SCRANTON – A federal judge has denied a motion for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of a defamation count, in litigation from a man who alleged former Attorney General (and now, Governor) Josh Shapiro breached an agreement of non-prosecution with him.
John Shnipes of Lackawanna County first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 2, 2022 versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Joshua Shapiro, Esq. of Harrisburg, Rebecca A. Elo, Esq. and Special Agent Ralph Zezza of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office Bureau of Criminal Investigation, both of Allentown, and Pennsylvania State Trooper Jennifer A. Kosakevitch of Dunmore.
“Andrew Jabola, III, the former District Attorney of Lackawanna County, in early 2012, empaneled a grand jury investigation into sexual allegations against correctional officers by female inmates at the Lackawanna County Correctional Facility where Shnipes was employed as a correctional officer. District Attorney Jabola is presently a judge for the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. Although there apparently were a few correctional officers other than plaintiff who engaged in criminal conduct, Shnipes did not commit any criminal offenses as a correctional officer. Knowing that a viable criminal case could not be brought against Shnipes, District Attorney Jabola contacted Shnipes’ counsel to offer a Non-Prosecution Agreement,” according to Shnipes’ suit.
“Shnipes was agreeable to such an agreement in order to avoid the potential media exposure and legal costs that could have incurred. Additionally, although he intended to remain employed as he had a family to support, due to the allegations concerning the Lackawanna County Correctional Facility, the job seemed less desirable for innocent correctional officers as they would be lumped into the reputation of the correction officer(s) who had performed sexual misconduct. On Sept. 24, 2013, District Attorney Jabola entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Shnipes whereby the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania agreed ‘not to file any state law criminal charges against John Shnipes concerning any and all allegations at Lackawanna County Prison’. In return, Shnipes agreed to immediately tender his resignation and forfeit all accrued personal, vacation, and sick time. The Non-Prosecution Agreement is comprehensive and unambiguous and is a valid contract in which consideration was given. Shnipes fully complied with the Non-Prosecution Agreement.”
The suit contended that, in breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the Attorney General’s office (then headed by Shapiro) “conducted an investigation into prison guards who allegedly abused their authority to sexually abuse female inmates at the Lackawanna County Prison.”
Though Shnipes was arrested in February 2018 as a part of that investigation, the Lackawanna County Court of Pleas dismissed all charges against him two years later, in February 2020. Though the defendants appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, they withdrew the move in August 2021.
Subsequent to the criminal case against Shnipes being ended, Shapiro’s office nonetheless issued a press release which stated the following, “As a result of this agreement made 8 years ago, prior to a full investigation into Mr. Shnipes’ criminal conduct, our office sees no way forward in achieving accountability for this defendant and justice for his victims.”
As a part of his later civil lawsuit, Shnipes asserted a count of defamation against Shapiro (pleading that the press release was made outside the scope of Shapiro’s official duties), but this count was dismissed on Sept. 29, 2023, on account of high public official immunity.
Shnipes motioned for the Court to reconsider this decision.
Shnipes argued that because it is not the Attorney General’s “duty to label an innocent man a criminal after plaintiff’s criminal charges were dismissed, immunity was improperly applied” and took issue with the Court’s application of high public official immunity.
In a March 19 judicial order, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Karoline Mehalchick disagreed, and denied Shnipes’ reconsideration motion.
“It is well settled that suits for damages by individuals against state governments, state agencies, or state officers acting in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.’ Claims for monetary damages against government officials are also barred by the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity statute. This protection extends to defamation claims lodged against government officials acting within the scope of their duties. Accordingly, so long as Shapiro was acting in the scope of his duties as Attorney General, he cannot be held liable for defamation. It is apparent from the face of the complaint Shapiro’s written statement was published in the scope of his role as Attorney General and pursuant to his official duties,” Mehalchick said.
“First, Shapiro explicitly makes the statement on behalf of his office, stating, ‘our office sees no way forward in achieving accountability for this defendant and justice for his victims.’ The complaint concedes this, as Shnipes alleges ‘Shapiro and his office issued [the] written statement.’ Second, the statement indisputably relates to a case that had been pursued by the Attorney General’s office. ‘It has long been the law of Pennsylvania that statements made by judges, attorneys, witnesses and parties in the course of or pertinent to any stage of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged and, therefore, cannot form the basis for liability for defamation.’ According to the Supreme Court, ‘statements to the press may be an integral part of a prosecutor's job, and they may serve a vital public function.’ ‘Repeatedly, courts applying Pennsylvania law have found that a District Attorney speaking at a press conference to inform the public regarding a matter pending in his office is acting within the scope of his duties. The same principles may be applied here to the Attorney General.”
Mehalchick added that “in this case, Shapiro’s statements were pertinent to his case against Shnipes [and] according to the complaint, Shapiro published the statement to inform the public that his office could not pursue charges against Shnipes because of a long-standing prosecution agreement” – so, “while the statement was made at the end of Shnipes’s case, the Court finds no support for Shnipes’s contention that the statement was made outside the scope of an ongoing criminal case” and “accordingly, the Court finds it clear from the face of the complaint that Shapiro was acting pursuant to his official duties when he issued the alleged defamatory written press statement.”
Mehalchick denied the reconsideration motion and requested that each party submit a brief on the issue of high public official immunity, for her future consideration.
For counts of malicious prosecution, malicious use and abuse of process, common law malicious prosecution, common law malicious use and abuse of process, tortious interference with contract and breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages and grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
The plaintiff is represented by Matthew Moroney of Goldberg Miller & Rubin and Joseph P. Guzzardo of Guzzardo & Associates, both in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Christine C. Einerson of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:22-cv-00196
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com