J.E. Nixon, Sr. v. Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James E. Nixon, Sr., :

Petitioner :

: v. : No. 706 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: September 29, 2017 Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: November 14, 2017

James E. Nixon, Sr., pro se, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, petitions for review of the April 12, 2016 Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that transferred his appeal filed under the Right-to- Know Law1 (RTKL) to the Appeals Officer for the Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts because OOR lacked jurisdiction to hear it. Upon review, we affirm.

On or about March 21, 2016, Nixon submitted a request to the “Right to Know Officer[,] Criminal Division” of the Office of Judicial Records (OJR) for Philadelphia County,2 seeking a variety of documents related to Nixon’s criminal case, entitled Commonwealth v. James E. Nixon, No. CP-51-CR-031114-98.3 Nixon apparently did not receive a response from OJR, so he filed an appeal with OOR, which was received on April 8, 2016.

On April 12, 2016, OOR issued its Final Determination transferring Nixon’s appeal to the Appeals Officer for the Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts. (Certified Record (C.R.) Item 2, Final Determination at 1-2.) In doing so, OOR stated that the Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts is a “judicial agency” under Section 503(b) of the RTKL and, thus, OOR does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal related to a request for records of a judicial agency. (Id. (citing 65 P.S. § 67.503(b)).) Instead, OOR continued, an appeal involving the denial of a records request from a judicial agency is to be heard by the appeals officer appointed by the relevant judicial agency. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, OOR transferred Nixon’s appeal to the Appeals Officer for the Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts. (Id.) Nixon appeals from OOR’s Final Determination.4

Although Nixon’s brief is hard to follow, he asks this Court to order the Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts to release the records of his criminal case to him so that he can prepare a post-conviction motion.

Nixon made his request to OJR, which is a “judicial agency” as that term is defined in Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102 (defining judicial agency as “[a] court of the Commonwealth or any entity or office of the unified judicial system”). See Faulk v. Phila. Clerk of Courts, 116 A.3d 1183, 1185-86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (holding that the Philadelphia Clerk of Courts is a judicial agency under the RTKL). When OJR did not provide a response to Nixon within five business days of its receipt of his written request, it was “deemed denied.” Section 901 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.901. In order to appeal that denial, Nixon had to appeal to the Appeals Officer designated by OJR, and not to OOR. 65 P.S. § 67.503(a), (b);5 Section 1101(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1101(a);6 see Faulk, 116 A.3d at 1185 (stating that “appeals of disputes involving a judicial agency are appealed to an appeals officer so designated by that judicial agency”). Thus, OOR correctly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Nixon’s appeal. 65 P.S. § 67.503(a), (b); Frazier v. Phila. Cnty. Office of Prothonotary, 58 A.3d 858, 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Although, at that point, OOR could have dismissed Nixon’s appeal for want of jurisdiction, it instead transferred his appeal to the Appeals Officer for the Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts. Cf. Faulk, 116 A.3d at 1186 (concluding that “OOR did not violate Requester’s due process rights by neglecting to transfer his appeal to another appeals officer”).7

Moreover, even if OOR had jurisdiction, none of the records Nixon requested are subject to disclosure under the RTKL. The RTKL limits the disclosure of a judicial agency’s records to “financial records,”8 and all of Nixon’s requests relate to records from his criminal case. Sections 102 and 304 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §§ 67.102, 67.304;9 see Faulk, 116 A.3d at 1188 (holding that a sentencing order is not a financial record under the RTKL); Frazier, 58 A.3d at 860 (concluding that an autopsy report is not a financial record under the RTKL). However, we note, “[t]he RTKL is not the sole mechanism for obtaining records from judicial agencies.” Faulk, 116 A.3d at 1187; see Pa. R. Crim. P. 113(A) (stating that upon request, the clerk of the court shall provide copies of a criminal case file at a reasonable cost). “[T]he courts are always open under our Constitution, and court records remain accessible to members of the public outside the RTKL.”10 Faulk, 116 A.3d at 1187. Thus, Nixon “may seek access to court records outside the constraints RTKL’s statutory scheme imposes on access to records of a judicial agency.” Id. at 1188.11

Accordingly, we affirm.

_____________________________________ RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

James E. Nixon, Sr., :

Petitioner :

: v. : No. 706 C.D. 2016 :

Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts, :

Respondent :

ORDER

NOW, November 14, 2017, the April 12, 2016 Final Determination of the Office of Open Records, entered in the above-captioned matter, is hereby AFFIRMED.

_____________________________________ RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge