A. Saunders v. M. Munch

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Antonio Saunders, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

Michael Munch, Karen Mengel, :

John Morganelli, James Augustine, :

John Capobianco, Nick Englesson, :

Nuria DiLuzio, Edward Andres, :

Michael Light, Leigh Ann Fisher, :

Jamie Adams, BB&T Bank, : No. 102 C.D. 2023

Joshua Shapiro, and Jennifer Sletvold : Submitted: July 5, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM FILED: September 6, 2024

Antonio Saunders (Inmate), an inmate at the State Correctional

Institution at Dallas, filed a civil complaint (complaint),1 pro se, in the Court of

Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court) against various law enforcement

and judicial personnel who had been involved in his criminal prosecution. The trial

court sustained the various defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissed the

complaint. Inmate filed an appeal with the Superior Court, which transferred the

appeal to this Court. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing

Inmate’s complaint.

1

Inmate filed four versions of his complaint, the last of which was titled Amended

Complaint. That fourth and final version is the subject of this appeal and is cited as the complaint

herein.

I. Background

In January 2019, Inmate, a New York resident, applied for a $30,000

loan from Truist Bank, incorrectly identified as “BB&T Bank,” formerly known as

Branch Banking and Trust Company (Bank) in Easton, Pennsylvania, using another

person’s identity. Appellees’ Joint Reproduced Record (JRR) at 25a-26a & 496a.2

When Inmate appeared at Bank in connection with the pending loan transaction, he

was arrested. Id. at 25a. He was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of identity

theft, forgery, and theft by unlawful taking. Id. at 496a. According to Inmate, a

proceeding seeking relief from that conviction is pending under the Post Conviction

Relief Act (PCRA).3 Br. for Appellant at 10 (stating “Post Conviction Relief Act

Pending”).

Inmate filed the complaint in the trial court alleging various instances

of wrongful conduct relating to his arrest, prosecution, and conviction. JRR at 22a-

62a. He named as defendants, “in their individual and official capacities,” Michael

Munch, a detective with the Colonial Regional Police Department in Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania (Det. Munch); Karen Mengel, Court Reporter for the trial court (Ct.

Rep. Mengel); the Honorable John Morganelli, District Attorney (now Judge) of

Northampton County (DA Morganelli); James Augustine, an Assistant District

Attorney of Northampton County (ADA Augustine); Hon. John Capobianco, a

Magisterial District Judge with chambers in Nazareth, Pennsylvania (MDJ

Capobianco); the Honorable Nicholas Englesson, a Magisterial District Judge with

2

Appellees submitted what would normally be a supplemental reproduced record, but,

presumably because Appellant was not required to file a reproduced record, Appellees have

designated their filing as a reproduced record and numbers its pages as such. We cite Appellees’

joint filing using their page designations.

3

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

2

chambers in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (MDJ Englesson); Nuria DiLuzio, Chief

Public Defender of Northampton County (CPD DiLuzio); Edward Andres, an

Assistant Public Defender of Northampton County (APD Andres); Michael Light,

an Assistant Public Defender of Northampton County (APD Light); Clerk of Court

Leigh Ann Fisher (Clerk Fisher); Jamie Adams, Bank’s Branch Manager at 3704

Nazareth Highway, Easton (Branch Mgr. Adams); Bank; Joshua Shapiro, Attorney

General (now Governor) of Pennsylvania (AG Shapiro); and the Honorable Jennifer

Sletvold, a Judge in the trial court (Judge Sletvold). Id. at 22a-24a.

The complaint alleged, in a rambling fashion, violations of various

constitutional rights of Inmate by various Appellees, asserting that various Appellees

were guilty of

“[d]iscriminatively [sic] prosecuting [Inmate]; trespassing

under the disguise of the color of state law criminal

prosecution and [Appellees’] violating [Inmate’s]

constitutional rights of [a]rt.1, ss [sic] sec. 1, 8 and 26 of

the Pa. [C]onst. [(Pa. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 8 , and 26)], U.S.

[C]onst. 4th, 8th and 14th Amendments [(U.S. Const.

amends. IV, VIII, XIV)] and the [sic] Pa.R.Crim.P. 540,

573, 541 and 581(I); subjecting [Inmate] to illegal

restraint’s [sic], false arrest, illegal confiscation of

[Inmate’s] real person and real personal property by was

[sic] of the premise that [Appellees] have the authority to

do so when [a]rticle V of the Pennsylvania [C]onstitution

is repealed in it’s [sic] entirety and those provisions of

schedules No. 1 and No. 2 are repealed to the extent they

are inconsistent with this Article; [t]hereby no saving

clause schedule applicable to criminal prosecution and

after [Bank, Br. Mgr. Adams, and Det. Munch] acted in

concert to arrest [Inmate] on false charges, slandered,

libeled and defamed [Inmate] as described in 42 Pa.C.S.

[§] 8343; on or about January 28, 2019; without any

independent reasonable suspicion of probable cause, and

trespassing, false arrest, intruding, illegally searching and

seizure of [Inmate] on false charges and affidavit of

probable cause; thereby accusing [Inmate] of a crime that

3

he did not commit and initiation [sic] the charges in which

the named [Appellees] acted in concert, in collusion in a

nefarious scheme to over take [sic] [Inmate’s] person and

personal property and then under the premise to

[d]iscriminatively [sic] prosecute [Inmate] on charges

without having no [sic] basis in authority; while acting

under color of law, 42 U.S.C. ss [sic] 1983.

JRR at 24a-25a. The specific acts on which Inmate based his civil complaint

included a statement in the criminal case’s affidavit of probable cause that Inmate

had applied for the loan in person at Bank, although testimony later established that

the application was initially made by telephone; an alleged review of evidence at the

police station without signing a form to maintain the chain of custody; imposition of

“a $100,000.00 cash ransom bail”; alleged improper advice to Inmate to waive his

preliminary hearing; failure to release Inmate despite no finding of probable cause

at a preliminary hearing; alleged defense representation of Inmate without his

permission; alleged inadequate legal representation of Inmate; and alleged deletion

of a portion of a transcript that Inmate insists contained a ruling the judge in his

criminal case later stated had not been made. JRR at 25a-54a.

Inmate alleged as his “[i]njuries”

[f]alse [a]rrest, illegal detention, illegal restraints of

liberty, cruelty, cruel and unusual punishment; deprived of

equal protection of law, deprived [sic] due process of law,

libel, slander, defamation, [a]rbitrary and capricious

treatment, [d]iscriminatively [sic] prosecution, bias,

prejudice [sic] treatment, racism, threats, harassment,

shock, wanton disregard towards rights, conniving, frauds,

fraud on the court, prosecuted [sic] without any basis of

authority, misuse of process, abuse of process, abuse of

jurisdiction, assault’s [sic], deception, trickery,

misrepresentation, false impersonation, theft, mail theft,

mail fraud, false pretenses, theft by unlawful taking,

deliberate indifference, 42 U.S.C. ss [sic] 1983, set up,

illegal commitment’s [sic], false pretense, illegal

representations, false representations without notice nor

4

[sic] consent, inviolation [sic] of court order, framed [sic],

lien on property, levy on natural person and property,

heartache, headaches, pain, drugged [sic], [COVID]-19,

shackles and chains, fabricated [a]ffidavit; stress, false

information, full restraint’s [sic], kidnapped [sic],

captured [sic] corporation, robbery of property, civil

right’s [sic] and liberty, mental anguish, trespass,

conflict’s [sic], intrusions, loss of works [sic], business,

depress [sic], false charges, intrusions and other injuries.

JRR at 55a. Inmate sought a declaration that his criminal conviction was void; he

also demanded money damages totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Id. at 57a-

62a.

The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the

complaint in an order without an opinion. JRR at 493a. After Inmate filed his notice

of appeal, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), directing Inmate to

file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal (1925 statement). Id. at

494a. Inmate filed a 1925 statement 10 pages long, listing, again in rambling

fashion, 19 alleged errors by the trial court. JRR at 495a & 499a-508a. The trial

court thereafter filed its opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules

of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). The trial court opined that Inmate had

waived all issues on appeal by filing a 1925 statement “so prolix and abstruse that if

there [was] any issue buried therein, it [was] so well hidden that [the trial court could

not] find it.” JRR at 495a. The trial court opined further that, to the extent it could

discern the bases of Inmate’s assertions of error, they were baseless, as “[e]ven the

most cursory review of [the complaint] discloses that it fails to set forth any cause

of action against any defendant. . . ,” in that Inmate’s subsequent convictions

absolved the Bank and Bank Mgr. Adams of any liability for pre-arrest statements

5

made to police, and all the other defendants were immune from Inmate’s claims. Id.

at 496a-97a.

II. Discussion

A. Preservation of Issues

As a threshold matter, we acknowledge the trial court’s opinion that

Inmate has failed to preserve any issues for appeal because of his defective statement

of errors on appeal. We agree with the trial court’s assessment.

Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure

requires a trial court, upon receipt of a notice of appeal from its decision, to provide

a written opinion explaining the reasons for its decision. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Rule

1925(b)(4) provides, in pertinent part:

(b) Direction to file statement of errors complained of on

appeal; instructions to the appellant and the trial court.—

If the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of

appeal (“judge”) desires clarification of the errors

complained of on appeal, the judge may enter an order

directing the appellant to file of record in the trial court

and serve on the judge a concise statement of the errors

complained of on appeal (“[1925(b)] Statement”).

....

(4) Requirements; waiver.

(i) The [1925(b)] Statement shall set forth

only those errors that the appellant intends to

assert.

(ii) The [1925(b)] Statement shall concisely

identify each error that the appellant intends

to assert with sufficient detail to identify the

issue to be raised for the judge . . . .

....

6

(iv) The [1925(b)] Statement should not be

redundant or provide lengthy explanations as

to any error. Where non-redundant, non-

frivolous issues are set forth in an

appropriately concise manner, the number of

errors raised will not alone be grounds for

finding waiver.

(v) Each error identified in the [1925(b)]

Statement will be deemed to include every

subsidiary issue that was raised in the trial

court . . . .

Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4). Because the appellant’s statement of errors is necessary to

allow the trial court to address those errors and, in turn, to allow meaningful review

by the appellate court, a defective statement of errors will result in waiver of the

appellant’s issues; “a [statement of errors] which is too vague to allow the court to

identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no [statement of

errors] at all.” Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-87 (Pa. Super. 2001).4

Here, the trial court posited that Inmate’s statement of errors was so

vague and rambling as to impede the trial court’s ability to address the alleged errors

in a meaningful fashion.5 See JRR 495a-96a. This Court’s review of the statement

4

Although not binding on this Court, opinions of the Superior Court offer persuasive

authority where they address analogous issues. Lerch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 180

A.3d 545, 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

5

The length and rambling nature of Appellant’s statement of errors is also problematic. In

Eiser v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 938 A.2d 417 (Pa. 2007), a plurality of our Supreme

Court opined that the number of issues in a 1925(b) statement should not, standing alone, result in

waiver. Id. at 427 n.16. The current Rule 1925(b)(4)(iv) reflects that principle. See Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(iv). However, a 1925(b) statement must not be “so lengthy that it does not meet the

goal of narrowing down the issues previously raised to the few that are likely to be presented to

the appellate court without giving the trial judge volumes to plow through.” Commonwealth v.

Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2-3 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Jones v. Jones, 878 A.2d 86, 89-90 (Pa. Super.

2005) (7-page statement listing 29 issues in narrative form showed lack of good faith effort to

comply with Rule 1925(b); “such ‘voluminous’ statements do not identify the issues that [the

7

of errors confirms that it is difficult to determine with any degree of certainty the

true nature of the errors being asserted. See id. at 499a-508a. The trial court opined

in understandable frustration that Inmate had failed to preserve any issues for appeal.

Id. at 495a-96a. Nonetheless, to the extent that it was able to glean from Inmate’s

statement the errors he was asserting, the trial court addressed them to the best of its

ability.

We, likewise, will address the errors asserted in Inmate’s brief, to the

extent that we are able to provide meaningful review. Inmate’s brief lists 11 alleged

errors by the trial court.6 We will address each.7

B. Statements by Bank Appellees and Det. Munch

In his first assertion of error, Inmate contends that the trial court abused

its discretion by sustaining the preliminary objections of Bank and Branch Mgr.

Adams (Bank Appellees) and Det. Munch, all of whom Inmate accuses of having

falsely stated that Inmate forged a loan application. The apparent basis for Inmate’s

argument is the statement by Det. Munch, in his affidavit of probable cause, that

Inmate had signed a loan application with a false name, when actually, according to

a]ppellant actually intends to raise on appeal . . . ”). Here, Appellant’s 10-page statement of 19

perceived errors forced the trial court to wade through an unreasonable amount of content in its

attempt to discern what errors Appellant was asserting.

6

To the extent Inmate claims that his statement of errors or brief raises claims beyond

those identified by the trial court, they are waived. See Dowling; Eiser.

7

To the extent that this Court’s analysis differs in any respect from that of the trial court,

we note that we may affirm on any basis that is supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Rensel,

315 A.3d 248 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024) (citing Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 965 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa.

2009)). We also note, as a general observation on Inmate’s claims, that to the extent he is

attempting to assert any allegation of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or other violation of his

federal constitutional rights, any such claim is barred because he was convicted and that conviction

has not been reversed, expunged, or invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

8

the subsequent testimony of Branch Mgr. Adams, Inmate’s initial loan application

was made by telephone. Inmate’s assertion of error is without merit.

1. Bank Appellees’ Preliminary Objection

Inmate asserted a claim for defamation against Bank Appellees,

alleging that they falsely stated he had forged a loan application, in that Bank Mgr.

Adams later stated that the application was initially made by telephone. 8 Bank

Appellees filed preliminary objections raising the statute of limitations, privilege,

and the coordinate jurisdiction rule.

A claim for defamation is subject to a one-year statute of limitations.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5523(1). Bank Appellees point out that Inmate did not file his first

complaint until more than one year after the alleged defamation and did not first

allege defamation until his final complaint filed three years after his arrest. Although

the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense normally raised in new matter, a

court may address it on preliminary objections where its applicability is clear on the

face of the complaint and the plaintiff does not file a preliminary objection to the

preliminary objection asserting the statute of limitations. See Laskaris v. Hice, 247

A.3d 87, 89 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (quoting Petsinger v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus.,

Off. of Vocational Rehab., 988 A.2d 748, 758 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)). Here, the

complaint alleges that Inmate was arrested on January 28, 2019, based on false

information from Bank Appellees. JRR at 24a-25a. The trial court’s docket

indicates that Inmate’s first complaint was filed on February 24, 2020, more than a

year later. Id. at 5a. Thus, the application of the statute of limitations was clear on

the face of the complaint. Moreover, Inmate has not asserted on appeal that Bank

8

Appellant does not explain whether or why applying for a loan in another person’s name

by telephone would make him any less culpable than applying in person.

9

Appellees should not have raised the statute of limitations by preliminary objection.

We agree with Bank Appellees that Inmate’s defamation claim was barred by the

statute of limitations and was properly dismissed. Accordingly, we need not reach

Bank Appellees’ additional preliminary objections relating to privilege and the

coordinate jurisdiction rule.9

2. Det. Munch’s Preliminary Objection

Inmate further asserts that the trial court wrongly dismissed his claim

against Det. Munch, who Inmate insists falsified an affidavit of probable cause by

stating that Inmate had signed another person’s name on a loan application. Inmate

insists he never signed an application and points to testimony by Branch Mgr. Adams

that Inmate made the loan application by telephone. However, Inmate does not

explain how this alleged discrepancy supposedly harmed him.

An alleged misstatement in an affidavit of probable cause is material

only if the statement is essential to the warrant, not if it merely strengthens the

warrant application. See Commonwealth v. Cameron, 664 A.2d 1364, 1367 (Pa.

Super. 1995). If the affidavit sets forth sufficient facts to support a probable cause

finding without the misstatement, the misstatement is immaterial. See Commonwealth

v. Yucknevage, 390 A.2d 225, 227 (Pa. Super. 1978).

Noticeably absent from Inmate’s complaint and brief is any assertion

that he did not seek a loan in the name of another person whose identity he had

stolen; rather, his averments relate solely to the absence of his signature on the loan

application. Likewise absent from the complaint is any averment by Inmate that he

9

We note, however, that the discrepancy between using a false name in a signed loan

application and doing so in an application made by telephone is equally immaterial to Appellant’s

defamation claim as it is to the probable cause affidavit discussed in the next section.

10

could not have been arrested and convicted for seeking a loan by identity theft

through a loan process initiated in a telephone application. In short, Inmate focuses

on an alleged misstatement in the affidavit of probable cause but does not explain

whether or how it was actually material to his arrest and conviction. Therefore, we

conclude that the trial court did not err in sustaining the preliminary objection of

Det. Munch relating to the affidavit of probable cause.

C. Effectiveness of Defense Counsel

In his second assertion of error, Inmate argues that the trial court abused

its discretion by dismissing his claim against APD Andres, who Inmate insists acted

negligently in advising Inmate to waive a preliminary hearing and in failing to

advocate for a dismissal of the criminal charges because there had allegedly been a

finding of no probable cause at a preliminary hearing.10 This argument, too, is

meritless. The law is clear that any averment relating to ineffective assistance of

counsel may be pursued only in a proceeding in the original sentencing court under

the PCRA. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(ii) (providing for post-conviction relief

where the defendant was convicted because of ineffective assistance of counsel); 42

Pa.C.S. § 9542 (stating that the PCRA provides “the sole means of obtaining

collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for

the same purpose that exist . . .”). Inmate’s claim against APD Andres could not be

asserted in a separate civil action. Therefore, it was properly dismissed.

10

We note the logical inconsistency between Inmate’s averment that he waived a

preliminary hearing and the averment that there was a finding of no probable cause made at a

preliminary hearing.

11

D. Failure to Dismiss by Magisterial District Judges

In his third assertion of error, Inmate argues that the trial court abused

its discretion by dismissing Inmate’s claims against MDJ Englesson and MDJ

Capobianco (MDJ Appellees). Inmate insists the MDJ Appellees acted without

jurisdiction and committed abuse of process by ordering Inmate’s detention, in that

Inmate had been arrested without a warrant or probable cause. In addition, in his

eleventh assertion of error, Inmate contends that MDJ Englesson issued process

without probable cause. Inmate’s assertions of error by the trial court are without

merit.

We agree with the trial court that MDJ Appellees are entitled to

absolute judicial immunity. See Brooks v. Ewing Cole, Inc., 259 A.3d 359, 367 (Pa.

2021) (quoting Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394, 405 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (stating

that “judicial immunity is not only immunity from damages, but also immunity from

suit” and declining to reach other issues, as judicial immunity was dispositive));

Wright v. Doyle (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 405 M.D. 2019, filed Mar. 7, 2023),11 slip op. at

4-5 (addressing issue of judicial immunity first because it barred not only liability,

but the suit itself, and declining to reach other preliminary objections where judicial

immunity was dispositive of the case). In Wright, this Court explained judicial

immunity as follows:

Judges are immune from liability for damages when

performing judicial acts, even if they err or perform an act

with malice, provided they do not lack jurisdiction.

Chasan [v. Platt, 244 A.3d 73,] 81 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2020)].

Thus, “[j]udicial immunity requires a two-part analysis:

first, whether the judge has performed a judicial act; and

second, whether the judge has some jurisdiction over the

11

This unreported decision is cited as persuasive authority pursuant to Section 414(a) of

this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).

12

subject matter before [him].” Id. (citing Langella v.

Cercone, . . . 34 A.3d 835, 838 (Pa. Super. 2011) . . .).

