T.W. Olick v. City of Easton PD and Captain Beitler
515 C.D. 2020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 3, 2021Background
- Pro se appellant Thomas W. Olick filed a mandamus/RTKL complaint seeking various police records from the City of Easton Police Department and Captain Beitler, after multiple prior RTKL requests and related litigation.
- Appellees filed preliminary objections alleging improper service and legal insufficiency, and moved to bar future filings under Pa.R.Civ.P. 233.1 because Olick repeatedly raised the same claims.
- Olick amended his complaint and separately filed a motion to compel; service of the amended complaint was by certified mail only.
- At the trial court’s request, Captain Beitler submitted a sworn affidavit attesting that the department had conducted thorough searches and produced all responsive records on multiple occasions.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer (legal insufficiency), denied the motion to compel as redundant, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and barred Olick from further pro se filings on these claims without leave of court.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding the affidavit sufficient to show compliance, the mandamus pleadings legally insufficient, and Pa.R.Civ.P. 233.1 properly applied given Olick’s repetitive litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were the pleadings legally sufficient to obtain mandamus relief? | Olick claimed appellees destroyed/withheld records and thus had a clear right to mandamus. | Appellees argued mandamus inappropriate because they had produced all responsive records and the pleadings lacked legal sufficiency. | Court affirmed demurrer; pleadings legally insufficient and mandamus not warranted. |
| 2. Was the Beitler affidavit adequate to show no further records exist? | Olick contended the affidavit did not rebut his claims of missing/destroyed records. | Appellees maintained the sworn affidavit demonstrating thorough searches satisfied their burden. | Court held the affidavit competent to show nonexistence/production and supported dismissal. |
| 3. Should the trial court grant Olick’s motion to compel production? | Olick sought an order compelling the same records at issue in the mandamus complaint. | Appellees said the motion was redundant because they already complied and produced records. | Court denied the motion to compel as redundant and because appellees had complied. |
| 4. Was a bar on future filings under Pa.R.Civ.P. 233.1 proper? | Olick argued further filings were permissible and his complaints warranted continued litigation. | Appellees argued Olick repeatedly refiled the same or related claims already resolved, justifying a bar. | Court affirmed the bar: trial court did not abuse discretion in applying Rule 233.1 given repetitive, resolved litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dotterer v. Sch. Dist. of Allentown, 92 A.3d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (standard of review for demurrer to mandamus and elements for mandamus)
- Hodges v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 29 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (agency may use affidavit to prove a record does not exist)
- Moore v. Off. of Open Recs., 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL burden concerns existence and possession of records at time of request)
- Sherry v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (affidavits can satisfy agency’s burden re: nonexistence of records)
- Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2012) (purpose and scope of Pa.R.Civ.P. 233.1 to curb serial pro se filings)