HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-00962
J. A42014/00
removed from appellee's court. On November 27, 1996, former President
Judge Harold E. Sheely granted appellant's request and assigned the cases
to District Justice Helen B. Shulenberger for disposition, On December 20,
1996, appellee Issued an arrest warrant for appellant for his failure to accept
service of a properly served summary criminal complaint. Appellant was
subsequently arrested, Following appellant/s arrest, President Judge Sheely
Issued a second order requiring any future civil actions and criminal
procedures involving appellant to be filed with the office of District Justice
Shulenbeger for adjudication and disposition. On February 20, 199B,
appellant instituted a civil action against appellee, alleging false
Imprisonment and faise arrest as a result of appellee/s Issuance of the arrest
warrant for appellant on December 20, 1996. Appellee flied preliminary
objections, In the form of a demurrer, to appellant's complaint, Appellee
argued that appellant's complaint was barred by the doctrine of judicial
Immunity. The lower court dismissed appellant's complaint with prejudice,
and this appeal followed.
Herein, appellant argues that the lower court abused Its discretion by
finding that the doctrine of judicial Immunity barred appellant from pursuing
a civil tort action against appellee. He claims that the doctrine of judicial
Immunity does not apply because appellee acted outside the scope of his
judicial authority and abused his office as district justice. We disagree.
- 2 -
J. A42014/00
~ 4 When reviewing an order granting preliminary objections, we must
assume that all material facts set forth In the complaint, as well as all
Inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, are true. County of Berks ex
rei. Baldwin v. pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 544 Pa, 541, 678
A.2d 355 (1996). We then determine whether the law says with certainty
that no recovery Is possible on the facts averred. rd.
~ 5 We find that the doctrine of judicial Immunity applies to the facts of
this case and that no recovery Is possible. Judges are absolutely Immune
from liability for damages when performing judicial acts, even If their actions
are \n error or performed with malice, provided there Is not a clear absence
of all jurisdiction over subject matter and person, Feingold v. Hili, 521
A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1987), appeal denied, 515 Pa. 607, 529 A.2d 1081,
(citing Stump v. sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.
2d 331 (1978)). The rationale In support of such protection Is that for
magIstrates to exercise their discretion freely and apply their understanding
of the law to the facts before them, theY must be granted such a measure of
Independence that they are not compelled to respond In damages for
mistakes honestly made provided they have not acted beyond the pale of
their authority, rd.; see also Petition of Dwyer, 486 Pa. 585, 591, 406
a.2d 1355, 1358 (1979); see also McNair's Petition, 324 Pa. 48, 55-56,
187 A.2d 498, 502 (1936) (quoting commonwealth v. Cauffie/, 79 Pa.
Super. 596 (1922)).
. 3 -
>. -. ~
S~ -
I.': .. i3r!
~I,;V .::t
r:;U x:; c> .:;'e
a.. '"j:><
<,[if', I..; ii2
r- ;?~
C\I_~ I
l~ ' L.
h" :J Ct: l1.l
rJ, .....r; m
~ :~!ot
1;-. :5
0 0 U
PYS510 C. 'lber1and County Prothonotar-:;:'s Office
Civil Case Inquiry
1998-00962 BEAM TROY A (vs) DAIHL DONALD W
Page
.
Reference No..:
Case Type... ..: COMPLAINT
Judgment '1' . . . : .00
Judge Ass gned: HOFFER GEORGE E PJ
Disposed Dasc.:
------------ Case Comments -------.-----_
Filed..... ...: 2/20/19'
Time.........: 10:!
Execution Date 0/00/001
Jury Trial....
Disposed Date. 0/00/001
Higher Crt 1.: I fl./fI ('lOA qq
Higher Crt. 2.:
**************************************.*****************..****.*..***........
General Index Attorney Info
BEAM TROY A PLAINTIFF CAVANAGH TONI LEE
401 SHIPPENSBURG ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
DAIIU, DONALD W DEFENDAN'l' WILLIAMS A TAYLOR
1087 MUD LEVEL ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
......***..........****.****........****....***....**............**..........'
· Date Entries
,***.*....*****..**********************...******.*.***..**.**............**...'
2/20/1998
3/03/1998
3/09/1998
3/09/1998
3/30/1998
4/08/1998
6/16/1998
9/16/1998
9/16/1998
51~91UU
6/17/1999
8/03/199,9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
--------~._------------------._-----------------------..-----------...
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: DAIHL DONALD W
SERVED : 3/02/98 COMPL
COSTS : $37.02 PD ROBERT JAMES JACSON ASSOC 3/03/98
---------------------------------------..-------------------------.
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESQ
----------------------------------------------.-------------------.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF
OF DISTRICT JUSTICE DON~LD W DAIHL
-------------.---------------..--------------------------------.----
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE '1'0 DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TOGETHER WITH A MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
----------------.--------.---------.--------------------------------.
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESQ
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PA
COUR'I'S
---------------------.------------------------------------------.--.
ORDER OP COURT - DATED 6/15/98 - MATTER IS CONTINUED FROM THE
5/27/98 ARGUMENT COURT LIST - BY GEORGE E HOFFER PJ - COPIES MAILI
6/16/98
----------------------------..-----------------------------------_.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OJ
DISTRICT JUSTICE DONALD W DAIHL
-----------------------------------------------------------------.
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESO
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
----------------------------~-------------------------...----------.
,~fi!Ja'NtnV 8~I~T~~N~O~~aRAN~~5E~ ~Lk~~t~FFSI~o~~tRf~~N~~NT'S
D 8M SSED WITH PREJUDICE - BY GEORGE E HOFFER PJ - COPIES MAILED
5 20 99
-----------------------------------------------------------------.
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FROM ORDER ENTERED 5/19/99 BY
TONI LEE CAVANAGH ESQ
----------------------------------------------.-------------------.
,SUPERIOR COURT OF' PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO It 1218MDA99
,.-,.,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvaniu
Counly of Cumberland
} ss:
I. -CJlRTI,S_.IL-LQN.G___. ['rothollotary
of the ('Ollrt of Common Pleas in and for said
Counly, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true alld eO/'I'Ccl copy of the whole record of the
case therein stated, when.'in
-----~----~~-
-'!'B9y A--"_~EA~__________
Plainliff. and
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
this THIRD
DONALD E., DAJHr"._
Dl'fcnclant _, as the same remains of record
bcfore the said ('ourt at No. _'_'_____, of
-.911~2_6L_,___ Term. A.D. 19_.
hand and affixed the seal of said Court
''-:l:~-_-I\ D.. 19_.95L.
RTIS R. L G
I, GEORGE E. HOFF~!l.....___,_____ Presidenl .Judge of 1110 ____N!I'IT!!..__
.Judidal Distriel. composed of Ihc Coullly of CUlllberland. do certify Ihal _____
CURTIS R~ LONG '____.._. by wholll the annexed record, certifieale and
altcstalion Well' made and given, and who, in his own prop~r handwriting, thereunto suoscrihed his name
und affixed the sc.11 of the Court of Common Pleas of said ('OUllt\'. was, at the time nfso doing, and now is
Prolhonotary in and for said ('oullty 01 _____C~JMBERLAND ________ in
,he Commonwcalth or Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and 'Ilia lined to all of whose acts as such full fnilh
llnd credit arc and ought to he given liS well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere, and that the said record,
certificate llnd attestation arc ill due forlll or law and made I' el' fricer.
Commonwealth or Pennsylvaniu
County of Cumberland
} ss:
I'rl'~idl'nl .Iud!!c
'CURTIS R. {,ONG ", II I' I' II (' 'I "(' 1'1,'
'---._~------_.-._---~., JO HHlO MV 0 leoUl 0 ommnn CdS In
end lor the said County, do certify Ilwl the Ilonoral>le _GEO~G'E E. HOFFER
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, llnd who has th~rcunto stlhscriocd his nnme, WllS, at the time
of making Ihereof. aud slill i.ll'residenl.Judge oflhe COUl'l of COllllllon I'leas. Orphnn' Court nn" Court of
Quarter Sessions of thl' IJl'uce in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to nil whose ncts
~IS sllch full fuilh and Cl'edit arc and ought to he givl'll, as well in Courts of judicature as CISI~whcrc,
IN TESTIMONY WIII'REO". I haw hereunlo
set mv tWlld and al'fixcd tlH' scalllf said ('ourt this
;p,"":,:~'~l"Z-R~-ii '~:
CURTIS R. L--:J::Y41.. ,~"''''''
;lh~
,"',\
~
If YOU DO NOT HA VE A LA WYER OR CAN NOT AF"'ORD ONE,
T OR TELEPHONE THE OFFln SET "'ORT I BEL ~
FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELl.
COVRT ADMINISTRATOR
CUMBERI"AND COUNTY COURTHOUSE _ 4th FLOOR
ONE COURTHOVSE SQUARE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717)240-6200
z
'""'\
~
Parties
4. The Plaintiff, Troy A. Beam, (hereinafter "plaintift") is an adult individual
residing at 197 Beeehtree Street, Southhampton Township, Franklin
Coun'y, Pennsylvania, 17257.
5. Defendant, Donald W. Daihl, (hereinafter "defendant") is an adult
individual residing at ]087 Mud Level Road, Southhampton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257,
6. At all ,imes material hereto, at all times material hereto, Daihl was duly
appointed or elected to be the presiding District Jus,ice tor Magisterial
District 09-3-01 in Cumberland Coun'y.
FACTS COMMON TO CAlJSES m' ACTION
This matter involves the wrongful use of judicial authority to cause the arrest and
wrongful deten,ion of Plaintiff
The Complaint Filed by the Plaintiff against Daihl
7. On or about October 20, 1996, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on behalf of
Actual Holdings, an entity for which he acts as Managing Director, with
the Cumberland County Distric' Attorney's Oftice against Defendant
alleging that the Defendant was acting to violate Actual Holdings' civil
rights and facilitate unlawful trespassing on the property of Actual
Holdings by various individuals. The 'respasses upon the property of
Actual Holdings served to harass and malign Plaintill' as all individual, as
Managing Direc'or of the Actual Holdings Trust and as a businessman in
Cumberland COUIl'y,
The Criminal and Civil MaUers Listed Before Defendant
L/
.......,
"
,.."
8. On November 8, 1996, De'ective Richard Killinger, of the MidCumberland
Valley Regional Police Department, filed a summary criminal complaint
against Plaintiff, to wit, Comt!1Q!1J.Y\11111h X, Bl;1\!11, bearing docket number
CR-3G2-96, charging him with 'het! of services under 18 Pa, section
3926(a)( I), The Complaint was filed in the Detendant's Court, being,
Magisterial Court #09-03-0 l.
9. The thet! referred to in paragraph eight (8) was alleged to have occurred at 25
Sunbeam COllrt, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Therefore,
the malleI' was listed before Defendant for a hearing
The Petition to Remove the Matters for Conniet of Intel'est
10. On or about November 14, 1996, Plaintitfwrote to Special Court
Administrator, Ronald Johnson, asking that the malleI' ofCommonweatth,y._Beam,
CR-302-96, and another malleI' involving Plaintifl: then pending betore the
Oetimdant be removed to a difleren' Magisterial Court.
II. On November 27, 1996, President Judge Harold E. Sheely of the
Cumberland County Coull of Common Pleas, and presiding Judge over
Defendant's judicial district, signed an Order directing that Sh.ippensburg
TO.J.YMhip_v~_Q!lJlm and ShiJlp,cOJ!burs_W!!ttrrA\!thg,!'!ty_'LJleam
(r.1)mt!lonw~!!lthy"BJl,<!m is proper name of laller case) be transterred to
the Court of District Justice Helen B. Shulenberger tor disposition, therehy
removing the malleI'S, in their en'irety, from Defendant's jurisdiction,
12. Also on November 27, 1996, President Judge Harold E, Sheely spoke with
the Defendan' by telephone and instructed him that the two malleI'S
pending betbre him involving Plain,itf were removed to Judge
Shulenberger's court and tha' he had signed an Order to ,hat eflect.
-'
1"""1
D. Wrongfullssllance of Arrest Warrant by Defendant
13. On December 5, 1996, in knowing and direct violation of the President
Judge's verbal ins'n1ction and written Order of November 27, 1996, the
Defendant issued a bench warrant lor Plaintiff's arrest tor Plaintiff's alleged
failure to accept selvicc of certificd mail containing the charges of 'he
November 8, 1996 complaint, being, Comn!Qn.w~althY,.Peilm,
14, On December 17, 1996, a police offker, under the authority of the bench
warrant relerred '0 in paragraph thirteen (13) arrested the Plaintiff while in
his truck on North Earl Street, in Cumberland Coun'y, Pennsylvania, a
public roadway.
15, On December 17, 1996, the Plaintifl'was handcuffed, physically removed
to the police sta'ion, then transported to the Court of District Justice Paula
Com,al where he was arraigned. Hours tollowing his arrest, Plain'iff was
finally released on his own recognizance.
16. District Justice Rule of Civil Procedure 17 slates that: "The president judge
of the court of common pleas of a judicial distric, shall exercise general
supervision and administrative control over district justices within his
judicial district."
17. As of November 27, 1996, President Judge Sheely restricted Detendan"s
judicial duties and removed the two matters from the Defendant's
jurisdiction. Therefore, Detendant did no' have any jurisdiction over
plaintiff' regarding the subject matter of the pending claims involving
Plaintiff'.
.....L_
,..~
18. Defendant, in disobeying 'he Order of President Judge Sheely, ae'ed
beyond the scope of his duties as a district justice when he issued the
December 5, 1996 bench warrant for Plaintiff's arrest.
19. As of November 27, 1996, the Det\mdant did not have any jurisdiction over
matters involving the Plaintiff~ The Defendant thrther did not have
statutory or other authority to issue a bench warrant thr the arrest of
plaintiff' on December 5, 1996, 'or failure '0 accept service of a piece of
certified mail, therefore, the bench warrant was invalid.
20. Defendant issued the invalid bench warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff to
further a private purpose, that being, harassment ofi'laintift'tbr his filing of
a civil complaint against the Defendant.
21. The Detendant's 'ortious actions were malicious and wanton in that he,
without any lawftJi authority, intentionally used his office to harass and
malign the Plain'iff' and to violate the Plaintiff's rights of due process and
equal protec'ion.
22. Defendant's tortious actions were made possible by virtue of Defendant's
authority as a public ollicial,
23. The Defendant's tor'ious actions clearly violated established statutes and
rules, including but not limited to those regarding change of venue, service
of process and administrative supervision of district justices which resulted
in damages to and suffering by Plaintiff
24. Defendant is not entitled to Immunity trom Plaintin's action.
7
, .
......."
""'1
CQ!!.NT 1- I+'ALSE ARREST
25.Plaintitl'incorporates paragraphs I through 24 by reference as though fldly
set forth herein at leng'h.
26. The Defendant did not have probable cause or any lawful au'horlty to have
Plain'iff arres'ed,
27. The Defendant knowingly, intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently
issued an invalid bench warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff which caused
Flaintift',o be falsely arrested.
28. The Defendant ac'ed with the intent to have the Plaintift' arrested and
detained for a period of time,
29. The Plain'iff was arrested and detained as a direct result of Defendant's
actions,
30. Defendan' is not entitled to immunity from Plaintift's action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintift'requests tha' this Honorable Court find against Defendan' and in
favor of Plaintitl' for:
I) defendant's unlawful arrest;
2) punitive dam3ges in excess of $50,000.00;
3) attorney fees and cos's and
4) any and all other relief that this Honorable Court may deem jus' and
appropriate,
COUNT". FALSE IMPRISONMENT
31. The Plaintitl' incorporates paragraphs I through 30 by reference as though
fully setiorth herein at leng'h,
f{
'Ii
.,
;j ,I'
"~I.
lil
i'!;,l
,..,
, ,
II','
,
,:,
1.,1
, I , ,
I ~ j I .
';
,I'
I' .<i
11;1
I ,~
1.< .
I.'
'.
.;
...."
. ,
u\
"
f
1,'-"
7:v!-<(,l,.<.,I..../
3<<
~p ".
Cf..r'''' Q, )l/~~t~;-'! ,J~
I
"
,I
.IL
11.111;1 i iL
-'.
I"
'li,I'
t I i'
lIij
UI ;in,J; I'
". 'I.
'.
L~ j
I;!'.
I j,.,
r:':-"''-T.i
,I t\i'd
iJ
)t3-'t"t
,I
I' ",'
lid
[,
'i '.1 II')
\'.;" ',1
" ,,;
Li
..,ll
u
;
ti""i"
L.
n__.. ,._,._._.,.,.~___.____..,U'.
:i
! It,
t, n
li'"',li! ,
'<I,
~j II ; c. Ii
:i~;J.~~~n::~p:.j'::1,1:2f!:.~~,
j;I',I,', i J" '<I J ,I:I
41,c 1""<((
~""""
-,
"
r-";.
3-9-q IJ
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYl,VANIA
TROY A. BEAM
PlallltljJ.
vs,
DONALD W, DAIHL. SENIOR OJ
Defelldallts.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO, 98.962
,
, i
f;NTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
Kindly enter my appearance in the above-captioned matter, on behalf of
Defendant. District Justice Donald W, Daihl.
;A, TA OR WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D, No, 33149
Administrative Oft1ce of PA Courts
1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
(215) 560.6300
-.
13
~
f':'"~\
.,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUN1Y, PENNSYLVANIA
TROY A. BEAM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 98.962
Plaintiff,
vs,
DONALD W, DAIHL. SENIOR D,J,
Defendllllts,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on March 6, 1998, she
personally caused to be served upon the following a true and correct copy of the
foregoing l::'ntry of Appearance 011 behalf of District JI/stice Donald W. Daihl, by mailing
same first class. postage pre-paid. V,S, mail to:
Lee Alan Stivale, Esquire
Toni Lee Cavanagh, Esquire
Robert James Jackson Associates, p,c.
1489 Baltimore Pike
Suite 301
Springfield, Pennsylvania 19064
/
/ )
A~ ~IL~IAMS, ESQUI~
Attorney I.D, No, 33149
Administrative Office of PA Courts
1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
(215) 560.6300
1'-1
,
.. ('. I
n~ ...
i':-! C'.
I' , (', . ,
( :i , ,~
Ii: :
'-I): , I.
C.\i U \
U.li I
ri!l,.' (I': i
I I .. I ,
~~.: u.,
l,!/ C) )
<....1 u., ':.l
"
r\
a. Plaintiffs' action against Judicial Defendant is absolutely barred by
the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity,
WHEREFORE, Judicial Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, with prejudice,
Respectfully submitted,
/:>I~ )
(/ATAYLOR WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
Attorney l.D. # 33149
Administrative Office of PA Courts
1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
Philadelphia, P A 19102
(215) 560-6300
AITORNEY FOR DEFENDANT'
DISTRICT/USI1CE DONALD W. DAlHL
2
/l
,C;;parkman, 435 V,S, 349, 356, 9H S, Cl. 1099, 1104, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (197H),
Jud~es are immune from liability when (I) tlw iud~e has jurisdiction over the
subjeCt matter before him, and (2) he is perf()rmin~ a judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman.
IDlJ.?Il!, Immunity applies re~ardless of whether the actions complained of are alleged to
have been in error, performed with malice, in excess of the judge's authority. Stump v,
Spal'km.ill1, :i.Upril, or even if they are claimed to have been performed as a result of an
alleged conspiracy with others, .Dennis v, Sparkli, 449 V,S, 24, lOl S,Ct. 183, 66
L.Ed,2d 185 (1980).
The reason for the doctrine is that, not only would it be manifestly unfair to
expose judicial officers to the dilemma of being required to render judgment while at the
same time being held financially responsible according to the jud!,'1nent of others, but
that the doctrine is essential to the preservation of an independent judiciary. which will
not be deterred by fear of vexatious suits and personal liability, See Bradley v, Fisher, 80
{J,S, 335, 351. 20 L.Ed, 646 (1872), I The doctrine of judicial immunity applies to the
conduct of district justices as well as to judges of courts of general jurisdiction. Praisner
v, Stocker, 313 Pa. Super. 332, 459 A. 2d 1255 (l983), See also, Rumfola v, Murovich,
~.l!.!.,. 812 F. Supp, 569 (W,D. Pa 1992) (citing Horne_'l.hrrell, 560 F,Supp, 219
-
Many of the leading cases which address immunity and which are cited
throughout the Instant Memorandum are V,S. Supreme Court and lower federal
COUrt cases; this issue arises routinely in federal court, These cases provide valuable
!,'uidance to the state courts and to this court in the instant case, The Pennsylvania
Courts, however. have all;o recognized and applied the doctrine of judicial immunity
In cases which are cited, !ufm.
3
/9
Defendant's motivation for performing those lll'lS is irrelevant. :!
ii. District Justice Daihl had jurisdktion over the subject
matter before him and is entitled to immunity,
Plaintiff bases his Complaint on an allegation that District Justice Dalh! lacked
jurisdiction when he issued the warrant for Plaintiff's arrest (Complaint, ~~ 18, 19), For
purposes of determining immunity, however, jurisdiction is not limited to jurisdiction
over a single case, but to the jurisdictional parameters of the judge's court, here, the
general subject matter jurisdiction of magistrate courts in Pennsylvania, Plaintiff's
argument that District Justice Daihllacked authority to act In Plaintiff's case because the
case was reassigned and another magistrate appointed to hear the case, reduces at most
to an argument that District Justice Daihl acted in excess of his jurisdiction. Under the
doctrine of judicial immunity, District Justice Daihl was a district justice of a
Penmylvania magisterial court, and acted as a judicial officer within the powers of that
coun: while he may have lost jurisdiction over Plaintiff's person by the transfer of the
case, he did not lose jurisdiction over the subject matter, and his action in signing a
bench warrant was within that subject matter jurisdiction, So long as District Justice
Daihl's actions were within his subject matter jurisdiction, he is entitled to absolute
judicial immunity,
Th~ jurisdiction of district justices under Pennsylvania law is set fonh in the
2 Plaintiff alleges that District Justice Daihl acted with malice in signing a bench
warrant. While this allegation must be taken as true for purposes of the instant
demurrer, District Justice Daihl denies any malicious motivation,
5
~I
jurisdiction if the act complained of is within his general power of jurisdiction but is not
authorized because of certain circumstances," whereas "there is a clear absence of
jurisdiction when a court of limited jurisdiction attempts to adjudicate a case outside of
its jurisdiction, such as when a probate court conducts a criminal trial." Duty v. City of
Springdale, 42 F. 3d 460,462 (8th Cir. 1994); See also, Stump v. Sparkman, supra" 435
V,S, at 357, n, 7,
In the instant case, if District Justice Daihl acted after the case had been
transferred, as alleged in the Complaint, he would not have acted in the absence of all
jurisdiction. At most, he would have acted in excess of his jurisdiction, in which case,
he would still be entitled to immunity, However, most cases which arise under facts
similar to the instant case have held that the actions of the judge are acts within the
judicial officer's jurisdiction, and not even in excess thereof, See, ,Franceschi v, Schwartz,
57 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1994), (judge reactivated a bench warrant after agreeing to
transfer the case to another judge); McFarlane v, Smith, 947 F, Supp, 572 (O,N,H,
1996) (judge's actions after being disqualified for partiality were not taken in excess of
jurisdiction and are entitled to immunity); Mullis v, V,S. Bankrupt<;y Court for the
District of Nevada, 828 F, 2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987 (bankruptcy judge's actions after
debtor filed notice of appeal may have been in excess of jurisdiction but were not in clear
absence of jurisdiction), eert, denied, 486 V,S, 1040, 100 L. Ed, 2d 616, 108 S, Ct,
2031 (1988),
7
J..3
"
''''l
..="""---
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
TROY A BEAM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 98-962
Plallltlff,
vs,
DONALD W, DAIHL, SENIOR D,J.
