Schrader v. Sunday
| Decision Date | 16 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1:21-CV-01559 |
| Parties | Victoria SCHRADER, Plaintiff, v. David W. SUNDAY, Jr., in his official capacity, and Josh Shapiro, in his official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Aaron D. Martin, Stephen B. Edwards, Mette Evans & Woodside Mette Evans & Woodside, Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiff.
Sean E. Summers, Summers Nagy Law Offices, York, PA, for Defendant David W. Sunday, Jr.
Nicole R. DiTomo, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Norristown, PA, for Defendant Josh Shapiro.
This is an action seeking injunctive relief filed by Plaintiff Victoria Schrader ("Schrader") against David W. Sunday, Jr., the District Attorney of York County ("Sunday") and Josh Shapiro, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania ("Shapiro"). Before the court is a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Schrader. (Doc. 9.) For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. (Id. )
According to the complaint, on December 20, 2018, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania charged Tyree M. Bowie ("Bowie") with the murder of Dante Mullinix ("Dante"), a two-year old child.1 (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 7, 9.) Schrader is Dante's grandmother, who believes that the York County Office of Children and Youth Services ("CYS") "failed to protect Dante and prevent his death." (Id. ¶¶ 20–21.)
Similarly, Sarah Mercado ("Mercado"), Dante's aunt and Schrader's daughter, believes that York County CYS failed Dante and that Bowie is innocent of Dante's murder.2 (Id. ¶¶ 15, 20.) To advocate for these beliefs, Mercado maintains a Facebook group entitled "Justice for Dante" on which she posts her belief that Bowie is innocent, and that York County CYS was the party responsible for failing Dante, rather than Bowie. (Id. ¶ 16.)
During the course of discovery in his criminal case, Bowie received various documents concerning investigations into Dante's death, including documents from CYS. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 12.) Before Dante's death, Mercado made a report to CYS expressing concern for Dante's wellbeing. (Id. ¶ 11.) Mercado's report, and the documents associated with the investigation stemming therefrom, were part of the documents available to Bowie in his ongoing criminal case. (Id. ¶ 12.) After Bowie received these documents, he sent them to Mercado, who posted them to the Justice for Dante Facebook page as additional evidence of CYS's alleged failings surrounding Dante's death. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.)
Following publication of these documents to Mercado's Facebook page, "Sunday charged Mercado with a second-degree misdemeanor under Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services Law."3 (Id. ¶ 17.) As a result, Schrader alleges that while she desires to republish and distribute the CYS documents already published by Mercado on Facebook,4 she fears the institution of criminal proceedings if she does so in light of Sunday's prosecution of Mercado.5 (Id. ¶¶ 22–23.)
Schrader has stated that she fears the institution of criminal proceedings under Pennsylvania's CPSL. The CPSL was enacted following legislative findings that "[a]bused children are in urgent need of an effective child protective service to prevent them from suffering further injury and impairment." 23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6302(a). Thus, the statute's goals were to:
encourage more complete reporting of suspected child abuse; ... to involve law enforcement agencies in responding to child abuse; and to establish in each county protective services for the purpose of investigating the reports swiftly and competently, providing protection for children from further abuse and providing rehabilitative services for children and parents involved ....
23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6302(b).
To store reporting information, the CPSL provides for the establishment of "a Statewide database of protective services," which includes eleven categories of information related to reports of child abuse. See 23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6331. Within the categories of reports, the Statewide database includes the following information:
23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6336. The statute notes that "[n]o information other than that permitted in this subsection shall be retained in the Statewide database." Id.
The CPSL further provides for the confidentiality of any information in the Statewide database, and that only certain enumerated individuals and entities are entitled to access this information. 23 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 6339 –40. The statute creates criminal penalties for non-compliance with confidentiality requirements. Specifically, section 6349 states:
A person who willfully releases or permits the release of any information contained in the Statewide database or the county agency records required by this chapter to persons or agencies not permitted by this chapter to receive that information commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. Law enforcement officials shall insure the confidentiality and security of information under this chapter. A person, including a law enforcement official, who violates the provisions of this subsection shall, in addition to other civil or criminal penalties provided by law, be denied access to the information provided under this chapter.
The confidentiality provisions of the CPSL are due, in part, to the requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5101, et seq. , ("CAPTA") which provides federal funding for child abuse prevention, assessment, investigation, and treatment activities. 42 U.S.C. § 5116(a) - (b). Funding is contingent upon state certification that:
[T]he State has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a statewide program, relating to child abuse and neglect that includes ... methods to preserve the confidentiality of all records in order to protect the rights of the child and the child's parents or guardian, including requirements ensuring that reports and records made and maintained pursuant to the purposes of this Act shall only be made available to [enumerated persons, entities, and agencies].
42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(viii). The CPSL reflects Pennsylvania's effort to comply with CAPTA to receive federal funding in support of child abuse deterrence efforts.
On the basis of these facts, Schrader filed the instant complaint on September 10, 2021, alleging that section 6349(b) of the CPSL unconstitutionally infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech and should not be enforced. (Doc. 1, pp. 8–9.)6 Soon thereafter, on September 27, 2021, Schrader filed the instant motion for a preliminary injunction and an accompanying brief. (Docs. 9, 10.) Sunday and Shapiro filed briefs in opposition to this motion on October 12, 2021. (Docs. 19, 20.) Schrader timely filed reply briefs. (Docs. 25, 26.) Thus, the motion for a preliminary injunction is ripe for review.7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 allows a district court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bausch Health Ir. Ltd. v. Padagis Isr. Pharm. LTD
-
Mercado v. Snyder
...to enjoin Sunday and Shapiro from bringing criminal charges against Mercado and Schrader under § 6349(b) for disseminating CYS documents. In Schrader, this court granted Schrader a injunction, enjoining the Commonwealth from criminally prosecuting or taking other adverse action against Schr......