Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Joseph John Slack, Petitioner v. Robert McHugh, et al.

No. _________________

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

JOSEPH JOHN SLACK,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT MCHUGH, ERIK L. OLSEN,

BRIAN M. ZARALLO, and MICHAEL J. MULVEY,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Sal Cognetti, Jr., Esquire

PA Atty. ID No. 17269

Vincent S. Cimini, Esquire

PA Atty. ID No. 60403

COGNETTI & CIMINI

Scranton Life Building, Suite 800

538 Biden Street

Scranton, PA 18503

(570) 346-0745

Counsel for Petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether the presentment of a statewide investigating

grand jury in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

constitutes prima facie evidence of probable cause

when Pennsylvania law precludes a statewide

investigating

grand

jury

from

making

a

determination as to whether probable cause exists to

support felony charges.

(i)

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner and Plaintiff-Appellant below:

•

Joseph John Slack

Respondents and Defendant-Appellees below:

•

Robert McHugh

•

Erik L. Olsen

•

Brian M. Zarallo

•

Michael J. Mulvey

(ii)

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

No. 24-2153

Joseph John Slack, Appellant, v. Robert McHugh,

Erik L. Olsen, Brian M. Zarallo, Michael J. Mulvey

Date of Final Opinion:

September 29, 2025

_______________

United States District Court for the Middle District

of Pennsylvania

No. 3:22-CV-1501

Joseph John Slack, Appellant, v. Robert McHugh,

Erik L. Olsen, Brian M. Zarallo, Michael J. Mulvey

Date of Final Opinion:

June 3, 2024

(iii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ I

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ........................ II

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS ........................................ III

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... VII

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................ 1

CITATION TO OPINIONS ENTERED ............................. 1

BASIS FOR JURISDICTION........................................... 1

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED........................... 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.......................................... 2

ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT ............... 5

CONCLUSION............................................................ 7

APPENDIX................................................................ 1A

JUDGMENT OF UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(SEPTEMBER 29, 2025) ............................................ 1A

OPINION OF UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(SEPTEMBER 29, 2025) ............................................ 3A

(iv)

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT

OF PENNSYLVANIA (JUNE 3, 2024) ........................ 10A

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT

OF PENNSYLVANIA (JUNE 3, 2024) ........................ 11A

(v)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Com. v. Slick, 639 A.2d 482, 490 (Pa. 1994) .............. 6

Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320,

S. Ct. 1090, 188 L. Ed. 2d 46 (2014) ...................... 6

Slack v. McHugh, 2025 WL 2753671

(3d Cir. 2025 Sept. 29, 2025) .................................. 1

Slack v. Office of Attorney General,

2024 WL 2817562 (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2024) .......... 1

Statutes

18 Pa.C.S.A. §2705 ...................................................... 3

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4548 ............................................. 1, 5, 6

28 U.S.C. § 1254 .......................................................... 1

28 U.S.C. § 1291 .......................................................... 1

28 U.S.C. § 1331 .......................................................... 1

42 U.S.C. § 1983 .......................................................... 5

.

(vi)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Joseph John Slack (“Mr. Slack”) hereby

respectfully requests that this Court issue a Writ of

Certiorari to review the decision of the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals in this case.

Citation to Opinions Entered

The Third Circuit’s panel opinion (App. XA) is not

reported but available at Slack v. McHugh, 2025 WL

2753671 (3d Cir. 2025 Sept. 29, 2025). The district

court’s opinion granting dismissal (App. XA) is not

reported but is available at Slack v. Office of Attorney

General, 2024 WL 2817562 (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2024).

Basis for Jurisdiction

The Third Circuit entered its judgment on

September 29, 2025 (App. XA). The district court had

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and

the Third Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291. Petitioner invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

Statutory Provisions Involved

The statutory provisions involved in this petition

include 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 4548 (Powers of Investigating

Grand Jury), which provides:

(a) General rule.-- The investigating grand

jury shall have the power to inquire into

offenses against the criminal laws of the

Commonwealth alleged to have been committed

within the county or counties in which it is

summoned. Such power shall include the

investigative resources of the grand jury which

shall include but not be limited to the power of

subpoena, the power to obtain the initiation of

1

civil and criminal contempt proceedings, and

every investigative power of any grand jury of

the Commonwealth. Such alleged offenses may

be brought to the attention of such grand jury

by the court or by the attorney for the

Commonwealth, but in no case shall the

investigating grand jury inquire into alleged

offenses on its own motion.

(b) Presentments.--The investigating grand

jury shall have the power to issue a

presentment with regard to any person who

appears to have committed within the county or

counties in which such investigating grand jury

is summoned an offense against the criminal

laws of the Commonwealth.

(c) Other powers.--Except for the power to

indict, the investigating grand jury shall have

every power available to any other grand jury

in the Commonwealth. The jurisdiction, powers

and activities of an investigating grand jury

shall not, if otherwise lawful, be limited in any

way by the charge of the court.

Statement of the Case

Mr. Slack was hired by the Scranton School

District as an entry level custodian, i.e. janitor, in 1986.

In 2012, after working in various custodian level

positions for more than 25 years, he was promoted to

the position of daytime maintenance supervisor. The

Scranton School District “maintenance supervisor” job

description states: “maintain systems and equipment

by completing preventative maintenance schedules,

restoring, rebuilding, or replacing faulty or inoperative

components and parts, supervising staff.” As the

daytime maintenance supervisor, Mr. Slack reported to

the Scranton School District’s Chief Operations Officer

2

(“COO”), who reported to the Superintendent of Schools

(“Superintendent”).

On a daily basis, Mr. Slack met with custodial

staff tradesmen and custodians to distribute job

assignments, schedule and coordinate routine repairs

and maintenance, and receive verbal status reports as

to any in-progress repairs or maintenance. Mr. Slack

did not have any authority to establish policies and

procedures, enter into third-party contracts, or hire and

fire any employees. Further, Mr. Slack was not

responsible

for

scientific

interpretation

of

environmental

facility

testing,

environmental

regulatory compliance, or strategic environmental

remediation planning or execution. In fact, having only

a high school education, Mr. Slack was not qualified to

interpret environmental facility testing results,

determine regulatory environmental compliance, or

plan for and execute environmental remediation

measures.

In December of 2019, the Pennsylvania State

Police initiated an investigation into a report that the

Scranton School District may not have remediated all

sources containing lead concentration levels exceeding

the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”)

Remediation Trigger Level, and the state prosecutor

utilized the powers of a statewide investigating grand

jury to further the investigation.

In September of 2020, the statewide

investigating grand jury issued a presentment

recommending criminal proceedings against the

Superintendent, COO, and Mr. Slack for recklessly

endangering another person, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2705, and

endangering the welfare of children, 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§4304(a)(1). Notably, Mr. Slack had no role in the

Scranton School District’s environmental remediation

planning or strategy, was not included in any of the

School District’s meetings for that purpose, and never

3

even been provided with the highly scientific reports

outlining the results of environmental testing at

various schools throughout the Scranton School

District.

Following his highly publicized arrest, Mr. Slack

was haunted by both the press and members of his local

community. Mr. Slack stopped leaving his home,

stopped eating regularly, and developed severe anxiety

and depression.

Ultimately, the Scranton School

District notified Mr. Slack by mail that his employment

and benefits were immediately terminated and that he

was deemed ineligible to receive his ACT 93 pension and

retirement benefits through the Scranton School

District. In January of 2021, as a result of the serious

criminal charges against him for “endangering the

welfare of children,” and the media’s portrayal of such

charges, Mr. Slack began receiving threatening,

anonymous letters sent to his home address.

Initially, the state prosecutor filed a petition to file

bills of information without a preliminary hearing on the

basis that the statewide investigating grand jury

“already found probable cause to charge Mr. Slack.”

However, that petition was denied based upon the

argument of Mr. Slack’s counsel:

A careful review of the presentment and the

criminal complaint compels the conclusion

that the Attorney General of Pennsylvania has

filed charges which are not supported by the

evidence or the law. Now, the OAG seeks to

avoid the substantial risk that most or all of

these charges will be dismissed at a

preliminary hearing. . . Pennsylvania

statutory and case law are clear that where, as

here, the Commonwealth proceeds on the basis

of an investigating grand jury presentment,

4

the defendant is entitled to a preliminary

hearing. . . This case was not presented to an

indicting grand jury, but rather, the

Commonwealth proceeded on the basis of an

investigating grand jury presentment.

Thereafter, following numerous requests to continue

the impending preliminary hearing, wherein the

Commonwealth would be required to establish probable

cause to support the charges brought against Mr. Slack,

the Commonwealth ultimately withdrew all charges

against Mr. Slack on June 14, 2021.

Mr. Slack therefore brought the underlying action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking redress for false

arrest and wrongful prosecution under color of state law,

in violation of his civil rights guaranteed by the Fourth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The underlying action involves Mr. Slack’s highly

publicized arrest and subsequently withdrawn criminal

prosecution, which resulted in the termination of his

employment of 33 years, forfeiture of his pension and

benefits, reputational damage, and profound emotional

and physical stress culminating in a series of

debilitating cardiac events.

Argument for Allowance of the Writ

The Third Circuit’s panel decision in Mr. Slack’s

case is contrary to controlling state law. While the panel

held that the presentment of an investigating grand jury

in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is prima facie

evidence of probable cause for felony charges, controlling

state law specifically withholds the power to issue an

indictment, i.e. make a finding of probable cause, from

an investigating grand jury. See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.

4548(c).

5

It is generally accepted that “an indictment fair upon

its face . . . conclusively determines the existence of

probable cause. . . ” Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320,

134 S. Ct. 1090, 188 L. Ed. 2d 46 (2014). However,

Pennsylvania law does not permit an investigating

grand jury to issue an indictment or other charging

document. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4548 (“The investigating

grand jury shall have the power to inquire into offenses

. . . [and] issue a presentment . . . Except for the power

to indict, the investigating grand jury shall have every

power available to any other grand jury . . . ”).

In other words, “the presentment of an investigative

grand jury is a written formal recommendation, with the

power to indict being withheld specifically from that

same body, and reserved to the prosecutor.” Com. v.

Slick, 639 A.2d 482, 490 (Pa. 1994) (emphasis added).

Indicative of this point, the Pennsylvania Superior Court

has explained:

Grand juries issue both indictments and

presentments. With indictments, the grand

jury sets forth felony charges asserted by the

government after finding probable cause that a

person under investigation has committed the

alleged crime. With presentments, the grand

jury recommends for prosecution charges . . . Of

interest is the fact that presentments, while

provided for in the Fifth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, are now considered

obsolete in the federal system, and they are no

longer included by statute as a charging

document.

Com. v. Slick, 639 A.2d 482, 484 fn1 (Pa. 1994)

(emphasis added).

6

The panel’s decision erroneously fails to distinguish

between the powers and authority of investigating and

indicting grand juries under the laws of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Instead, the panel’s

decision equates a federal grand jury, which has

authority to both investigate and indict, with a statewide

investigating grand jury, which has the authority only to

investigate and which is statutorily prohibited from

making a finding of probable cause to support an

indictment.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully

requests that the Court grant his Petition for Writ of

Certiorari.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sal Cognetti, Jr.

COGNETTI & CIMINI

Scranton Life Building, Suite 800

538 Biden Street

Scranton, PA 18503

(570) 346-0745

salcognettijr@cognetticimini.com

Counsel of Record

Vincent S. Cimini

COGNETTI & CIMINI

Scranton Life Building, Suite 800

538 Biden Street

Scranton, PA 18503

(570) 346-0745

vincentscimini@cognetticimini.com

Counsel for Petitioner

December 28, 2025

7