Tedesco v. Cynthia Link, 709 C.D. 2020
| Court | Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, JUDGE |
| Parties | John Tedesco, Appellant v. Cynthia Link, Wendy Shaylor, Laurel Harry, Barry Smith, Renee Zobitne, Robert Sebastianelli, John Doe State Police Detective #2, William Houser, United States Attorney General's Office Scranton PA, Attorney General's Office for the State of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg PA, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Pennsylvania State Police, Tonya Heist, Deb Alvord, Jeffrey Whitherite, Michael Bell, Dorina Varner, Monroe County District Attorney Office, Stroudsburg PA, Sergeant Pierce |
| Docket Number | 709 C.D. 2020 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 2022 |
John Tedesco, Appellant
v.
Cynthia Link, Wendy Shaylor, Laurel Harry, Barry Smith, Renee Zobitne, Robert Sebastianelli, John Doe State Police Detective #2, William Houser, United States Attorney General's Office Scranton PA, Attorney General's Office for the State of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg PA, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Pennsylvania State Police, Tonya Heist, Deb Alvord, Jeffrey Whitherite, Michael Bell, Dorina Varner, Monroe County District Attorney Office, Stroudsburg PA, Sergeant Pierce
No. 709 C.D. 2020
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
October 3, 2022
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Submitted: May 6, 2022
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, JUDGE
John Tedesco (Tedesco), pro se, appeals from the November 22, 2019 order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) dismissing his complaint and denying his petition to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP Petition). Upon review, we remand to the trial court to render an opinion that more fully
comports with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (Rule 1925(a)).
I. Background
On November 15, 2019, Tedesco filed a lengthy complaint levying 21 claims across 79 counts against 19 defendants.[1] See Complaint, 11/15/19 at 1-86, Original Record (O.R.) at 3-88. Tedesco averred that while incarcerated at the Monroe County Correctional Facility in Stroudsburg, he obtained "thousands of documents related to his discovery" in preparation for an upcoming criminal trial set for August 2015. Id. at 7, O.R. at 9. Tedesco alleged that "mixed in with his discovery"[2] were various documents which "had nothing to do with [him]" and pertained instead to a "missing persons/insurance fraud investigation" that was being conducted by the regional office for the United States Attorney General's Office in Scranton, Pennsylvania and the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department. Id. Following his transfer to the State Correctional Institution at Graterford in April 2016, Tedesco was "called down to the security office," where he was "question[ed] about how the documents related to the United States Attorney Gene[]ral's Office came into [his] possession[.]" Id. at 8, O.R. at 10. Tedesco stated "that he wanted
to get the documents back to their owner as he did not want to get into trouble by having the documents in his possession," and that he "just wanted to do the right thing." Id. Tedesco estimated that he had inadvertently received at least 150 to 200 documents relating to the "missing persons/insurance fraud investigation," and that he might still discover more. Id. Tedesco alleged that he was asked to return the documents and that "several witnesses" observed him handing them over to the correctional officers escorting him to his cell. Id. Following his transfer to the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill on June 15, 2016, Tedesco averred that he was the only inmate who did not receive his "property." Id. at 10, O.R. at 12. Tedesco asserted that he had gone 40 months without his "legal documents/papers," thus "hindering any type of chance to file his direct appeal, [Post Conviction Relief Act (P.C.R.A.)], [or] habeas corpus." Id. Tedesco asserts "that he was punished legally, financially, and emotionally for having documents related to the United States Attorney Gener[a]l's Office in Scranton[']s missing persons/insurance fraud investigation[.]" Id.
Tedesco avers that he subsequently filed a claim pursuant to Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, as well as multiple unspecified grievances.[3] Id. at 9-10, O.R. at 11-12. In that claim, Tedesco averred that the confiscation of his "documents/papers" hindered his ability to file a "direct appeal, P.C.R.A., [or] habeas corpus[.]" Id. at 9, O.R. at 11.
Also on November 15, 2019, Tedesco filed his IFP Petition. See Trial Ct. Docket at 2, O.R. at 2.[4] By order dated November 22, 2019, the trial court dismissed Tedesco's complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j)(1), Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1) (Civil Rule 240(j)(1)) and denied Tedesco's IFP Petition.[5] See Trial Ct. Order, 11/22/19, O.R. at 114. Roughly one month later, the trial court issued an opinion pursuant to Rule 1925(a). Tedesco v. Link (Montg. Cnty. Comm. Pl. Ct., No. 2019-26967, filed Dec. 20, 2019), slip op. at 2-3. In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court distilled the "gist" of Tedesco's "prolix" complaint to an assertion that the documents mistakenly sent to him evidenced that he was being unlawfully investigated for other crimes.[6] Trial Court Op., 12/20/19 at 2-3. The trial court determined that Tedesco's complaint was frivolous pursuant to Civil Rule 240(j), as he failed to plead a valid cause of action or to aver facts
demonstrating that the government officials named in his complaint "violated [] any of his constitutional rights or acted outside the scope of the immunity to which they are entitled." Id. at 4-5 (citing Bronson v. Lechward, 624 A.2d 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)).
Tedesco filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. See Mot. for Recons., 12/5/19, O.R. at 116; Trial Ct. Order, 12/12/19 (amended 12/16/19, O.R. at 119). Tedesco then filed a notice of appeal with the Superior Court, which was transferred to this Court by order dated February 13, 2021. See Notice of Appeal, 12/19/19; Super. Ct. Order, 2/14/20.[7]
II. Issues
Before this Court,[8] Tedesco argues that "all of [his] claims had an arguable basis" and that he "pled a clear right to relief in regards to all of his legal documents being seized by the Department of Corrections[.]" Tedesco's Br. at 14. Tedesco contends that the facts pleaded in his complaint establish that defendants "in conjunction with each other had some type of agreement or understan[d]ing among themselves[] to co[n]fiscate, destroy and[/]or conceal the whereabouts of all of [his] legal documents in retaliation for having documents that were related to the United States Attorney General[']s Office in Scranton[']s missing persons insurance fraud report." Id. at 23. Tedesco asserts that he "was led to believe for months that
the Department of Corrections [was] actually working on a solution to retain his legal documents." Id. at 27.
Further, Tedesco maintains that the trial court erred in denying his IFP Petition without providing at least a brief statement of the reasons for its denial. Id. at 29 (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(c)(3)). Tedesco contends that the trial court's "belated [Rule] 1925(a) opinion [did] not cure this problem," as an explanation regarding the denial would have enabled him to correct any defects in his petition. Id. (citing Goldstein v. Haband Co., Inc., 814 A.2d 1214, 1215 (Pa. Super. 2002)). Tedesco asserts that he was "left to guess" at the trial court's reasons for its denial, as he "was only provided with a paper stating his claims [were] dismissed[.]" Id. at 30. Moreover, Tedesco maintains that the "trial court [was] required to hold an evidentiary [hearing] to determine the veracity of the claim of inability to pay the costs of litigation[.]" Id. (citing Crosby Square Apartments v. Henson, 666 A.2d 737, 738-39 (Pa. Super. 1995)).[9] Tedesco also requests transfer of his claims to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Id.
Accordingly, Tedesco requests that this Court "set aside" the trial court's November 22, 2019 order denying his IFP Petition and dismissing his complaint.[10] See id. at 36.
III. Discussion
Civil Rule 240 provides, in relevant part:
(b) A party who is without financial resources to pay the costs of litigation is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
. . .
(c)(3) . . . If the [in forma pauperis] petition is denied, in whole or in part, the court shall briefly state its reasons.
. . . .
(j)(1) If,...
To continue reading
Request your trial