IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mary Konieczny, Anthony J. :

Golembiewski, Christopher W. :

Humphrey, and Therese :

Thompson Miles, :

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., District : No. 941 C.D. 2020

Attorney of Allegheny County : Argued: May 16, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: June 7, 2022

Mary Konieczny, Anthony J. Golembiewski, Christopher W. 

Humphrey, and Therese Thompson Miles (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the 

order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) dated October 

16, 2019 (Order), that granted the preliminary objections filed by Stephen A. 

Zappala, Jr. (Appellee) to Appellants’ complaint in mandamus and dismissed the 

action with prejudice. Upon review, we reverse the Order and remand the matter for 

further proceedings.
2

The Superior Court outlined the underlying facts and procedural 

posture of this matter1 as follows:

On April 9, 2019, members of the Pittsburgh City 

Council passed, and Mayor William Peduto signed, 

firearm and firearm accessory ordinances outlawing 

certain firearms and firearms accessories within the city 

limits of Pittsburgh [(the Firearms Ordinances)]. On April 

12, 2019, Appellants presented to Appellee’s office 

private criminal complaint forms [(the Private Criminal 

Complaints)] against Mayor Peduto and various members 

of Pittsburgh City Council. Appellants contend that the 

act of passing new firearm legislation constitutes official 

oppression pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301.[2] It is alleged 

that Appellee refused to accept the [P]rivate [C]riminal 

[C]omplaints or take further action. However, Appellants 

have conceded that at the time they presented the [P]rivate 

[C]riminal [C]omplaints to Appellee, they were handed 

copies of a press release regarding Appellee’s position that 

he would not review anything connected with any alleged 

1 Appellants originally filed this appeal in the Superior Court, which then transferred the 

matter to this Court. See Konieczny v. Zappala (Pa. Super., No. 1762 WDA 2019, filed Aug. 19, 

2020).

2 Section 5301 of the Criminal Code defines the crime of official oppression as follows:

A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking 

advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a 

misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is 

illegal, he:

(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, 

mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other 

infringement of personal or property rights; or

(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment 

of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

18 Pa.C.S. § 5301.
3

violations of the [Firearms O]rdinances that the Mayor and 

the City Council had passed. 

On August 15, 2019, Appellants filed the instant 

“complaint in mandamus seeking review of the denial of 

the private criminal complaint under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 and 

request for writ of mandamus under Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1093[]” 

[(Mandamus Complaint)]. Specifically, Appellants 

asserted that Appellee was required to accept their private 

criminal complaints against Mayor Peduto and Pittsburgh 

Council as stated in Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. Appellants sought 

mandamus relief pursuant to Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1093, noting 

that the rule provides the right of a Pennsylvania citizen to 

file a writ of mandamus against a government official who 

has refused to act in accordance with the legal 

responsibilities of his position or office.

On September 9, 2019, Appellee filed preliminary 

objections to the [Mandamus Complaint] and a supporting 

brief. On October 16, 2019, Appellants filed a brief in 

opposition to Appellee’s preliminary objections. Also on 

October 16, 2019, the trial court entered an order that 

granted Appellee’s preliminary objections and dismissed 

the [Mandamus Complaint] with prejudice. This timely 

appeal followed.

Konieczny v. Zappala (Pa. Super., No. 1762 WDA 2019, filed Aug. 19, 2020), slip 

op. at 1-3 (internal record citations, brackets, and some quotation marks omitted).

On appeal,3 Appellants claim the trial court abused its discretion and 

erred as a matter of law by denying the Mandamus Complaint. See Appellants’ Br.

at 7, 12-21. Specifically, Appellants argue that Appellee’s failure to accept the 

completed private criminal complaint forms and to provide a written reason for this 

3

In reviewing a trial court’s decision dismissing a mandamus complaint on preliminary 

objections, this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error 

of law or an abuse of discretion. Dotterer v. Sch. Dist. of Allentown, 92 A.3d 875, 880 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2014).
4

failure contravened his duty under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506

(Rule 506). See id. Appellants further allege that they had standing to bring the 

underlying claims contained in the Private Criminal Complaints, which they argue 

were ripe for consideration. See id. Appellee counters that trial court properly 

dismissed the Mandamus Complaint because the Firearms Ordinances upon which 

the Private Criminal Complaints were based never became law. See Appellee’s Br. 

at 2, 8-17. Therefore, Appellee argues that the Private Criminal Complaints alleged 

no crimes and Appellants suffered no injury that would confer standing to bring the 

charges contained in the Private Criminal Complaints. See id. at 8-17. Additionally, 

Appellee argues that Appellants have waived their arguments by failing to appeal as 

required to obtain review of denied private criminal complaints. See id. at 17-20.

