Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-962 civilTROY A. BEAM, · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. · NO. 98-962 CIVIL DONALD W. DAIHL, · Defendant ' IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, ~a I 1~ , 1999, after careful consideration of both parties' briefs and I; nt to the opinion filed this date, defendant's Preliminary Objections are granted and plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. By the Court, Toni Lee Cavanagh, Esquire Jackson, Cavanagh & Stivale, 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 TROY A. BEAM, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : : NO. 98-962 CIVIL DONALD W. DAIHL, : Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: Plaintiff, Troy A. Beam, has filed a complaint against defendant, Donald W. Daihl, 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 ~.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. Shippensburg Township v. Beam, No. CV-0000 216-96. 2. Shippensburg Borough Water Authority v. District Justice Daihl is now retired. 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. Daihl, 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 Daihl 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 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 filed in the office of District Justice Daihl be transferred and be filed 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 filed the present complaint against defendant Daihl. The complaint contains counts for false arrest and false 2 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 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 ~laim upon which relief can be granted. Id__=. It is well established law in Pennsylvania "that judges are absolutely immune from liability for damages when performing judicial 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." Feingold v. Hill, 360 Pa. Super. 539, 545, 521 A.2d 33, 36 (1987) (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 3 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. Praisner v. Stocker, 313 Pa. Super. 332, 344, 459 A.2d 1255, 1262 (1983). The purpose of judicial immunity is to insure the independence of magistrates to exercise their discretion in applying the law, correctly or not, to the facts and circumstances of every case. Id. Rule 75 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure describes the procedures regarding issuance of arrest warrants in summary criminal cases. Pa. R. Crim. P. 75. The rule states: (1) A warrant for the arrest of the defendant shall be issued when: (a) the defendant fails to respond to a citation or summons that was served upon the defendant personally or by certified mail 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. Crim. P. 75 (emphasis added). In plaintiff's own complaint, he indicates that he did not accept service of the criminal complaint properly served by certified mail. Additionally, the complaint indicates that defendant Daihl 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 cases 4 98-962 CIVIL TERM to another district justice for disposition? Defendant Daihl only 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. Crim. 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 immunity. 2 The second order, dated December 20, 1996, directed District Justice Daihl to transfer "any pending or future civil actions and criminal proceedings" to another district justice.