The first part of the judicial immunity analysis is whether

the [j]udge[] performed a judicial act. When evaluating

whether an act is a judicial one, we consider “the nature of

the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally

performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the

parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his

judicial capacity.” Petition of Dwyer, . . . 406 A.2d 1355,

1361 ([Pa. ]1979) (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S.

349, 362 . . . (1978)).

....

The second part of the judicial immunity analysis is

whether the [j]udge[] had subject matter jurisdiction. The

Judicial Code[12] sets forth the subject matter jurisdiction

of the courts of common pleas. The Judicial Code states:

“Except where exclusive original jurisdiction of an action

or proceeding is by statute or by general rule adopted

pursuant to section 503 (relating to reassignment of

matters) vested in another court of this Commonwealth,

the courts of common pleas shall have unlimited original

jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings.” 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 931(a) . . . .

Id., slip op. at 4-5 (footnote omitted). Further, judicial immunity extends to

magisterial district judges as well as other judges. Heicklen v. Hoffman, 761 A.2d

207, 209 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).

Inmate attempts to avoid the effect of immunity by asserting that MDJ

Appellees acted without jurisdiction. We disagree. They clearly had subject matter

jurisdiction over Inmate’s criminal arraignment and preliminary hearing. See 42

Pa.C.S. § 1515(a)(4) (providing that magisterial district judges have subject matter

“to preside at arraignments, [to] fix and accept bail, . . . and to issue warrants and

12

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 101-9913.

13

perform duties of a similar nature, including the jurisdiction of a committing

magistrate in all criminal proceedings”).

Inmate complains about the MDJ Appellees’ rulings, conduct, and

handling of his criminal case. However, all of the alleged conduct was performed

within the scope of their judicial duties and, thus, within the scope of their subject

matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the MDJ Appellees are entitled to absolute

immunity, and the trial court properly dismissed the claims levied against them.

E. Consent to Defense Representation

In his fourth assertion of error, Inmate argues that the trial court erred

in dismissing his claim against APD Light. Inmate avers that APD Light represented

him “fraudulently” by appearing at a bail reduction hearing on Inmate’s behalf

without Inmate’s prior knowledge or consent after CPD DiLuzio had obtained court

approval to withdraw from the case. Inmate’s entire argument on this issue is a

single paragraph containing a bare averment with no explanation or citation of

authority. Therefore, it is waived for failure to develop it in Inmate’s brief. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2119; Blue Pilot Energy, LLC v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 241 A.3d 1254,

1271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (quoting In re Condemnation ex rel. Dep’t of Transp., 76

A.3d 101, 106 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (stating that “[a] party’s failure to develop an

issue in the argument section of its brief constitutes waiver of the issue”)).

Moreover, assuming that Inmate is suggesting that APD Light acted

improperly at the hearing, such a suggestion amounts to an allegation of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Such a claim cannot be brought outside of a PCRA

proceeding, as explained in Section C above. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9542 &

9543(a)(2)(ii).

14

For these reasons, the trial court did not err in dismissing Inmate’s claim

against APD Light.

F. Alleged Theft of Mail

In his fifth assertion of error, Inmate argues that the trial court erred in

dismissing Inmate’s claim that Clerk Fisher committed federal mail theft and mail

fraud by removing from the mailbox of the Northampton County Jail some mail that

Inmate had directed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. Inmate further argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his claim

against Judge Sletvold, in that she allegedly acted outside her jurisdiction by

directing Clerk Fisher to steal Inmate’s mail and by ruling on matters directed to a

federal court. We discern no error in the trial court’s dismissal of these claims.

A plaintiff may not file a private complaint for violation of a federal

statute unless that statute creates a private cause of action. See Winton v. Pa. Dep’t

of Corr., 263 A.3d 1240, 1244 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (explaining that an inmate was

prohibited from bringing a claim for violation of a federal statute that did not provide

a private right of action) (additional citation omitted). Here, there are no private

causes of action for alleged violations of federal laws regarding mail theft and mail

fraud. See Addlespurger v. Corbett, 461 Fed. App’x 82, 87 (3d Cir. 2012) (stating

that “there is no private cause of action for a violation of the federal mail and wire

fraud statutes . . .”); Ball v. Sisley, Civil No. 1:11-CV-877, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

71056, *2 (M.D. Pa. May 22, 2012) (stating that “[t]he criminal offenses of theft and

obstruction of mail do not . . . provide for a private right of action for the violation

of these penal statutes”) (first citing Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823

F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1987); and then citing Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal

15

Serv., 648 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1981)). Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing

Inmate’s claim against Clerk Fisher and Judge Sletvold relating to alleged mail theft

and fraud.

G. Prosecutorial Conduct of ADA Augustine and DA Morganelli

In his sixth, seventh, and eights assertions of error, Inmate maintains

that the trial court erred in dismissing his claims against ADA Augustine and DA

Morganelli, both of whom, according to Inmate, committed improper acts. All of

these assertions of error are meritless, and we address them together.

As Inmate implicitly acknowledges, a prosecutor is entitled to absolute

immunity for any action taken in his official capacity. See Durham v. McElynn, 772

A.2d 68, 70 (Pa. 2001). As our Supreme Court explained in Durham,

[t]he public interest requires that district attorneys be able

to carry out their duties without being hampered by civil

suits claiming damages for actions taken in their official

capacities. The public would indeed suffer if the

prosecution of criminals were impeded, as would be the

case if district attorneys were not accorded absolute

immunity.

Id.

Inmate posits that ADA Augustine acted outside his position and acted

as a police investigator by examining evidence and, while doing so, failing to sign

the proper form to preserve the chain of custody. We disagree. A district attorney’s

duties and responsibilities include investigating as well as prosecuting crimes. See,

e.g., Hoffman v. Borough of Macungie, 63 A.3d 461, 472 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)

(observing that the “broad discretion vested in [a district attorney’s] office to

investigate and prosecute crimes on behalf of the Commonwealth is indisputable”)

(emphasis added). Because ADA Augustine was performing his duty by

16

investigating the criminal charges against Inmate, he enjoyed absolute immunity

from suit relating to his conduct in doing so.

The other acts Inmate alleges by ADA Augustine and DA Morganelli,

such as improper treatment of evidence and acting without probable cause, even if

purportedly improper, related to the prosecution of Inmate’s criminal charges and,

therefore, fell squarely within the scope of their official duties. Accordingly, ADA

Augustine and DA Morganelli enjoyed absolute immunity, and the trial court did not

err in dismissing Inmate’s claims against them.

H. Transcript Claims

In his ninth assertion of error, Inmate argues that the trial court erred in

dismissing his claim that Judge Sletvold and Ct. Rep. Mengel acted together to alter

the transcript of Inmate’s pretrial hearing. He insists that Judge Sletvold denied his

suppression motion at the hearing but later stated that she had not ruled on it.

According to Inmate, the ruling was omitted from the pretrial hearing transcript. We

find no error in the trial court’s dismissal of this claim.

Regarding the claim against Judge Sletvold, she is entitled to absolute

judicial immunity for the reasons stated in Section D above. See Brooks, 259 A.3d

at 367; Guarrasi, 25 A.3d at 405 n.11. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed

Inmate’s claim against Judge Sletvold.

Regarding the claim against Ct. Rep. Mengel, although this Court was

unable to locate any Pennsylvania state court decision on point, we find persuasive

the federal decisions ruling that a court reporter, as a judicial employee, is entitled

to qualified quasi-judicial immunity. For example, in Murrell v. Consiglio, 841 Fed.

App’x 357, 360 (3d Cir. 2021), the court distinguished Antoine v. Byers & Anderson,

17

Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 434-37 (1993), in which the United States Supreme Court held

that a court reporter was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity; the Third Circuit

held in Murrell that, notwithstanding the Antoine holding, court reporters are still

entitled to qualified immunity. Murrell, 841 Fed. App’x at 360. The rationale for

immunizing court reporters is concern “that disappointed litigants, blocked by the

doctrine of absolute immunity from suing the judge directly, will vent their wrath on

clerks, court reporters, and other judicial adjuncts.” Stout v. Naus, Civil No. 4:CV-

09-0380, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53063, *9 (M.D. Pa. June 23, 2009) (additional

quotation marks and citations omitted).

Notably, the Murrell court relied on Green v. Maraio, 722 F.2d 1013,

1019 (2d Cir. 1983), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit held that a court reporter was entitled to qualified immunity for following a

judge’s alleged instruction to alter a transcript. See Murrell, 841 Fed. App’x at 360

(citing Green). This case is closely analogous. Here, Inmate alleges that Ct. Rep.

Mengel followed an instruction from Judge Sletvold to alter Inmate’s pretrial

hearing transcript. We find the holding of Green persuasive and likewise conclude

that a court reporter is immune from a claim based on allegedly following a judge’s

instruction to alter a transcript.

In addition, as this Court explained in Elkington v. Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 478 M.D. 2018, filed May 27, 2021),

a claim averring an improper omission from a transcript is subject to dismissal where

the claim asserts “no factual disputes that are authentic, real, or free from pretense

that would directly affect the outcome of th[e] matter . . . .” Id., slip op. at 16. Here,

Inmate maintains that Judge Sletvold denied his pretrial suppression motion but later

stated she had not ruled on such a motion. Inmate fails to explain what material

18

difference exists between denial of the motion and failure to rule on the motion that

would have directly affected the outcome of his criminal trial. Therefore, the trial

court properly dismissed Inmate’s claim against Judge Sletvold and Ct. Rep. Mengel

for this additional reason.

I. Arrest Warrant and Probable Cause

In his tenth assertion of error, Inmate argues that the trial court erred in

dismissing another claim by Inmate against Det. Munch. According to Inmate, Det.

Munch violated Inmate’s constitutional rights by falsely arresting and searching him

without either a warrant or probable cause, then failed to give Inmate a receipt and

maintain the chain of custody regarding cash that was seized from Inmate at the time

of his arrest. This claim is without merit.

As Det. Munch cogently explains in his brief,

[u]nder both [United States] Supreme Court and

Commonwealth Court precedent, a plaintiff seeking

damages for an allegedly unconstitutional imprisonment

or conviction must prove that the conviction or sentence

has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive

order, or declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to

make such determinations. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.

477, 486-87 (1994); Weaver v. Franklin C[nty.], 918 A.2d

194, 202 (Pa. Cmw[l]th. 2007).

....

Any additional unconstitutional searches and seizures

allegedly performed by Det.[] Munch, as well as alleged

violations of police department evidence procedures, are

also Heck-barred. Keeling v. Att[’]y Gen[.] . . . , 575 Fed.

App’x 16, 18 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding that Fourth

Amendment search and seizure[] claims were Heck-barred

where plaintiff claimed they resulted in his unlawful

conviction).

19

Br. for Det. Munch at 7-8. We agree with Det. Munch that Inmate may not bring a

collateral action alleging police violation of his constitutional rights resulting in his

conviction, where that conviction has not been reversed on direct appeal, expunged

by executive order, or declared invalid. See Heck. Accordingly, the trial court did

not err in dismissing Inmate’s claim against Det. Munch.

J. Claims Against the Attorney General

Finally, although AG Shapiro is named in the caption and the

complaint, Inmate on appeal has not developed any assertion of error in the trial

court’s dismissal of the claim against AG Shapiro. Accordingly, we need not discuss

that claim.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing discussion, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

20

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Antonio Saunders, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

Michael Munch, Karen Mengel, :

John Morganelli, James Augustine, :

John Capobianco, Nick Englesson, :

Nuria DiLuzio, Edward Andres, :

Michael Light, Leigh Ann Fisher, :

Jamie Adams, BB&T Bank, : No. 102 C.D. 2023

Joshua Shapiro, and Jennifer Sletvold :

PER CURIAM ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2024, the order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Northampton County, dated September 26, 2022, is AFFIRMED.