Legal Opinion

Cunningham v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 12, 2010No. 234 M.D. 2009PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

Judge SIMPSON.

Before this Court in its original jurisdiction is a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer filed by the Depart ment of Corrections (DOC), to a petition for review in the nature of a complaint in mandamus (complaint) filed by unrepresented inmate Rashad Cunningham. Relying on DOC Policy DC-ADM 003 (relating to the release of inmate information), Cunningham, representing himself, seeks to have DOC provide, from its own records, his pre-sentence investigation report. Because we agree with DOC that Cunningham’s complaint is legally insufficient to state a cause…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lawrence v. Pennsylvania Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Portalatin v. Department of CorrectionsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McGinley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. A. Brown v. J. WetzelCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. W.E. Webster III v. Lehigh County Adult Probation and ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API