Credico, J. v. Hubiak, J.
Credico, J. v. Hubiak, J. No. 3306 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 21, 2017Background
- Justin Credico, a pro se litigant and inmate, filed an IFP complaint (Sept. 2016) against four alleged FBI agents alleging false complaints, warrants, and indictments and seeking $3,000,000 total for abuse of process, third‑party due process, and malicious prosecution.
- The complaint's body only pleaded an abuse of process claim and contained largely conclusory allegations without specific factual detail about the asserted falsities or lack of probable cause.
- Credico sought to proceed in forma pauperis; the trial court reviewed the IFP petition and complaint under Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1) and dismissed the complaint as frivolous on Sept. 12, 2016.
- The trial court found the complaint failed to plead essential elements for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, or any § 1983/Bivens constitutional claim, and that Pennsylvania does not recognize third‑party abuse of process.
- Credico appealed; the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding the complaint lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and the trial court’s reasoning was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims (abuse of process, malicious prosecution, third‑party due process) are frivolous under Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1) | Credico alleges indictments were riddled with false facts, malice, fabrications and that these support state torts and damages | Defendants implicitly argue (via record) that the complaint fails to plead facts establishing elements of those torts or constitutional violations | Court: Complaint is frivolous — fails to plead necessary facts for abuse of process or malicious prosecution; no standing for third‑party abuse claim; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the court may treat the pleading as a Bivens/federal constitutional claim | Credico urges the court to consider a Bivens analog to § 1983 for constitutional violations by federal agents | Defendants rely on lack of pleaded facts and lack of any § 1983/Bivens specific allegations | Court: Credico did not plead factual allegations showing constitutional violations or lack of probable cause; Bivens relief not established; court declines to treat complaint as viable Bivens claim |
| Sufficiency of factual pleading under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019 (fact‑pleading requirement) | Credico relies on general allegations and references to grand jury outcomes and unspecified falsehoods | Defendants implicitly rely on requirement that material ultimate facts be pleaded with specificity | Court: Complaint fails Rule 1019 standards — lacks specific ultimate facts to enable defendants to prepare defense; dismissal proper |
| Whether IFP review and dismissal under Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1) was proper | Credico contends his poverty filing should not prevent review on merits | Trial court may screen IFP filings and dismiss frivolous claims | Court: Proper to dismiss under Rule 240(j)(1) because action lacks arguable basis in law or fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous action defined as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Grant v. Blaine, 868 A.2d 400 (Pa. 2005) (orders denying IFP status and dismissing companion complaints as frivolous are appealable)
- Bell v. Mayview State Hosp., 853 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate review of Rule 240(j) dismissal limited to constitutional-rights and abuse-of-discretion/error-of-law inquiry)
- Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Pennsylvania fact‑pleading standards and Rule 1019 requirements)
- Rosen v. American Bank of Rolla, 627 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 1993) (definition and elements of abuse of process)
- Shaffer v. Stewart, 473 A.2d 1017 (Pa. Super. 1984) (abuse of process requires a definite unauthorized act or objective not legitimate to the process)
- Manley v. Fitzgerald, 997 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Commw. 2010) (elements of malicious prosecution: lack of probable cause and malice, plus favorable termination)