Credico, J. v. Unknown Court Staff
Credico, J. v. Unknown Court Staff No. 3006 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 15, 2017Background
- Justin M. Credico, an incarcerated pro se litigant, sued "Unknown Court Staff" and an "Unknown Clerk" of the federal courthouse, alleging abuse of process and constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a LexisNexis case summary of a Third Circuit mandamus decision involving Credico.
- The LexisNexis case summary described that Credico had left threats on an FBI voicemail and therefore was not entitled to mandamus relief; Credico alleged that language effectively suggested his guilt and harmed his defense and reputation.
- Credico sought damages ($250,000) and claimed First, Fifth and Sixth Amendment harms and First Amendment retaliation/chilling effects from publication of the summary.
- He filed an in forma pauperis (IFP) petition; the trial court reviewed the complaint under Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1) and dismissed it as frivolous for failing to state a cause of action.
- The Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s reasoning that Credico’s allegations did not state plausible claims: (1) issuance of a case summary is not use of "legal process" for abuse-of-process purposes, and (2) there were insufficient facts to sustain a § 1983 claim or show state action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of process | Lexis summary was used as a "tactical weapon" to coerce a guilty result | Publishing a case summary is not the use of a legal process (no summons/writ) | Dismissed — element of "legal process" not met; no viable abuse-of-process claim |
| § 1983 liability / state action | Publication deprived Credico of constitutional rights and caused harm | No facts show deprivation of a federal right or that defendants acted under color of state law | Dismissed — Complaint lacks factual basis for constitutional violation and state action |
| First Amendment (retaliation / chilling) | Summary chilled speech and hindered defense; amounts to retaliation | No factual allegations showing retaliation or protected conduct affected by state actors | Dismissed — no plausible First Amendment retaliation/chill claim alleged |
| Timeliness of appeal | Notice of appeal received 31 days after order; mailbox rule should govern given incarceration | Court applied prisoner mailbox rule to deem appeal timely | Appeal deemed timely under prisoner mailbox rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocasio v. Prison Health Servs., 979 A.2d 352 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard for dismissal under Pa.R.C.P. 240(j))
- Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1980) (elements of § 1983 require state action and deprivation of federal right)
- Rosen v. Am. Bank of Rolla, 627 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 1993) (definition and elements of abuse of process)
- Frazier v. City of Philadelphia, 756 A.2d 80 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) (definition of action "under color of state law")
- Jones v. Smith, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner-mailbox rule and acceptable evidence for filing dates)