Moon Twp. v. Papa
| Decision Date | 03 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 234 C.D. 2022 |
| Parties | Moon Township, Chief Greg Seamon, and Sgt. Robert Phillis, Appellants v. Amanda Papa |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Submitted: November 4, 2022
Moon Township, Chief Greg Seamon, and Sergeant Robert Phillis (collectively, Township) appeal from a December 30, 2021 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Trial Court) denying the Township's Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon review, we reverse and remand to the Trial Court for the entry of judgment in favor of the Township.
On April 22, 2018, Amanda Papa was attending an Earth Day celebration in a local park. See Commonwealth v. Amanda Lynn Wasserman, a.k.a. Papa (C.C.P. Allegheny Cnty., No CP-02-CR-0008419-2018, filed July 20, 2020) (Criminal Trial Opinion), at 9. Ms. Papa objected to the presence of representatives of a petroleum company that had sponsored the event, and loudly demanded that one representative explain their presence. Id. at 12. Dissatisfied with the explanation, Ms. Papa became enraged and accused the representatives of handing out propaganda to children. Id. Ms. Papa then grabbed a stack of backpacks that were being offered to attendees and attempted to run out of the booth with them. Id. A representative grabbed the backpacks. A struggle ensued and Ms. Papa hit the representative in the chest. Id. Township police officers were called to the scene. When the responding officers instructed Ms. Papa to leave the park, she physically attacked them. Id. at 13. The officers placed Ms. Papa under arrest and led her toward a patrol car. Ms. Papa continued to kick, scream, and swear. Id. at 13.
Ms. Papa was charged with resisting arrest, defiant trespass, disorderly conduct (unreasonable noise), two counts of harassment (subjecting others to physical contact), disorderly conduct (engaging in fighting), and aggravated assault against both officers. Id. at 3. On March 4, 2019, following a bench trial, Ms. Papa was acquitted of the aggravated assault charge, but convicted of the remaining charges.[1] At sentencing on March 27, 2019, Ms. Papa was sentenced to a term of probation with several conditions.[2] Id. Ms. Papa was specifically directed to not contact any of the victims or any of the involved parties, and to refrain from making any "offensive or derogatory social media posts" about any of the involved parties or entities. Criminal Trial Op. at 3. Almost immediately after conviction, Ms. Papa wrote a public Facebook post accusing an officer who testified at her trial of "lying under oath." Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 371a-438a. Police Chief Seamon notified Ms. Papa's probation officer and provided printouts of the posts in question. At a violation hearing on June 20, 2019, the trial judge ordered Ms. Papa to be placed on electronic monitoring and admonished her again to avoid making social media posts about her case or the parties. Id. at 302a-03a.
On September 23, 2020, Ms. Papa filed a Complaint pro se[3] alleging that the Township and its employees were liable for malicious abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deprivation of free speech rights under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.[4]Original Record (O.R.), Item No. 8. On May 12, 2021, the Township filed Preliminary Objections in which it asserted governmental and official immunity from all of Ms. Papa's claims. Original Record (O.R.), Item No. 12. In a July 12, 2021 order, the Trial Court overruled the Preliminary Objections but instructed Ms. Papa to make further amendments within 45 days.[5] O.R., Item No. 14. On August 25, 2021, Ms. Papa submitted a Second Amended Complaint to the Trial Court. O.R., Item No. 17. Apart from the reference to federal constitutional rights, which was omitted, the Second Amended Complaint contained the same averments as the original complaint. As a proposed remedy, Ms. Papa requested an award of money damages in an unspecified amount, plus legal costs, in her favor. Id. ¶ 50.
In support of her claims, Ms. Papa submitted five exhibits. First was the handwritten witness statement of a Township employee, Amy Ottaviani who witnessed the April 22, 2018 incident. Ms. Ottaviani explained that Ms. Papa first drew her attention when Ms. Papa sat down on top of a table that had been set up for the event sponsor, and became "loud and very disruptive." R.R. at 37a. Ms. Ottaviani also stated that Moon Township police had "acted professionally." Id. at 37a-38a. Second was a document from the Allegheny County probation office regarding Ms. Papa's "continuing violation" of her probation terms. Id. at 39a. Third and fourth were Ms. Papa's own summary and analysis of her social media activity, in which she denied creating any posts that violated her probation. Id. at 40a-41a. Fifth was a letter from a health care provider describing Ms. Papa's "symptoms of anxiety and depression."[6] Id. at 43a.
On September 17, 2021, the Township filed an Answer and New Matter to the Second Amended Complaint, in which it maintained its immunity defense. O.R., Item No. 18. On October 1, 2021, the Township filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. O.R., Item No. 24. Therein, the Township again asserted that it was governmentally immune from Ms. Papa's claims under Sections 8541 and 8542 of the Judicial Code, commonly referred to as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8541-8542.[7] Id. ¶¶ 36-41. According to the Township, Chief Seamon and Sergeant Phillis were protected by official immunity under Section 8545 of the Tort Claims Act.[8] Id. ¶¶ 42-49. The Township further argued that Ms. Papa's claims amounted to an improper collateral attack on her criminal conviction. Id. ¶ 55. Finally, the Township alleged that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not recognize a private right of action for alleged violations of constitutional rights. Id. ¶¶ 65-66. Opposing summary judgment, Ms. Papa argued that her probation file, which had been obtained by the Township through a subpoena on the probation office and recently shared with Ms. Papa, "may result in further evidence."[9] O.R., Item No. 27, Response ¶ 21.
On December 30, 2021, the Trial Court issued an order denying the Township's Motion for Summary Judgment, which consisted simply of a printout of the Township's proposed order granting summary judgment, with the text crossed out and the single word "denied" written in the margin. O.R., Item No. 29.
The Township subsequently petitioned this Court for permission to appeal. In a May 19, 2022 per curiam order, this Court granted its petition and directed the parties to submit briefs on three issues: whether the Township or its employees were immune from suit, whether Ms. Papa's suit constituted a collateral attack on her conviction, and whether the Pennsylvania Constitution authorizes a private right of action for violations of its provisions.
The Township argues that summary judgment was improperly denied because it and its employees are immune from suit as a matter of law, and because Ms. Papa's claims constitute an improper collateral attack on her criminal conviction.[10]
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 provides:
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2. A party seeking to avoid summary judgment must show by specific facts in the depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or affidavits that there is a genuine issue for trial. Moon v. Dauphin Cnty., 129 A.3d 16, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
Here, the Township moved for summary judgment on the basis that "Ms. Papa has had a full opportunity to conduct discovery," and that she has failed to "demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for the jury's consideration." O.R., Item No. 24, Motion ¶ 15. In response, Ms. Papa argues that summary judgment on the malicious abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution claims would be inappropriate because discovery is ongoing, and that she should be allowed time to complete it. O.R., Item No. 27, Response to Motion for Summary Judgment ¶¶ 21, 24, 27. Ms. Papa argues that e-mail communications between Chief Seamon and her probation officer "may result in further evidence." Id. ¶ 21. The rest of Ms. Papa's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment consists of restatements of the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint. See generally id. ¶¶ 4-47.
Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),[11] the Trial Court submitted a single sentence statement explaining its denial of summary judgment which reads as follows: "When [Appellants] filed their [M]otion for [S]ummary [J]udgment, discovery was not closed and it was therefore not free and clear from all doubt that [Appellants] were entitled to summary judgment." The memorandum cites a single case, Brown v. Tunkhannock Township, 665 A.2d 1318 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), which is inapposite to the issues at hand.[12] It is important to note that the Trial Court did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial