 A.2d 415, 420-21 (1985). The Supreme Court also concluded that actions brought pursuant to Section 1983 are actions in the nature of trespass which would be excepted from our original jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs' counsel skillfully argued that notwithstanding Balshy, jurisdiction over the instant action is in the Commonwealth Court because (1) the Balshy holding is limited to actions for money damages, whereas the Plaintiffs in the instant case seek declaratory or injunctive relief and (2) Balshy involved only an individual trespass action, whereas here we are presented with a class action.

DPW also argued that jurisdiction over this Section 1983 action should be in the Commonwealth Court, adding that an action for a declaratory judgment is the proper procedure to determine whether Plaintiffs' Section 1983 rights have been violated.*fn1

Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 761(a)(1)(v) provides that this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction of causes of action against the Commonwealth, including any officer acting in his official capacity, excepting "actions or proceedings in the nature of a trespass as to which the Commonwealth government formerly enjoyed sovereign or other immunity and actions or proceedings in the nature of assumpsit relating to such actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass."

In holding that the Commonwealth Court does not have original jurisdiction over Section 1983 actions, the Balshy Court reviewed the evolution of 42 Pa. C.S. § 761. The Supreme Court noted that in every instance where sovereign immunity from ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.