HARRISBURG – Four individuals who filed criminal complaints against the mayor and city council of Pittsburgh have seen those same complaints transferred to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Superior Court judges Mary Jane Bowes, Jacqueline O. Shogan and Mary P. Murray authorized the complaints’ transfer, with Shogan authoring the Aug. 19 published opinion on the Court’s behalf.
“Appellants Mary Konieczny, Anthony J. Golembiewski, Christopher W. Humphrey and Therese Thompson Miles had appealed from the order granting the preliminary objections of Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala, Jr., in response to the appellants’ complaint in mandamus and dismissing the action with prejudice. Because jurisdiction properly lies with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, we transfer this appeal to the Commonwealth Court,” Shogan said.
On April 9, 2019, members of Pittsburgh City Council passed and Mayor William Peduto signed, firearm and firearm accessory ordinances outlawing certain firearms and firearm accessories within the city limits of Pittsburgh. Three days later, appellants presented private criminal complaint forms against Mayor Peduto and various members of Pittsburgh City Council to the Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office.
“Appellants contend that the act of passing new firearm legislation constitutes official oppression pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5301. It is alleged that appellee refused to accept the private criminal complaints or to take further action,” Shogan stated.
“However, appellants have conceded that at the time they presented the private criminal complaints to appellee, they ‘were handed copies of a press release regarding appellee’s position that he would not review anything connected with any alleged violations of the illegal ordinances that the Mayor and the City Councilhad passed.”
On Aug. 15, 2019, the appellants filed the instant “complaint in mandamus seeking review of the denial of the private criminal complaint under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506 and request for writ of mandamus under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure1093.”
Specifically, appellants asserted that Zappala “was required to accept their private criminal complaints against Mayor Peduto and Pittsburgh Council as stated in Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506.
Appellants sought mandamus relief pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1093, noting that the rule “provides the right of a Pennsylvania citizen to file a writ of mandamus against a government official who has refused to act in accordance with the legal responsibilities of his position or office.”
On Sept. 9, 2019, Zappala filed preliminary objections to the complaint in mandamus and a supporting brief, while on Oct. 16, 2019, the appellants filed a brief in opposition to Zappala’s preliminary objections.
Furthermore, also on Oct. 16, 2019, the trial court entered an order that granted Zappala’s preliminary objections and dismissed the action in mandamus with prejudice. The instant appeal followed.
“Prior to addressing the issues raised by appellants, we must address whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction over this matter. Because appellants’ mandamus action seeks to compel action by Zappala, acting in his official capacity as the Allegheny County District Attorney, this matter is within the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court,” Shogan said.
“As we have long stated, ‘We should be most cautious in assuming jurisdiction over matters that properly belong before the Commonwealth Court.’ Hence, because jurisdiction properly lies with our sister court, we transfer this appeal to the Commonwealth Court.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 1726 WDA 2019
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas GD-19-011631
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com