Initially, we note that “[m]andamus is an extraordinary writ which will 

only issue to compel performance of a ministerial act or mandatory duty where there 

exists a clear legal right in the plaintiff, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and 

want of any other adequate and appropriate remedy.” Dotterer v. Sch. Dist. of 

Allentown, 92 A.3d 875, 880 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“If any one of the foregoing elements is absent, mandamus does not lie.” Id. at 881. 

However, while a court in a mandamus proceeding may not compel a public official 

to exercise discretionary power in a specific manner that the court would deem wise 

or desirable, “a writ of mandamus can be used to compel a public official 

to exercise discretion where the official has a mandatory duty to perform a 

discretionary act and has refused to exercise discretion.” Seeton v. Adams, 50 A.3d 

268, 274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

Rule 506 allows private citizens to request the initiation of criminal 

proceedings against others by submitting a private criminal complaint for review by 
5

an attorney of the Commonwealth – a district attorney or the Attorney General. See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. Regarding the submission and approval of private criminal 

complaints, Rule 506 provides as follows:

(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the 

complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the 

Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it 

without unreasonable delay.

(B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth:

(1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall 

indicate this decision on the complaint form and 

transmit it to the issuing authority;

(2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall 

state the reasons on the complaint form and return 

it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition 

the court of common pleas for review of the 

decision.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. Additionally, where the allegations contained in a private 

criminal complaint are supported by factual averments, “[t]he district attorney must 

investigate the allegations of the complaint to permit a proper decision whether to 

approve or disapprove the complaint.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1213 (Pa. 

Super. 2010). Thus, under Rule 506, upon the receipt of a private criminal complaint

submitted by a citizen that contains factual averments, the attorney for the 

Commonwealth is obligated to review, investigate,

4

and either approve or deny the 

complaint, and, when denying a complaint, write the reasons for the denial on the 

4

“Such investigation is not necessary where the allegations of criminal conduct in the 

complaint are unsupported by factual averments.” Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1213 (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Muroski, 506 A.2d 1312, 1317 (Pa. Super. 1986) (en banc)) (brackets omitted).
6

private criminal complaint form before returning the complaint form to the 

complainant. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. Following a denial of a private criminal 

complaint by an attorney for the Commonwealth, the complainant may then appeal 

to a court of common pleas, which reviews the denial according to the following 

principles:

Where the district attorney’s denial is based on a legal 

evaluation of the evidence, the trial court undertakes a de 

novo review of the matter. Where the district attorney’s 

disapproval is based on policy considerations, the trial 

court accords deference to the decision and will not 

interfere with it in the absence of bad faith, fraud or 

unconstitutionality. In the event the district attorney offers 

a hybrid of legal and policy reasons for disapproval, 

deference to the district attorney’s decision, rather than de 

novo review, is the appropriate standard to be employed. 

On appeal, this court is limited to determining whether the 

trial court abused its discretion.

In re Priv. Complaint of Owens Against Coker, 810 A.2d 172, 175-76 (Pa. Super. 

2002) (quoting In re: Priv. Complaint of Adams, 764 A.2d 577, 579 (Pa. Super.

2000)) (internal citations and footnote omitted).

In the instant matter, Appellee was required under Rule 506 to review 

the Private Criminal Complaints and either approve and forward them to the issuing 

authority (a Magisterial District Judge), or deny them, stating the reasons for the 

denials in writing on the Private Criminal Complaints. Appellee failed to comply 

with these obligations. Instead, without conducting a review of or investigation into 

the allegations contained in the Private Criminal Complaints, Appellee’s office

simply provided Appellants with a previously drafted press release setting forth 

Appellee’s position that he would not be “reviewing anything connected with any 
7

alleged violations of the illegal [Firearms] Ordinances that the Mayor and the City 

has passed.” See Appellee’s Br. at 4.5 This express refusal to even review any claims 

related to the passage of the Firearms Ordinances violated Appellee’s duty under

Rule 506, which requires district attorneys to review, investigate, and rule on 

submitted private criminal complaints. Appellants therefore properly requested a 

writ of mandamus to require Appellee to perform his duty to review, investigate, and 

accept or deny their properly submitted Rule 506 Private Criminal Complaints. 

Accordingly, the denial of the Mandamus Complaint represents error on the part of 

the trial court.

Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellee’s argument that the 

press release provided to Appellants at the time they submitted the Private Criminal 

Complaints constitutes a written denial of the complaints in compliance with Rule 

506. See Appellee’s Br. at 17-20. First, we note that the press release was not a 

statement of denial reasons written on each complaint form and returned to the 

affiant, as required by Rule 506(B)(2). Even accepting that a writing other than one 

placed on an actual private criminal complaint itself can suffice to fulfill the 

requirements of Rule 506,6 we note that the Rule 506 obligations to review and 

investigate private criminal complaints remain and were not followed in this matter. 

5 Neither the trial court record nor the reproduced record contains a copy of this press 

release.

6 Where reviewing courts have accepted denials of private criminal complaints contained 

in writings other than the private criminal complaint itself, the denials were still specifically 

tailored to the private criminal complaint in response to which those writings were drafted. See In 

re Priv. Criminal Complaints of Rafferty, 969 A.2d 578 (Pa. Super. 2009) (complainant supplied 

with letter specifically denying the private criminal complaint with an explanation of the denial); 

In re Brown (Pa. Super., No. 1997 MDA 2014, filed Aug. 21, 2015) (disapproval returned to 

complainant after review on form other than private criminal complaint contained the same 

information that would have been provided had it come in the form prescribed by Rule 506(B)(2)).
8

In lieu of reviewing and investigating the allegations contained in the Private 

Criminal Complaints, Appellee’s office simply handed Appellants a pre-written 

press release offering a blanket statement that Appellee did not intend to address any 

complaints dealing with violation of the Firearms Ordinances. Not only could this 

previously written press release not have been drafted in consideration of the 

allegations contained in the Private Criminal Complaints, it was effectively an 

abdication of Appellee’s Rule 506 duties to review, investigate, and rule on all 

private criminal complaints properly submitted by citizens of the Commonwealth 

that concerned the Firearms Ordinances, without consideration of the factual 

allegations or legal arguments contained therein. We find this protocol for 

addressing private criminal complaints to be insufficient for an attorney of the 

Commonwealth to fulfill his Rule 506 obligations. 

Further, although facially related to the Firearms Ordinances, we note 

that the Private Criminal Complaints did not actually concern alleged violations of 

those Ordinances, but instead alleged instances of official oppression in violation of 

18 Pa.C.S. § 5301 in connection with the enactment of the Ordinances. Thus, the 

Private Criminal Complaints did not actually concern complaints “connected with 

any alleged violation of the illegal [Firearms] Ordinances that the Mayor and the 

City had passed[,]” and the press release therefore was inapplicable to the allegations 

of contained therein.

Appellee’s argument that Appellants were not entitled to mandamus 

because they failed to petition for review pursuant to Rule 506(B)(2) based on the 

rationale set forth in the press release is likewise unconvincing. See Appellee’s Br. 

at 17-20. The press release did not set forth any rationale for Appellee’s refusal to 

review the Private Criminal Complaints. Instead, the press release merely stated that 
9

no review would be conducted. Review of a denial of a private criminal complaint 

depends on the given reason for the denial. See Coker, 810 A.2d at 175-76. 

Appellants cannot be faulted for failing to seek review of a reason that was not 

provided. Indeed, without a statement of the reasons for Appellee’s denial of the 

Private Criminal Complaints, the trial court had nothing to review.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Order and remand this matter 

to the trial court to further remand to Appellee with directions that Appellee comply 

with Rule 506 by reviewing and either accepting the Private Criminal Complaints or 

denying the same with written reasons for such denials provided thereon.

7

 See 

Seeton.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

7 We pass no judgment at this time on any of the standing or ripeness issues addressed by 

the parties and the trial court, as those questions are not before us. Further, we acknowledge that 

review of the Private Criminal Complaints on remand may result in the same outcome as before, 

possibly for the reasons already stated by Appellee in his preliminary objections to the Mandamus 

Complaint. We observe, however, that while the result of observing the requirements of Rule 506 

on remand may be a foregone conclusion, as the attorney for the Commonwealth to whom such 

private criminal complaints must be presented in Allegheny County, Appellee is mandated by Rule 

506 to conduct this exercise.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mary Konieczny, Anthony J. :

Golembiewski, Christopher W. :

Humphrey, and Therese :

Thompson Miles, :

Appellants :

:

v. :

:

Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., District : No. 941 C.D. 2020

Attorney of Allegheny County :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7

th day of June, 2022, the October 16, 2019 order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) is REVERSED. The 

matter is REMANDED to the trial court to further remand the matter to the office of 

the District Attorney of Allegheny County to review, consider, and approve or 

disapprove the previously filed private criminal complaints without unreasonable 

delay.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge