Scott, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EARNEST SCOTT, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.
PENNSYLVANIA 	DEPARTMENT 	OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00335
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is a Motion to cease legal mail being sent via Smart Communications
filed by Plaintiff Earnest Scott, Jr. (“Scott”). (Doc. 72). For the following reasons, the Court
will deny the motion .
I. 	B ACKGROUND AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY
Scott, who is an inmate currently housed at the State Correctional Institution Forest
(“SCI-Forest”) in Marievnille, Pennsylvania, initiated this action by filing a Complaint, which
was received and docketed by the Court on February 27, 2024. (Doc. 1). Scott was granted in
forma pauperis status. (Doc. 13). The operative complaint in this matter is the Second
Amended Complaint. (Doc. 33). The parties are currently in the midst of discovery. (Doc.
71). On February 3, 2026, the Court received and docketed Scott’s Motion. (Doc. 71). Scott
alleges that the delay created by the use of Smart Communications is contrary to the Court’s
case management order and that sending discovery documents, with include medical and
mental health records, through Smart Communications is a violation of federal law. (Doc.
11). Scott has not filed a brief in support of his motion. However, the Court is aware of the
Case 3:24-cv-00335-KM-EW Document 73 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
delay caused by the use of Smart Communications and will address his Motoin in full in light
of his potential frustrations.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. DEPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS P OLICY
In September 2018, the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) changed its mail policy
regarding, among other things, how incoming privileged and nonprivileged mail was handled.
Woodell v. Pa.D.O.C. Secretary of Corrections, No. 18-4430, 2020 WL 2841380 at*10 (E.D. Pa.
June 1, 2020). According to the DOC press releases, the changes were implemented to curb
entry of illicit drugs into state prisons through the use of drug-soaked inmate mail. See Woodell,
2020 WL 2841380 at*10. Under the new policy, nonprivileged prisoner mail was to be sent
to the DOC’s contracted processor, Smart Communications, in St. Petersburg, Florida, who
would scan the nonprivileged correspondence and provide an electronic copy that would be
printed and delivered to the prisoners at their respective facilities. See Travillion v. Pennsylvania
Dep’t of Corrections, No. 1:18-CV-02075, 2023 WL 6796538 at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2023)
(describing 2018 DC-ADM 803 mail policy). This Court has previously summarized the 2018
policy concerning privileged correspondent:
As for “privileged correspondence,” the following system was implemented:
(1) incoming privileged mail would be opened and inspected for contraband in
the inmate’s presence; (2) the incoming privileged correspondence would then
be photocopied in the inmate’s presence and a photocopy of the legal mail
would be provided to the inmate; (3) prison officials would log the privileged
correspondence in the “Legal Mail Log,” which the inmate had to sign to
receive the mail; (4) the original incoming privileged correspondence would
then be placed into a sealed envelope inside a lockbox, ultimately to be
“securely and confidentially destroyed.”
Travillion, 2023 WL 6796538 at *2.
Case 3:24-cv-00335-KM-EW Document 73 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
The constitutionality of this policy was challenged in federal court, and the DOC
agreed that, beginning on April 6, 2019, the copying and retention of inmates’ privileged
correspondence would end. See Pa. Institutional L. Project v. Wetzel, No. 18-cv-2100, Doc. 1
(M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2018). Currently privileged mail may be sent directly to the inmate at the
institution where he is housed. See Commw. of Pa., Dep't of Corr., Policy Statement DC-ADM
803: Inmate Mail & Incoming Publications, §§ 1(D)(3) (Aug. 10, 2020). Incoming privileged
mail includes, inter alia, mail from a court as well as “[m]ail from an inmate’s attorney that is
either hand-delivered to the facility by the attorney or delivered through the mail system.”
DC-ADM 803: Inmate Mail & Incoming Publications Procedures Manual Glossary of
Terms.
The use of Smart Communications for nonprivileged correspondence, however,
remains unchanged of the DOC’s current mail system. See DC-ADM 803: Inmate Mail &
Incoming Publications, §§ 1(A)(3), 1(C)(1)-(5). DC-ADM 803 provides that “[a]ll incoming,
non-privileged inmate correspondence must be addressed and sent to the Department’s
contracted 	central 	incoming 	inmate 	mail 	processing 	center,” 	which 	is 	the 	Smart
Communications center located in St. Petersburg, Florida. This Court has consistently held
that mail addressed to a plaintiff inmate from a defendant’s attorney is nonprivileged. See e.g.
Dewald v. French, No. 1:22-CV-00317-JPW-EW, Doc. 86 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2023); Spotz v.
Wetzel, No. 1:21-CV-01799, 2022 WL 743874 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2022).
B. SCOTT ’S M OTION
Here, Scott is requesting that the Court enter an order directing the DOC to treat
nonprivileged mail from Defendant’s attorney as privileged mail and asserts that failure to do
Case 3:24-cv-00335-KM-EW Document 73 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
so through discovery will violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(“HIPPA”) if medical records are forwarded through Smart Communications. (Doc. 72).
First, the Third Circuit has upheld a finding that the DOC’s use of a third-party mail
system does not violate HIPPA. Twitty v. Barns, No. 22-2801, 2023 WL 3409066 at *2 n.6 (3d
Cir. May 12, 2023). Furthermore, DC-ADM 803 requires incoming correspondence to be
securely maintained for forty-five days and then securely destroyed unless otherwise directed
by the DOC. DC-ADM 803 § 1(C)(4). Additionally, the Court notes that pursuant to DC-
ADM 003, Scott can view his medical records directly from the DOC by submitting a form
DC-135A. See DC-ADM 003. Therefore, Defendants may not be required to send Scott’s
medical records through Smart Communications.
Based on current DOC policy and the Third Circuit’s conclusion that the use of Smart
Communications does not violate HIPPA, the Court will deny Scott’s motion.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Scott’s Motion to cease legal mail being sent to Plaintiff via
Smart Communications (Doc. 72) will be denied.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated: February 5, 2026 	s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-00335-KM-EW Document 73 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 4