Court Opinion

ID: 9925392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 17:09:07.308359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:20.786545
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Tresa Walker, LaTorya Davis           :
and Travis Stambaugh,                 :
                 Petitioners          :
            v.                        :       No. 300 M.D. 2022
                                      :       Submitted: October 10, 2023
Mifflin County District Attorneys     :
Office; Mayors Office for Borough :
of (Lewistown); Office of Attorney :
Generals; Mifflin County &            :
Pennsylvania State Officials in their :
official capacities,                  :
                     Respondents      :

BEFORE:       HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
              HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
              HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                             FILED: January 19, 2024

              Before this Court are the preliminary objections of the Mifflin County
District Attorney’s Office (District Attorney’s Office), Mayor’s Office for Borough
of Lewistown (Mayor’s Office), and Mifflin County (County) (together,
“Respondents”) to Tresa Walker, LaTorya Davis, and Travis Stambaugh’s
(Petitioners) petition for review filed in this Court’s original jurisdiction. For the
reasons that follow, we overrule in part and sustain in part Respondents’ preliminary
objections.
              The petition for review, titled “petition for writ in mandamus and/or
extraordinary relief,” alleges that Respondents failed to investigate, prosecute, or
take actions in response to a series of criminal assaults allegedly committed on
Walker and Davis by Dwayne T. Jones. The petition further alleges that Petitioners
reported Respondents’ alleged misconduct to the Office of Attorney General for
investigation, which took no action.               The petition asks this Court to compel
Respondents to initiate a criminal proceeding against Jones, and grant unspecified
damages and costs. The petition also asks this Court to compel the Office of
Attorney General to initiate “an official internal investigation upon all factual
allegations of said police/prosecutorial misconduct pursuant to [34] USC []
12601(b).”1 Petition for Review at 30.
                 In response, Respondents filed preliminary objections.2 The District
Attorney’s Office and the County’s preliminary objections challenge the petition on
the following grounds. First, they argue that Stambaugh lacks standing to sue
because the petition does not allege that he was personally aggrieved by Jones’
alleged criminal conduct or Respondents’ actions. Second, they argue that the
petition fails to conform to law because Stambaugh, who is not an attorney, signed
the petition on behalf of Walker and Davis. Third, they assert that the County has

1
    34 U.S.C. §12601 states:

          (a) Unlawful conduct
          It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any
          person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or
          practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any
          governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice
          or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or
          immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
          (b) Civil action by Attorney General
          Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of
          paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United
          States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to
          eliminate the pattern or practice.

2
    The Office of Attorney General has not filed preliminary objections or an answer in this matter.

                                                   2
governmental immunity under Section 8541 of what is commonly known as the
Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act),3 and the District Attorney’s
Office is protected by official immunity under Section 8545 of the Tort Claims Act4
as well as quasi-judicial immunity. Finally, they argue that any allegations related
to damages should be stricken from the petition due to insufficient specificity.
               The Mayor’s Office also filed preliminary objections, which likewise
seek to dismiss the petition based on the foregoing grounds.5
               Initially,

               [i]n ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as true all
               well-pleaded material allegations in the petition for review, as
               well as all inferences reasonably deduced therefrom. The Court
               need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted
               inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions
               of opinion. In order to sustain preliminary objections, it must
               appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, and
               any doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain them.

Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (internal citation
omitted). Further, “courts reviewing preliminary objections may not only consider

3
 42 Pa. C.S. §8541. It states, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this subchapter, no local agency
shall be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act
of the local agency or an employee thereof or any other person.”
4
  42 Pa. C.S. §8545. It states, “[a]n employee of a local agency is liable for civil damages on
account of any injury to a person or property caused by acts of the employee which are within the
scope of his office or duties only to the same extent as his employing local agency and subject to
the limitations imposed by this subchapter.”
5
 The Mayor’s Office also sought to dismiss the petition for improper service. By order dated
September 28, 2022, the Court asked Petitioners to serve the petition, with all exhibits attached,
on Respondents in person or by certified mail as required by PA. R.A.P. 1514(c) and file with the
Court a certificate of service within 14 days. Petitioners did so on October 7, 2022.

