Picarella, C., Jr. v. McCarthy, M.
Picarella, C., Jr. v. McCarthy, M. No. 104 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 21, 2017Background
- Charles T. Picarella, a convicted felon serving a lengthy prison sentence for multiple drug convictions, filed a pro se defamation complaint against Michael McCarthy after a letter to the editor criticized Picarella.
- McCarthy's published letter called Picarella a "convicted felon," attacked his character, accused him of lacking remorse and responsibility, and urged him to apologize to victims.
- Picarella alleged the letter falsely claimed he had not taken responsibility or expressed remorse, that it darkened his reputation, and sought $50,000 plus punitive damages.
- Picarella filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis; the trial court denied the petition and dismissed the complaint as frivolous under Pa.R.C.P. 240(j).
- The trial court held the letter was non-defamatory opinion grounded in facts of public record (Picarella’s criminal convictions) and therefore incapable of defamatory meaning.
- Picarella appealed; the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, adopting the trial court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under Pa.R.C.P. 240(j) as frivolous was erroneous | Picarella: the letter falsely alleged he lacked remorse and responsibility and harmed his reputation | McCarthy: the letter is protected opinion based on Plaintiff’s public criminal record and not actionable | Court: Dismissal affirmed; statement is non-actionable opinion grounded in public facts and thus not defamatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (defines frivolous action as lacking an arguable basis in law or fact)
- Green v. Mizner, 692 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Super. 1997) (court determines whether publication is capable of defamatory meaning)
- Remick v. Manfrey, 238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2001) (context and impression on the average reader govern defamatory meaning)
- Baker v. Lafayette College, 532 A.2d 399 (Pa. 1987) (opinion cannot be defamatory unless it implies undisclosed defamatory facts)
- Hill v. Cosby, [citation="665 F. App'x 169"] (3d Cir. 2016) (discussing the requirement that opinion imply undisclosed defamatory facts)