D~fenda1lts,
CERTIFICATE OF SER..YlCE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on March 6, 1998, she
personally caused to be served upon the following a tme and correct copy of the
foregoing Prelimlnaryl Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint filed on behalf of District
Justice Donald W, Daihl, by mailing same first class. postage pre-paid, U.S, mall to:
Lee Alan Stivale, Esquire
Toni Lee Davanagh, Esquire
Robert fames facholl Associates, p, C.
1489 Baltimore Pike
Suite 301
Springfield, Pennsylvania 19064
. AYLOR WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D, No. 33149
Administrative Off1ce of PA Courts
1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
(215) 560-6300
).7
-=
i~
..
IN THE ('OlIKT OF COMMON PI.EAS OF'
CUMBEKLAND COUNTY, PENNSVI,V ANIA
CIVIL AenON -I.AW
TROY A. BEAM,
Pfalntitr
No. 98.962
v.
DO/'.jALD W. DAIHL,
Defendant
ORDE.B
AND NOW, to wit, ,his
day of
, 1998, upon consideration of
Defendant's Preliminary Objections and Plain'i!T's responses thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's Preliminary Objections are OVERRULED. Defendan'is
ORDERED to answer Plaintill's Complaint within 'wenly (20) days of this Order.
BY THE COURT:
--.
J,
2f
. -~
On or about November 27, 1996, President Judge Harold E. Sheely issued an
Order specifically directing that Commonwealth v. Beam and Plaintiffs other cases then
pending in the Defendant's cOUli be transferred to the offiee of District Jus'iee Helen B.
Shulenberger for disposition and a new hearing date. The Order specifically directed the
Defendant to forward all papers involving the transferred cases to Judge Shulenberger's
office, A true and correct copy ofPrcsidcnt Judge Sheely's Order is attached hereto,
made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "B". On November 27, 1996, Judge Sheely
also called the Defendant and verbally infonned the Defendant as to the entry of , he
Court's Ordcr and that the cases had becn removcd from the Defendant's court. (See
Plaintiffs Complaint at Paragraphs 11 and 12).
The Defendant granted an interview to The News-Chronicle quotes from which
appeared in the January 30, 1997 edition of the newspaper. In regard to Commonwealth
li....full!m, it is written in the newspaper article that the defendant explained that he
deeided not to hear Commonwealth v, lkll!ll because he believed he eould no longer
make a fair decision regarding Mr, Beam, the Plaintiff in the instant matter, The
Defendant is specifically quoted as saying "It was my decision to disqualify myself, (at
approximately the samc time the Plaintiff petitioned this Court that Commonwealth v,
fumm be removed from the Defendant's court)", A true and correct copy of The News..
Chronicle newspaper article is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit
"C",
Despite President Judge Sheely's extraordinary effort of calling the Defendant on
November 27, 1996, to personally infonn the Defendant that he was removed from
Commonwealth v. Beam, on or about December 5, 1996, three and one-half (3 v,) weeks
3J.
'!~1
1"""',
(d) Where the President Judge designates a magisterial district or II
location in that district in which certain classes of offenses, which
occurred in other specified magisterial distric's, may be heard."
III, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b) states in pertinent pllrt,
"Temporary Assignment.
(I) The president Judge may assign temporarily the issuing authority of
any magisterial district to serve another magisterial district whenever
such assignment is nccded to satisfy the requirements of paragraph
(a)( I), /0 il/sl/re fail' al/d impartial proceedil/gs, or otherwise for the
admillis/m!ioll afjl/stice. One or more issuing authorities may be so
assigned to serve one or more magisterial districts,
(3) A motion may be filed requesting a temporary assignment under
paragraph (b)( 1) on the ground that the assignment is needed to insure
fair and impartial proceedings, Reasonable notice and opportunity to
respond shllll be provided to the parties," (Emphasis added),
IV, The comment to Pll, R,Crim,Pro. 23(b) reads as follows:
"Paragraphs (b)(l) IInd (b)(3) make explicit the authority of president
judges to assign issuing authorities when necessary to insure fllir and
impartial proceedings, and to provide a procedure for a party to request
such an assignment. Temporary assignment in this situation is intended to
cover what might otherwise be referred to as "change of venue" at the
district justice level. The motion procedure of paragraph (b)(3) is intended
only to apply when a party requests temporary assignment to insure fair
and impartial proceedings. The president judge may, of course, order a
response and schedule a hearing with regard to such a motion. The motion
procedure is not intended to apply in any of the many other situations in
which presid\'lnt judges make temporary assignments of issuing
authorities; in all these other situations the president judges may make
temporary assignments on their own without any motion, notice, response
or hearing,"
~g;...sslOli
I, THE DEFENDANT ACTED OUTSIDE HIS AUTHORITY WHEN
HE ISSUED AN ARREST WARRANT FOR PLAINTIFF,
In order for the Defendan' to be within his authority at the time he issued an arrest
, warrant for Plaintiff, the Defendant would have to have the case ofCommonwealt1u:..
~ in his c.ourt. The Def\'lndant did not have Commonw\'lalth v, Beatn.in his coul1
3~
because President Judge Sheely transferrcd the case to District Justice Shulenberger
effee'ive November 27, 1998.
"A warrant for the arrest of the defendant shall be
issued when (a) 'he defendant fails to respond to a
citation or summons that IVI/S served lIpOIl the def
elldalll personally or by certified mail return receipt
requested; or (b) 'he citation or summons is returned
undelivered; or (c) the issuing authority has reason-
able grounds '0 believe that the defendant will not
obey a summons,"
Pa, R. Crim, Pro. 75,
There arc several reasons why the Defendant in the instant matter was outside his
au'hority when he issued the arrest warrant for Plaintiff. First, the Plaintiff was never
served with a citation or summons in Cornmonwea~~ as required by
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 75 prior to the issuance of an arrest warrant.
Second, no citation or summons in Commonwealth v. Beam was ever returned
undelivered as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 75 prior to the
issuance of an arrest warrant, Third, effective November 27, 1996, pursuant to President
Judge Sheely's Order, the issuing authority in Commonwealth v. >>cam was District
Justice Helen Shulenberger and not the Defendant, therefore, the Defendant was not the
issuing authority, Since the Defendant was not the issuing authority, he had no authority
to issue the arrest walTant for Plainti ff,
The comment Pa, R, Crim, Pro, specifically states that the 'emporary assignment
of a distric' justice is the equivalent of a change of venue, to wit, it states "Temporary
assignment in this situa'ion is intended to cover what might otherwise be referred '0 as
"change of venue" at the dis'rictjustice level." Pursuant to the intention of the Rules,
upon the issuance of the President Judge's Order removing the case from the Defendant's
35
/,.....
In addition to the foregoing, the Defendant did not have jurisdiction over the subject
matter of Commonwealth v, Bearll once President Judge Sheely issued his Order
removing the Defendant from 'ha' case. What pUrpose would it servc for the Presidcnt
Judge to remove the Defendant trom Plaintiffs cases but still allow the Defendant to
have the Plaintiff arrested? It is utterly ridiculous to think that the President Judge
intended to allow the Defendant some power over the Plaintiff, but not all. As stated in
Commonwealth v, KIiM.Jhe reason for a temporary assignment is not impartiality of
jurors, rather it is due to the lack impartiality of the district justice towards the defendant
before him. Commonwealthv. Kliilll. 521 Pa, 281, 555 A.2d 892 (1989),
If this Court accepts Defendant's argument that Defendant lost jurisdiction over
the Plaintiffs person but not the subject matter of the action and is therefore immune
frolll Plaintiffs Complaint, it would eviscerate President Judge Sheely's Order,
completely disregard the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, fly in the face of all
common sense and be a clear abuse of discretion.
The President Judge supervises District Justices and maintains administrative
control over them. To dismiss the President Judge's control over District Justices, as
granted by the Pennsylvania Rules of Court, would be to condone violation of the
President Judge's Orders as long as there is a 'echnical argulllent to be made in favor of
that violation, The President Judge meant to divest the Defendant of his control,
authority and jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal, as to the Plaintiffs cases, If
that was not the Judge's intent, why did he call the Defendant and specifically tell the
Defendant that he was removed from the cases and that he was to forward all papers to
District Justice Shulenberger?
Jq
'-'
,U"",
The Defendant told a news reporter 'hat he had disqualified himself because he
didn'l fcel he could make a fair decision regarding the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant
(I) didn't feel he could make a fair decision regarding the Plainti ff, (2) discussed his
removal wi'h the President Judge and (3) knew he was to fOlWard the Plaintiffs cases
and papelWork to Distric' Justice Shulenberger, it is clear that the Defendant knew
that he was divested of subject matter jurisdiction in this particular instance.
An Order of tempormy assignment issued by a President Judge is interloclJ'ory and
thus, not appealable. Commonwe~, 521 Pa, 281, 555 A.2d 892 (1989). In the
instant mattet, President Judge Sheely entered an interlocutory, and thercfore,
unappealable, Order which divested the Defendant of personal and subject matter
jurisdiction as to Commonw~lh v, Belllll... The Defendant could not and did not appeal
the President Judge's Order and even went so far as to disqualify himself and admit he
could not be fair to the Plaintiff, What could more indicative of bad faith than ajudge
who voluntarily disqualifies himself, purports to acknowledge the Order of the President
Judge, but thcn con'inues to act in a case 011 which he is admittedly biased? But 1I0W the
Defendant, to avoid having to answer for his outrageous conduct, claims he still had
subject matter jurisdic'ion as a general matter, Perhaps the Defendant did have subject
matter jurisdictioll as a general matter regarding theft cases, but he did 1I0t have subjec'
matter jurisdiction as to Plaintiff. m'her way, the fact is and shall always be that the
Defendant acted in bad faith where Plaintiff was concerned, Therefore, as per 'he
Supreme C01ll1 of Pennsylvania, the Defendant is no' entitled to the cloak of judicial
immunity which is reserved for those members of the bench who must look 10 the
'-/0
II
I
f
J
\:
(
I
,"
'r'",
f '
1
vj.o.L,'~icfl'", of the !;uu;),i"(i ',r',.l;:":'~':,i':'n ,ll::i licel1g!,llg on:1inilnce.
The: l<liH:te1" wc\:,; cl~wj,ql\ed doc:':,," n',:I'Ii;)r:)~' C.'-00002J.6_% (h",ceinafte,.
the 8hipp',)llfJbul"<j ~'ldtte}:") ,
1. '1'h8 ShipperlfJbul'9 .'I"tf;F;j: IS ",cf,,;duled to be h(,ard :l.n
Decelllbot, ,(996.
1'h!LC;:.lfdm Ag<l.,inst...J:J',Cl JliilJ:dJCt;_"Ju.st.ic.El.
s.
On 0 C lob" [' 26.
1996, Troy A. 3eam filed a complaint
WiLli the Cumberli'lnc1Cc'lHlty District 11 tt:Ol"neys, (Jffice '1Ihere:ln .i.t.
is alleged that Dist.rict Justice Donald Daihl, with othMr
individuals and entities, acted to violate Troy A, Beam's
C'onst.itlltional l:i<jhts and thac of Oc:cllpants of t,he !)1.-0p",rty in
Shippensburg TOYiDSh:lp.
't ' ~ , ~. d t} \
I. \'Ht8 SP~ClrlCd..~.ly a.V~:cre . lat. Tile
distric~, Justice acted ',dth J:epu;sent;qtj'.',o,8 ()f the Townshi.p to
authorize a trespass. A true and correct copy of the Complaint
is attached he:ce:to a:.; Exhibit. HA. II
6. Distd,ct: ,:rl~"tice OilJ.hl has bee;: informed "f the
Complaint (gxhibi t, "A") '../hicl1 nc).!n~',S him ~;ldivid\]any.
7, On November I'!, 19%, Troy A. B8o\l1\ filed f, t"equest. \vith
AdminJ.Btratol.' Itonalr.l .Johnsol1 requesUnS' tnat the Kil^by Matter aha
the Shippensburg Matter be removed from Cistrict Court 09-3-01
and that venue be changed to an')ttIQl' Dist~'ict. COUrt.
8. Upon .i.nfOl.'lni"t,j,O!'!, in re.sponse l~o the request to ch<"1nge
venue, D.i.strict. JUsUce DClih.l stat:e.d:
I'm going to prOSBcute him [Troy A. Beam) in
my Court. . No matter ~lat District Court
it gOBS in, it will be done under my t.erms,
. I'm n,)t, goin9 to dismiss the r;"i\ttel'."
'-/ L(
'~.
,F"'~
DREW A. KIRBY,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COlJN'!'Y, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
TROY A. BEAM,
Defendant
: NO. 96-6319 CIVIL TERM
V.
:
SHIPPENSBlJRG TOWNSHIP, :
Complainant
V.
TROY A. BEAM,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER OF COlJRT
AND NOW, this 27th day of NOVEMBER, 1996, the following
oases are transferred to the offioe of District Justioe Helen B.
Shulenberger for disposition and she oan set up new hearing
dates.
1. Shippensburg Township v. Beam, No. CV-OOOO 216-96.
2. Shippensburg Borough Water Authority v. Beam.
I have no other oaption for this case. The oases are
presently in the office of Distriot Justioe Donald W. Daihl, and
I direot that he forward the papers to the office of Mrs.
Shulenberger.
By the Court I
Cd: District Justice Donald W. Daihl
District Justice Helen B. Shulenberger
Troy A. Beam
EX"UBIT "B"
>- l() .~
(~ (..~
r,": -
(") .. ::3.t;
u.i ''', ~ '()~,;;
() 'j,- - ():;~~
f-c, ~ ."
j:'!. ....;t :::::1
nf
(". ~~,' >~
?1<: \D ,.{'(/)
i tIl'" Q.. 'ri'~! ~;~;
i1:;u; !lhI)
'. W !/.lLI....
I'" U) ,;::
U" (0 :.;)
0 fJ\ U
!
......--'
~
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted In duplicate)
9 -/1,. 9?'
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next:
"- [J Pre-Trial Argument Court
'w1 Argument Court
~-~~---------------------------------------------------____.w
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated In full)
TROY A. BEAM,
\0 n
C? '.J) 'i,
~~ (f) :;'3 ~
, P'l'"'I_g
::\W., \ ''0 ". I h\
Z'-l! -- :-'l\.(
-~:;t. ()'I ")jO
(ji",'I,:"n
;:~~c) :~ :lc)
\~~~ ~-~"'l -~ ~~y'n
) l' ~.;'~ ., '~1
':,.., ...:..
3. ,0
(Plaintiff)
vs.
DONALD W. DAIHL,
(Defendant)
NO: 98 CIVIL 962 1998
1. State matter to be argued (I.e., plaintiff's Motion for new trial,
defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc,): Preliminary Objections
of Defendant, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a)
For Plaintiff :
Address:
Toni Lee Cavanaugh, Esquire
Suite 301
489 Baltimore Pike
Sprlngfieldt PA 19064
(b)
For Third-Party
Defendant:
Address:
A. TaVlor Williams, Esquire
Suite 1414, 1515 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
3. I will notify all parties In writing within two days that this
case has been listed for argument.
4. Argument Court Date: October 7. 1998
Call of Argument List Date:
,
r.l '" .... ,
A. TAYLOR WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
Attornev for District Justice
Donald W. Daihl
~'<-~~\
1'..,.1
TROY A. BEAM,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DONALD W. DAIHL,
Defendant
: NO. 98.962 CIVIL
I.ti.BE: DEFEN.QAtIT'URELIMINARY QB~S
QfllilQM
HOFFER, P.J.:
Plaintiff, Troy A. Beam, has flied a complaint against defendant, Donald W.
Dalhl, for actions defendant took while serving as the District Justice for
Pennsylvania Magisterial District 09-3.01.1
The allegations which give rise to this complaint are as follows: in late 1996
plaintiff was a litigant in a number of cases before defendant. Plaintiff believed that
he could not receive fair and judicious treatment from defendant. Plaintiff
petitioned this Court for a change of venue for the cases pending before defendant.
Then President Judge Harold E, Sheely signed an order, number 96.6319 Civil
Term, dated November 27, 1996. The text of the order is as follows:
AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 1996, the
following cases are transferred to the office of District
Justice Helen B. Shulenberger for disposition and she
can set up new hearing dates.
1. Shippensburg Township v. Beam, No. CV-OOOO
216.96.
2. Shippensburg Borough Water Authority v.
I District Justice Dalhlls now retired,
~
.
98.962 CIVIL TERM
Beam.
I have no other caption for this case. The c~ses
are presently in the office of District Justice Donald W.
Dalhl, and I direct that he forward the papers to the office
of Mrs. Shulenberger.
Order dated November 27, 1996.
In early December, although the cases were no longer before him, District
Justice Dalhl signed and Issued an arrest warrant for plaintiff because plaintiff
failed to accept or receive service of a properly served summary criminal
complaint. Plaintiff was subsequently arrested. After learning of plaintiff's arrest,
President Judge Sheely issued a second order on December 20, 1996, stating:
AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 1996, It
being reported to the Court that Troy A. Beam has flied
a complaint with the Cumberland County District
Attorney's Office alleging improper conduct by District
Justice Donald W. Dalhl and others, therefore I direct that
any pending or future civil actions and criminal
procedures normally flied in the office of District Justice
Daihl be transferred and be flied In the office of District
Justice Helen S. Shulenberger, 09.3.02, for adjudication
and disposition.
This action taken Is only to eliminate any
allegations of Impropriety and does not Indicate any merit
of the complaint flied against District Justice Daihl.
Order dated December 20, 1996.
As a result of his arrest, plaintiff flied the present complaint against
defendant Daihl. The complaint contains counts for false arrest and false
2
r<:l
.') 0
r"\
,
98.962 CIVIL TERM
Imprisonment and makes a demand for punitive damages. Defendant Dalhl flied
preliminary objections, in the form of a demurrer, to plaintiff's complaint. The
preliminary objections allege that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon
which relief can be granted because plaintiff's action Is barred by the doctrine of
absolute judicial Immunity. Defendant requests that plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with preJudice.
DlscusslM
Preliminary objections, in the form of a demurrer, may be sustained only If,
after admitting as true all well pleaded, relevant facts and any inferences fairly
deduced therefrom, it Is clear that there Is no theory of law that could provide relief
for the claimant. Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss Fund. 549 Pa.
613, 619, 702 A.2d 850,853 (1997). The grant of a demurrer is proper If It is clear
and free from doubt that the moving party has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. kl..,
It is well established law In Pennsylvania "that judges are absolutely immune
from liability for damages when performing j'.ldiclal acts, even If their actions are
in error or performed with malice, provided there Is not a clear absence of all
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person." ~,360 Pa.
Super. 539, 545, 521 A,2d 33, 36 (1987) (citing Stump v. Soarlm1an, 435 U.S. 349,
3
.59
,~ ''H;;,
r-,
98.962 CIVIL TERM
to another district justice fer dlsposltlon.2 Defendant Dalh: Jnly followed Rule 75
as he was directed to do when he Issued the arrest warrant because plaintiff had
refused to accept service of the criminal complaint. We do not consider the action
of Issuing an arrest warrant to be a "disposition" of the case. We do not consider
this simple ministerial act that defendant was required to take, pursuant to Pa. R.
Crlm. P. 75, to be any disposition of the case, in violation of President Judge
Sheely's order dated November 27, 1996.
Because the defendant was acting within his official capacity as a judicial
officer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, absolute judicial Immunity applies.
The grant of a demurrer is proper because defendant is protected by judicial
Immunity. Plaintiff Is unable to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in
light of the District Justice's immunlly.
-
Z The second order, dated December 20, 1996, directed Distrlot Justloe Dalhl
to transfer "any pending or future civil actions and criminal proceedings" to another
district Justice,
/;/
(~'
JACKSON, CAVANAGH & STIVAL.:, p.e.
llV: TONI LEE CAVANAGH, ESQUIRE
10 #: 77600
MILLS OF VICTORIA, surfE 301
1489 BAI:l'lMORE PIKE
SPRINm'IELD, PA 19064
(610)604-4970
ATTORNEY If OR PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PUAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLV ANIA
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
TROY A. BEAM
401 SHlPPENSBURG ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLV ANIA
17257, :
Plaintiff
NO. 98-962
v.
DONALD W. DAIHL, an Individual
1087 MUD LEVEL ROAD
SHlPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
17257, :
Defendant
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Troy A. Beam, Plainti ff, above named, hereby appeals to the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on the 19'h day of May,
1999, This Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached eopy of the doeket
entry.
Respectfutly submitted,
ACY.SON, CA YJAGH & S'/J\LE, P,C.
.. .1 111/ ~
I ll'-A-"'- -
By: Toni Lee Cavanugh, ~ ( lire
Attorney for Plainti ff
/;()
PYS510
1998'-00962
Cumber"""qd County Prothonot.ary 's O"""'\1ce
~lvil Case Inquiry
BEAM TROY A (vs) DAIHL DONALD W
Page
1
Reference No..:
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
~'udgment. . . . . . : .00
Judge Assigned: HOFFER GEORGE E PJ
Disposed Deec.:
----..------- Case Comments --------------
Filed........ :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
2/20/1998
10:54
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
**********************i*******************************************************.*
General Index Attorney Info
BEAM TROY A PLAINTIFF CAVANAGH TONI LEE
401 SHIPPENSBURG ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
DAIHL DONALD W DEFENDANT WIl,LIAMS A TAYLOR
1087 MUD LEVEL ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
*********************************************************w**********************
* Date Entries *
*********************************.***~******************************************
2/20/1998
3/03/1998
3/09/1998
3/09/1998
3/30/1998
4/09/1998
6/16/1998
9/16/1998
9/16/1998
5/19/1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: DAIHL DONALD W
SERVED : 3/02/98 COMPL
COSTS : $37.02 PD ROBERT JAMES JACSON ASSOC 3/03/98
.,------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF
OF DISTRICT JUSTICE DONALD W DAIHL
--------------------------------------------------,-----------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT TOGETHER WITH A MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESO
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PA
COURTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/15/98 - MATTER IS CONTINUED FROM THE
5/27/98 ARGUMENT COURT LIST - BY GEORGE E HOFFER PJ - COPIES MAILED
6/16/98
------------------------------.-..-----------------------------------
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF
DISTRICT JUSTICE DONALD W DAIHL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR I.ISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESg
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/19/99 - IN RE DEFENDANT'S
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS - GRANTED - PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT IS
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE - BY GEORGE E HOFFER PJ - COPIES MAILED
5/20/99
.. - - - - - - - - ., - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
************************************************************************.*******
* Escrow Information .
* Fees , Debits Bea Bal Pvmtsl Ad -I End Bal *
************************************************'*******************************
COMPLAINT 35.00 35.00 .00
TAX ON CMPLT .58 .58 TR'~"""'l)",
SETTLEMENT 5.0 5.0 Ill.; H~f'lM RECORD
JCP FEE 5.00 5.00 n 11':,111.;0, :, ,. .
------4-5---50--------4-5--5-0-- ---'IlIl'tf"fTl;;~~O" 1 I . /I,' r~ ,unto sot my hand
. . . vv . .,. , ,., I, rH Car/isla p
TI" //. ., D,
******************************************************~~**~*.*~W*~~****..****
':ih'.., r T:~1~. , 19 fJ?
13 ".........<.-r:1Kl. k ~~, ~~..:::.
lR f'fothonotaC;:?,'
PYS510
Cumber'''~'''1ld County Prothonotary's OI""Hce
_lvil Case Inquiry
1998'-00962 BEAM TROY A (vs) DAIHL DONALD W
Reference No..: Filed...... ..:
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT 'rime.........:
Judgment......: .00 Execution Date
Judge Assiqned: HOFFER GEORGE E PJ Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Dis~osed Date.
----..-------. Case Comments ------------- Hig er Crt 1.:
Hig er Crt 2. I
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
Page
2
2/20/A992
o/oo}oASo
0/00/0000
1
',;llld
T""": ('1'1>'( H(r'" Rr"' ~
, .,~j -,) r
In 'i .. "V 'Nhoroof, 1 Ii lilli'
,III : ",ill of said Cour I .II UiI ,
. /1. day of(}il:I~ , \9.f.f...
.("" . ..(f..."". ';7;'",' &:: 9:~
~lf"a",."t.;':',~ 7."
,..,..",..""., Y
f'll.o " , ,i\dl
I
&1
.~
i, '
'-',
TROY AI BEAM,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
.
.
: NO. 98-962 CIVIL
DONALD W. DAIHL,
Defendant
IN RE.iJL~DANT'S PRELlMlNARY OBJECTIQNS
ORDER OF COURT
~, 1999~ after careful consideration of
AND NOW,
both parties' briefs and p uant to the opinion filed this date, defendant's
Preliminary Objections are granted and plaintiff's Complaint Is dismissed, with
prejudice.
By the Court,
1'onl Lee Cavanagh, Esquire
Jackson, Cavanagh & Stlvale, P.C.
Suite 300, 1489 Baltimore Pike
Springfield, PA 19064
For the Plaintiff
A. Taylor Williams, Esquire
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts
1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
Philadelphia, PA 19102
For the Defendant
~5
~...
,
_""e
,
TROY A. BEAM,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
.
,
: NO. 98-962 CIVIL
DONALD W. DAIHL,
Defendant
~~T'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIO~
OPINlml
HOFFER, P.J.:
Plaintiff, Troy A. Beam, has filed a complaint against defendant, Donald W.
Dalhl, for actions defendant took while serving as the District Justice for
Pennsylvania Magisterial District 09-3-01.1
The allegations which give rise to this complaint are as follows: In late 1996
plaintiff was a litigant In a number of cases before defendant. Plaintiff believed that
he could not receive fair and judicious treatment from defendant. Plaintiff
petitioned this Court for a change of venue for the cases pending I?efore defendant.
Then President Judge Harold E. Sheely signed an order, number 96-6319 Civil
Term, dated November 27, 1996. The text of the order is as follows:
AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 1996, the
following cases are transferred to the office of District
Justice Helen B. Shulenberger for disposition and she
can set up new hearing dates.
1. Shlppensburg Township v. Beam, No. CV-OOOO
216.96.
2. Shippensburg Borough Water Authority v.
I District Justice Dalhlls now retired.
~~
--.
t--,
98-962 CIVIL TERM
Beam.
I have no other caption for this case. The cases
are presently In the office of District Justice Donald W.
Dalhl, and I direct that he forward the papers to the office
of Mrs. Shulenberger.
Order dated November 27, 1996.
In early December, although the cases were no longer before him, District
Justice Dalhl signed and issued an arrest warrant for plaintiff because plaintiff
failed to accept or receive service of a properly served summary criminal
complaint. Plaintiff was subsequently arrested. After learning 01 plaintiff's arrest,
President Judge Sheely Issued a second order on December 20, 1996, stating:
AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 1996, it
being reported to the Court that Troy A. Beam has filed
a complaint with the Cumberland County District
Attorney's Office alleging Improper conduct by District
Justice Donald W. Daihl and others, therefore I direct that
any pending or future civil actions and criminal
procedures normally flied in the office of District Justice
Dalhl be transferred and be flied In the office of District
Justice Helen B. Shulenberger, 09-3-02, for adjudication
and disposition.
This action taken is only to eliminate any
allegations of Impropriety and does not indicate any merit
of the complaint filed against District Justice Daihl.
Order dated December 20, 1996.
As a result of his arrest, plaintiff flied the present complaint against
defendant Dalhl. The complaint contains oounts for false .arrest and false
2
(p1
'''-'.,
f"""
98.962 CIVIL TERM
Imprisonment and makes a demand for punitive damages. Defendant Daihl filed
preliminary objections, In the form of a demurrer, to plaintiff's complaint. The
preliminary objections allege that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon
. which relief can be granted because plaintiff's action Is barred by the doctrine of
absolute judicial immunity. Defendant requests that plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.
Discussion
Preliminary objections, In the form of a demurrer, may be sustained only if,
after admitting as true ail well pleaded, relevant facts and any inferences fairly
deduced therefrom, it is clear that there Is no theory of law that could provide relief
for the claimant. Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss E!m.d, 549 Pa,
613,619,702 A.2d 850, 853 (1997). The grant of a demurrer Is proper if it Is clear
and free from doubt that the moving party has failed to state a qlalm upon which
reilef can be granted. 1ll..
It Is well established law in Pennsylvania '1hat judges are absolutely Immune
from liability lor damages when perlorming judicial acts, even if their actions are
In error or perlormed with malice, provided there is not a clear absence of all
Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person." ~U, 360 Pa,
Super. 539, 545, 521 A.2d 33, 36 (1987) (citing Slump v. Sparlilllml, 435 U.S. 349,
3
/..1
F'e'Il',",
f""',
98.962 CIVIL TERM
98 S. Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978)). District justices, as Judicial officers,
are entitled to judicial Immunity. frnlsner v, St~, 313 Pa. Super. 332, 344, 459
A.2d 1255, 1262 (1983). The purpose of Judicial immunity is to Insure the
correctiy or not, to the facts and circumstances of every case. 1d..
Rule 75 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure describes the
L.
It
~
I
1:'
Independence of magistrates to exercise their discretion In applying the law,
procedures regarding Issuance of arrest warrants In summary criminal cases. Pa.
R. Crlm. P. 75. The rule states:
(1) A warrant for the arrest of the defendant shall be
Issued when:
(a) the defendant falls to respond to a citation or
summons that was served upon the defendant personally
or by certified mall return receipt requested; or
(b) the citation or summons is returned
undelivered; or
(c) the Issuing authority has reasonable grounds to
believe that the defendant will not obey a summons.
..
Pa, R. Crlm. P. 75 (emphasis added).
In plaintiff's own complaint, he Indicates that he did not accept servloe of the
criminal oomplalnt properly served by certified mall. Additionally, the oomplalnt
Indicates that defendant Dalhl followed Rule 75 In Issuing an arrest warrant for
plaintiff. Although plaintiff Is correct In asserting that President Judge Sheely took
action, the original order, dated November 27, 1996, merely transferred the oases
4
~9
r
. .'~"..
o"'on' Oel,nd,n' 0,'0' onl1 'oll"",ad f\U"15
'0 ,no'o" d""'ct lu,IIce '0' d"P' , ".ce"" pIa'nll~ o,d
'tI"en ne issued \"e a((as\ 'tIa((an
as 0' ~as d'r,ct,d '0 do ' do no' con,'d,r '0' ,ct'on
0\ \"a C(\m\na\ compla\n\. 'tJ
,,'usod '0 ,ccept so""" 'N' do no' coos'd"
\ \0 be a "d\SPOs\\\on" 0\ \"a casa.
0' ",u'n9 an a"a" ~"ran ,rad \0 "", pu"uan' \0 pa. 1'.
\ \"a\ da\endan\ 'tIas (aC\u
,,,,a "",p" ",'n,.,,,Ia' a' 'o"IIon 0' p".'d,n' Judge
\/ d\SPos\\IOn 0\ \"a casa, \n \J
c...... 0 75 \0 ba anl
thlH r. I
d ~o\Ja{'(\ba( '2.7. ~996.
S",eI~" OI,jel da" . .~,., , cepac"~ a' a \ud'ct~
( \ 'tIas ac\lng 'lJ\\",n "IS 0 c a
see'u" '0' ..."nd" . . d,,,,,,,,,,,,un'l1 applIes.
0\ \'anns)!\\Janla, absolu\e \U
olllce' 01 ,'" Co!l\",on~,,\\O d I ,. plola,,,d b~ iud'''~
IS (OpG( bacausa da\an an '
",a 9'''''' 01 a d"nu"" p ",,'e\< "II" ",a~ ba 9' ""ad ,n
"" ",,'n,m" unabl' \0 ",a" a ct~'" upon
Im{'(\Un\\,' r
1190' 01 ",a O,,\I'ct Ju,IIce" ,,,,,,,un"~
98-96'2. C\\JI\.. iE.Rtv\
led O\$\(\c\ Jus\\Ce oa\"\
'" O""",b" ,0, ,..., dll'" · \0 ""m"
, 'II<" _"" """, da\ ,"" ...,on' "'" cr'''''''"' p'o''''''''''''
\0 \(ans,e( "a.n)! pending o( '1.1\1.1(6
d\s\(IC\ \l.Is\lce,
10
Among Ihe I(eeords and Proceedings enrolled in the cOlii'I of Common Plell' in lInd for Ihe
eounly of _._C'..l.I!4RF.Rr.ANll..u..._.........
in the Commonwealth of l"Jcnnsylvania
SEE BELOW
10 No, ____.._____u_,........,_ Term, 19 __ is contained Ihe following:
COI'Y OF _~~!'.~'.'RENCE_~.___._
DOCKH ENTRY
TROY A. BEAM
VS
DONALD W. DAIHL
98-962
1281 MDA 99
PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED DOCKET SHEETS
PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Caso Inquiry
1998-00962 BEAM TROY A (vs) DAIHL DONALD W
Page
.
Reference No..:
Case Type... . .: COMPLAINT
Judgment......: .00
Judge Assigned: HOFFER GEORGE E PJ
Disposed Desc. :
-----------.. Case Comments -------..-,----
Filed. .......: 2/20/1
Time.........: 10
Execution Date 0/00/0
Jury 'rrial. . . .
Disposed Date. 0/00/0
Higher Crt 1.: 111.//1 ('lOA q(
Higher Crt 2.:
***..***....***...****************************.*....*.*****.................
General Index Attorney Info
BEAM TROY A PLAINTIFF CAVANAGH TONI LEE
401 SHIPPENSBURG ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
DAIHL DONALD W DEFENDANT WILLIAMS A TAYLOR
1087 MUD LEVEL ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG PA 17257
..*..*...~..**...*....**.....**.......*.*.*....***.**..****.*.*.*.*.*.......
* Date Entries
~A~E ............................*.**.***..........****.********...*.********.....
1-11
12
2/20/1998
3/03/1998
13-14 3/09/1998
l,>-,z, 3/09/1998
~l--~j) )/30/1998
51 4/08/1998
c,;! 6/16/1998
53-,14 9/16/1998
Co 9/16/1998
56-61. 5/19/1999
FI RST ENTRY
COMPLAINT .. CIVIL ACTION
-------,._-------------------------------------------------------
SH~RIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: DAIHL DONALD W
SERVED : 3/02/9B COMPL
COSTS : $37.02 PO ROBERT JAMES JACSON ASSOC 3/03/98
-------..-,----------.-----------------------------,.---------------
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESQ
-----------~----------------------------------------------------.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF
OF DISTRICT JUSTICE DONALD W DAIHL
-------------,------------~----------------------_.- -. ----------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY ~~J=_rIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN'r 'I'OGE'rIIER WITH A MEMORANDUM ::t, LAW IN SUPPOR'
THEREOF.
--------------------..-------------------.----.--------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE ~'OR ARGUMENT BY A 'I'AYLOR WILLIAMS ESQ
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PA
COUR'I'S
----.------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/15/98 - MATTER IS CONTINUED FROM THE
5/27/98 ARGUMENT COURT LIST" BY GEORGE E HOFFER PJ - COPIES MAIl
6/16/98
----------------------------------------------------------------.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF (
DISTRICT JUSTICE DONALD W DAIHL
-------------------..--------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY A TAYLOR WILLIAMS ESQ
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
----------------------------------------------------------------.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/19/99 - IN RE DEFENDANT'S
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS - GRANTED - pLAI~TIFFS COMPLAINT IS
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE - BY GEORGE E HOFFER PJ - COPIES MAILED
5/20/99
----------------------------------.------------------------------.
~-n 6/17/1999 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FROM ORDER ENTERED 5/19/99 BY
TONI LEE CAVANAGH ESQ
--------------,--------------------------------------------------.
B/03/1999 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO /I 121BMDA99
I(lmc M. D1Zl0S0
Deputy ProdlOflOlilr)'
Shirl,y 8.i1,y
Chi,fClork
. .
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Middle District
September 5. 2001
/',0, Box 624
H."ioburg, PA 17108
717.787.6181
www,aopc,org
Mr, Curtis R. Long
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Troy A. Beam, Petitioner
v,
Donald W. Daihl, Respondent
Superior Docket Number - 1218 MDA 1999
Trial Court/Agency Dkt. Number: 98-962
No, 141 MAL 2001
Appeal Docket No,:
Date Petition for Allowance of Appeal Filed: February 20, 2001
Disposition: Order Denying Petition for Allowance of Appeal
Dale: September 5, 2001
Reargument/Reconsideration Disposition:
Reargument/Reconsideration
Disposition Dale:
/esh
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
. TROY A. BEAM,
No, 141 M,D, Alloc, Dkt. 2001
Petitioner
v,
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the
Superior Court
DONALD W, DAIHL,
Respondent
.o~D~
PER CURIAM:
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2001, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal
is hereby denied,
TRUE & CORRECT COpy