                                                3
the facts pled in the [petition for review], but also any documents or exhibits attached
to it.” Allen v. Department of Corrections, 103 A.3d 365, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
             With these principles in mind, we consider Respondents’ preliminary
objections seriatim.
                           I.      Stambaugh’s Standing to Sue
             First, Respondents’ preliminary objections challenge Stambaugh’s
standing to sue because the petition for review does not allege that Stambaugh was
aggrieved by Respondents’ actions. The petition alleges that Jones committed a
series of criminal assaults on Davis and Walker, and Respondents took no actions in
response. As to Stambaugh, the petiton alleges that he filed a private criminal
complaint on behalf of Walker with the District Attorney’s Office. After the District
Attorney’s Office refused to take action, Stambaugh wrote letters to various
governmental entities including the Attorney General’s Office and the Mayor’s
Office, to which he received no response.
             “[A] person who is not adversely impacted by the matter he seeks to
challenge does not have standing to proceed with the court system’s dispute
resolution process.” Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, 888 A.2d
655, 659 (Pa. 2005). “[T]he requirement of standing arises from the principle that
judicial intervention is appropriate only when the underlying controversy is real and
concrete,” and “a controversy is worthy of judicial review only if the individual
initiating the legal action has been ‘aggrieved.’” Id. (citations omitted).
             On November 15, 2022, almost three months after being served on the
preliminary objections by the Mayor’s Office, Petitioners submitted an amended
petition for review alleging that Stambaugh is an aggrieved party and has a personal
interest in this matter.        Specifically, the amended petition alleges that Jones

                                             4
committed criminal assault on Stambaugh by pointing a gun at him, but Respondents
wrongfully prosecuted Stambaugh based on fabricated evidence. Pennsylvania Rule
of Appellate Procedure 1516(b) provides that “[e]very pleading filed after an
original jurisdiction petition for review shall be filed within 30 days after service of
the preceding pleading[.]” PA. R.A.P. 1516(b). Here, Petitioners filed the amended
petition for review beyond the 30-day time frame without this Court’s permission or
consent of Respondents; as such, we cannot consider Petitioners’ amended petition
as part of the pleadings.
             Because the petition for review does not allege that Stambaugh was
aggrieved by Respondents’ actions, we sustain Respondents’ preliminary objections
and dismiss Stambaugh from this matter for his lack of standing to sue.
                    II. Stambaugh’s Authority to Bring Action
             The District Attorney’s Office and the County’s preliminary objections
also seek to dismiss the petition in its entirety because Stambaugh, who is not an
attorney, signed the petition on behalf of Walker and Davis. The petition does not
allege that Stambaugh has a power of attorney to act on behalf of either Petitioner.
A person who does not have authority to bring an action lacks the capacity to sue.
In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248-49 (Pa. 2011).
             While Stambaugh signed the petition on behalf of Walker and Davis,
the record indicates that Walker and Davis each filed a letter on July 29, 2022, and
August 4, 2022, in which they indicated their intention to represent themselves as
pro se and verified that all of the facts and information enclosed in the petition were
true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Respondents did not object to the
filing of these two letters. Because Walker and Davis have indicated that they
represent themselves in this matter, we overrule the District Attorney’s Office and

                                           5
the County’s preliminary objections challenging Stambaugh’s authority to bring this
action.
                                  III. Immunity
            Respondents’ preliminary objections further assert that Petitioners are
not allowed to recover damages against them because such a claim is barred by
governmental immunity and official immunity under Sections 8541 and 8545,
respectively, of the Tort Claims Act as well as quasi-judicial immunity.
            However, the petition for review seeks mandamus relief, and “[a]ctions
in mandamus are not subject to the defense of sovereign immunity.” Banfield v.
Cortes, 922 A.2d 36, 43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citation omitted). This court has stated
that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar suits that seek to compel an
agency or officer to perform a ministerial or mandatory statutory duty. Id. (citing
Milestone Materials, Inc. v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
730 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), and City of Philadelphia v. Shapp, 403 A.2d
1043 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979)). Further, as a general matter, a successful plaintiff in a
mandamus action is entitled to damages. Under Section 8303 of the Judicial Code,
a defendant in a mandamus action “who is adjudged . . . to have failed or refused
without lawful justification to perform a duty required by law shall be liable in
damages to the person aggrieved by such failure or refusal.” 42 Pa. C.S. §8303. See
also Maurice A. Nernberg & Associations v. Coyne, 920 A.2d 967, 970 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2007).
            Accordingly, we overrule Respondents’ preliminary objections
asserting governmental immunity, official immunity, and quasi-judicial immunity.

                                         6
                        IV. Lack of Specificity on Damages

             Finally, Respondents argue that allegations on damages should be
stricken from the petition due to insufficient specificity. Petitioners did not plead
facts to identify what damages were sustained that were caused by the alleged
misconduct of any of the Respondents.

             A party must plead the material facts on which a cause of action is
based. PA. R.CIV.P. 1019(a). Averments of time, place, and items of special damage
shall be stated specifically. PA. R.CIV.P. 1019(f). Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1028(c)(3) authorizes Respondents to object to the petition for review on
the basis that it was insufficiently specific. PA. R.CIV.P. 1028(c)(3). “The purpose
of a preliminary objection raising specificity is to ensure that an adverse party’s
ability to answer and defend will not be unduly impaired by a pleader’s vagueness
in stating the grounds of his suit.” Stilp v. Commonwealth, 910 A.2d 775, 786 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2006). “Thus, the purpose is to require the pleader to disclose the material
facts sufficient to enable the adverse party to prepare his or her case.” Id.

             The petition alleges that Jones committed a series of criminal assaults
on Davis and Walker, and Respondents took no actions despite Davis and Walker’s
reports of these crimes. The petition asks that this Court compel Respondents to
perform their official duties by initiating a criminal proceeding against Jones, and
grant damages and costs. Because the petition does not specify what damages or
costs Petitioners sustained from Respondents’ alleged actions, we sustain
Respondents’ preliminary objections challenging the claim for damages and costs as
insufficiently specific and strike those claims from the petititon.

                                           7
                                     Conclusion

             For the foregoing reasons, we sustain in part and overrule in part
Respondents’ preliminary objections to the petition for review. Specifically, we
sustain the District Attorney’s Office and the County’s preliminary objection
challenging Stambaugh’s standing to sue and dismiss Stambaugh from this matter
as a petitioner. We overrule the District Attorney’s Office and the County’s
preliminary objection challenging Stambaugh’s authority to bring this action
because Walker and Davis have indicated to this Court that they represent
themselves in this matter. We overrule the District Attorney’s Office and the
County’s preliminary objection raising immunity because Petitioners are seeking
mandamus relief. We sustain the District Attorney’s Office and the County’s
preliminary objection raising a lack of specificity in the pleading and strike the claim
for damages and costs from the petition for review.

             Likewise, we sustain the Mayor’s Office’s preliminary objections as to
Stambaugh’s standing to sue.        We sustain the Mayor’s Office’s preliminary
objection raising a specificity challenge to Petitioners’ claim for damages and costs.
We overrule the Mayor’s Office’s preliminary objection asserting immunity.

                            _________________________________________________________
                            MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

                                           8
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Tresa Walker, LaTorya Davis           :
and Travis Stambaugh,                 :
                 Petitioners          :
            v.                        :        No. 300 M.D. 2022
                                      :
Mifflin County District Attorneys     :
Office; Mayors Office for Borough :
of (Lewistown); Office of Attorney :
Generals; Mifflin County &            :
Pennsylvania State Officials in their :
official capacities,                  :
                     Respondents      :

                                     ORDER

             AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2024, the preliminary objections
raised by the Mifflin County District Attorney’s Office, Mayor’s Office for Borough
of Lewistown, and Mifflin County are SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in
part in accordance with the foregoing opinion.          The Mifflin County District
Attorney’s Office, Mayor’s Office for Borough of Lewistown, and Mifflin County
are directed to file an answer to the Petition for Review within thirty (30) days of the
date of this Order.
                            _________________________________________________________
                            MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita