Derrickson v. Chester City, No. 838 C.D. 2009 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 5/28/2010)
| Decision Date | 28 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 838 C.D. 2009.,838 C.D. 2009. |
| Parties | Rodney Derrickson, Appellant v. Chester City and Chester City Police Department and John Doe and William R. Welsh, C.I.D. and Delaware County and Delaware County District Attorney's Office and John F. X. Reilly, Esq., and Mike Florio and Clayton Auto. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Before: McGINLEY, BROBSON, Judge, FLAHERTY, Senior Judge.
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Rodney Derrickson (Derrickson) appeals from the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court) which sustained the preliminary objections filed by Appellees, Chester City (City), Chester City Police Department (Police Department), John Doe (Doe), William R. Welsh, C.I.D. (Welsh), Delaware County (County), Delaware County District Attorney's Office (DA's Office), John F.X. Reilly, Esq. (Reilly), Mike Florio (Florio) and Clayton Auto and struck Derrickson's amended complaint. We affirm.
On December 14, 1994 Patrick Cassidy was found shot to death in his Nissan Sentra automobile. In 1995, Derrickson was convicted of second degree murder and robbery of Cassidy and was thereafter sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. Derrickson appealed his conviction to the Superior Court, which affirmed the judgment of sentence. Thereafter the Supreme Court denied his request for appeal. Commonwealth v. Derrickson, 688 A.2d 1226 (Pa. Super. 1996), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 548 Pa. 644, 695 A.2d 783 (1997).
In August of 2007, Derrickson initiated a pro se civil action against Appellees alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims based on alleged malicious, intentional and/or negligent destruction of potentially highly exculpable evidence; the automobile owned by Cassidy. Derrickson, thereafter, filed an amended complaint which was served on the parties on June 9, 2008. According to Derrickson, Appellees destroyed the vehicle owned by the victim and that such vehicle could have contained potentially exculpatory evidence. Derrickson maintained that he first learned of the destruction of the automobile during the deposition of Welsh on September 7, 2005, in a federal lawsuit that Derrickson had previously filed.1
Appellees filed preliminary objections. Florio and Clayton Auto asserted preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer asserting that Derrickson failed to set forth any allegations against Florio and Clayton Auto, that Derrickson failed to plead a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, that the asserted claim was outside the statute of limitations, that Derrickson could not make out a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Derrickson's underlying conviction has not been overturned, reversed, or expunged and that Derrickson could not make out a tort claim against them for failing to preserve a vehicle owned by Derrickson's victim.
City and Police Department filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and alleged that the complaint was served outside the statute of limitations, that Derrickson's claims are barred by the popularly called Political Subdivision Torts Claim Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 8541-8542, that Derrickson failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Derrickson is collaterally estopped, that the Police Department is not a proper party and that Derrickson failed to file the amended complaint within the time permitted.
County filed preliminary objections, alleging that Derrickson failed to properly serve the complaint within the applicable statute of limitations and that Derrickson failed to timely file his amended complaint. County also objected in the nature of a demurrer, claiming that Derrickson is merely attacking the underlying conviction, that the complaint fails to set forth any factual allegations of wrongdoing by the County and fails to state a claim of constitutional conspiracy.
The DA's Office and Reilly filed preliminary objections raising the same objections as set forth by the County and also asserting that Reilly is immune from liability in the performance of his prosecutorial functions and that the amended complaint did not contain any specific allegations as to the alleged wrongdoing by Reilly.
Finally, Welsh filed preliminary objections claiming that the complaint was not served within the statute of limitations, that Derrickson failed to set forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the same claims were previously raised in federal court and abandoned by Derrickson.
On April 3, 2009, the trial court sustained the preliminary objections of the Appellees and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.2
On appeal, Derrickson raises three issues. Derrickson claims that the trial court erred in sustaining Appellees preliminary objections, in denying his motion to strike Welsh's preliminary objections to the complaint as...
To continue reading
Request your trial