Credico, J. v. West Chester University ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • J-S76002-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    JUSTIN CREDICO                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant          :
    :
    :
    v.                      :
    :
    :
    WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY,             :   No. 2166 EDA 2017
    CHESTER COUNTY, WEST CHESTER         :
    TOWNSHIP, WEST CHESTER               :
    UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,        :
    MICHAEL BIKING OF WEST               :
    CHESTER UNIVERSITY POLICE,           :
    LYNN KLINGENSMITH OF WEST            :
    CHESTER UNIVERSITY, JACK             :
    WABER OF WEST CHESTER                :
    UNIVERSITY BIOLOGY STAFF,            :
    BARBARA GIZA OF WEST CHESTER         :
    UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY STAFF          :
    AND JOHN/JANE DOES                   :
    Appeal from the Order Entered June 15, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
    Civil Division at No(s): 2017-5910-RC
    JUSTIN CREDICO                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant          :
    :
    :
    v.                      :
    :
    :
    WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY,             :   No. 2167 EDA 2017
    CHESTER COUNTY, WEST CHESTER         :
    TOWNSHIP, WEST CHESTER               :
    UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,        :
    MICHAEL BIKING OF WEST               :
    CHESTER UNIVERSITY POLICE,           :
    LYNN KLINGENSMITH OF WEST            :
    CHESTER UNIVERSITY, JACK             :
    J-S76002-17
    WABER OF WEST CHESTER                      :
    UNIVERSITY BIOLOGY STAFF,                  :
    BARBARA GIZA OF WEST CHESTER               :
    UNIVERSITY PSYCHOLOGY STAFF                :
    AND JOHN/JANE DOES                         :
    Appeal from the Order Entered June 15, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
    Civil Division at No(s): 2017-05910
    BEFORE:      PANELLA, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.                        FILED MARCH 26, 2018
    Pro se Appellant, Justin Credico, argues the trial court erred in
    dismissing his complaint as frivolous. After careful review, we conclude the
    court did not err, and therefore affirm.1
    In his complaint, filed June 19, 2017, Credico asserted various actors
    had violated his civil rights in 2008. Credico, who is currently incarcerated in
    FCI Allenwood, a federal prison,2 filed a concurrent application for in forma
    ____________________________________________
       Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    1 As all of the named defendants in this matter are local or state agencies,
    Credico should have appealed this matter to the Commonwealth Court. “[T]he
    Commonwealth Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction of appeals involving
    tort claims against a Commonwealth or local agency.” Flaxman v. Burnett,
    
    574 A.2d 1061
    , 1064 n.4 (Pa. Super. 1990). See also Balshy v. Rank, 
    490 A.2d 415
    , 420 (Pa. 1985) (finding section 1983 claims for damages create a
    species of tort liability). Appellees have not objected to the exercise of our
    jurisdiction over this matter, thus our jurisdiction is perfected and we decline
    to transfer this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 741(a).
    2 A federal jury convicted Credico of threatening federal agents and their
    family members. See United States v. Credico, ___ Fed.Appx. ___, 2017
    -2-
    J-S76002-17
    pauperis (“IFP”) status, which would allow for waiver of filing fees, among
    other expenses.
    Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a court considering a request for IFP
    status may dismiss any associated action if the court determines the action is
    frivolous. See Pa.R.C.P. 240(j). An action is frivolous if it lacks any arguable
    basis in either the law or the facts alleged. See Ocasio v. Prison Health
    Services, 
    979 A.2d 352
    , 354 (Pa. Super. 2009). An action lacks an arguable
    basis in law or in fact if, taking all factual assertions as true, it does not set
    forth a valid cause of action. See 
    id. In dismissing
    Credico’s action, the court observed that the allegations
    of wrongful conduct all occurred in 2008, while Credico did not file his
    complaint until 2017. While the causes of actions Credico seeks to assert are
    not entirely clear, the trial court is undoubtedly correct that all are governed
    by a two-year statute of limitations. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524 (two-year cause
    of action for tort claims); Wilson v. Garcia, 
    471 U.S. 261
    , 276-280 (1985)
    ____________________________________________
    WL 6422349 (3d Cir. 2017). He made hundreds of phone calls to the FBI.
    Eventually, he left voicemails, “which included graphic threats to murder
    [Special Agent] Milligan and defile his corpse, murder Special Agent Jim
    Fitzgerald, rape Milligan’s wife, and anally rape Fitzgerald's daughter (whom
    Credico referenced by name)….” 
    Id., at *1.
    A search of Credico’s name in Westlaw reveals he is a prolific pro se litigant.
    See, e.g., Credico v. Unknown Official for U.S. Drone Strikes, 
    2013 WL 1446323
    (E.D. Pa. 2013) (dismissing Credico’s complaint “as frivolous
    because [his] suggestion that the federal government might kill him with a
    drone is delusional and irrational[]”) (unpublished memorandum).
    -3-
    J-S76002-17
    (holding section 1983 claims are governed by the state statute of limitations
    for tort claims), superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in Jones
    v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company, 
    541 U.S. 369
    , 377-378 (2004). Thus,
    all of Credico’s claims are time-barred and his complaint is clearly frivolous.
    Order affirmed.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 3/26/18
    -4-