Guarrasi v. Scott
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 278
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Guarrasi petitioned in Commonwealth Court for declaratory relief seeking access to public judicial documents under RTKL related to Bucks County criminal proceedings against him.
- Petitioner sought documents such as Judge Biehn's oath, signature, resignation letters, and related intercept orders and unsealing materials.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections (demurrers); County Defendants also asserted res judicata based on federal litigation.
- The court considered Counts I–VII, recognizing collateral attacks on prior criminal convictions and the RTKL framework as central to the dispute.
- The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the petition with prejudice, holding no cognizable relief under the RTKL or common law/constitutional access claims.
- Rationale emphasized PCRA as the exclusive vehicle to challenge the criminal proceedings and the RTKL as the exclusive remedy for RTKL violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a cognizable common law or constitutional right of access exists | Guarrasi asserts a public right to access under common law and First Amendment/constitutional provisions. | Defendants contend RTKL exclusivity and lack of a judicially cognizable access right for these documents. | Counts I–III fail; no cognizable common law or constitutional right to access the requested documents. |
| Whether RTKL exclusivity bars the claimed rights | RTKL does not preclude pre-existing common law rights to access records. | RTKL provides the sole remedy for access to records; common law/constitutional claims are barred. | RTKL exclusivity bars the asserted common law/constitutional claims. |
| Whether failure to exhaust RTKL administrative remedies bars jurisdiction | Plaintiff sought relief directly in Commonwealth Court without exhausting RTKL appeals. | Plaintiff failed to exhaust appeals under RTKL (to Devlin Scott or Praul); jurisdiction is lacking. | Failure to exhaust RTKL remedies precludes jurisdiction; Counts I–III are dismissed. |
| Whether Counts IV–VII present cognizable claims | Counts seek collateral attacks on convictions, recusal/removal, and signatures on orders. | Courts lack authority for these original-jurisdiction reliefs; PCRA is the proper vehicle for collateral challenges. | Counts IV–VII fail; PCRA and higher judicial review procedures govern these issues, not Commonwealth Court in original jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. Kinsley, 415 Pa. Super. 366, 609 A.2d 567 (Pa. Super. 1992) (PCRA sole avenue for collateral attack on convictions; civil actions cannot replace PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Long, 922 A.2d 892 (Pa. 2007) (public access to public judicial documents under common law)
- Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d 414 (Pa. 1987) (common law right of access to judicial documents)
- Mines, 680 A.2d 1227 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (RTKL exclusive remedy; exhaustion not required to proceed in some contexts)
- Leiber v. County of Allegheny, 654 A.2d 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (Supreme Court supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts; limits on Commonwealth Court original jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbons, 2008 WL 4601903 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (federal habeas-like civil rights context; not binding here but discussed in demurrer context)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbons (referenced), 979 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2009) (context for related Guarrasi prosecutions and prior rulings)