T. Crock v. Magistrate 05-3 (Opinion Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Thomas Crock, Appellant v. Magistrate 05-3-17 A Saviekis : : : : : : : No. 2123 C.D. 2007 SUBMITTED: April 18, 2008 OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM FILED: June 13, 2008 Thomas Crock appeals pro se from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (common pleas), sustaining the preliminary objections filed by Magisterial District Judge Anthony Saviekis and dismissing his complaint. We affirm. Crock filed a pro se civil complaint against Judge Saviekis, averring that he willfully and negligently failed to timely notify the Department of Transportation that Crock had paid the amount due on a citation, thereby resulting in an avoidable suspension of his operating privilege and the imposition of reinstatement fees and costs. Crock also averred that Judge Saviekis failed to correct notice to Penn Dot despite requests (several) to do so . . . . Complaint, page 2. Crock requested damages in the amount of $370.00.1 Judge Saviekis filed 1 The complaint is inartfully drawn. In his appellate brief, Crock avers that he mailed the amount still owed (a fee of $13.50, which was imposed because he paid his citation in installments) to Judge Saviekis on Monday, May 23, 2005, and his suspension was scheduled to take effect on Thursday, May 26, 2007. Crock further avers that the Judge s chambers is only twelve to fifteen miles from where he mailed the payment and the U.S. Postal Service informed him that the payment would have arrived on Wednesday, at the latest. According to Crock, Judge (Footnote continued on next page ¦) preliminary objections, contending that the claims were barred by the doctrines of judicial and official immunity. Crock objected to the defense being raised via preliminary objection. Common pleas sustained the objection and dismissed the complaint, concluding that judicial immunity precluded suit for any judicial action falling within the normal course of court business. The present appeal followed.2 On appeal, Crock first argues that common pleas erred in considering the Judge s immunity defense because Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 provides that all affirmative defenses shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading New Matter . While Crock has correctly cited to and interpreted the rule, this court has permitted the defense of immunity to suit to be raised in preliminary objections where the matter can be decided on the complaint alone and no purpose would be served by a delay in ruling on the matter. Banfield v. Cortes, 922 A.2d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Stackhouse v. Pa. State Police, 892 A.2d 54 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 588 Pa. 760, 903 A.2d 539 (2006), Logan v. Lillie, 728 A.2d 995 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Cf. Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 584 A.2d 403 (Pa. _____________________________ (continued ¦) Saviekis negligently and with malice clocked his payment on May 27, and waited until the end of July 2005, to report his payment to the Department of Transportation. We note that it would have been advisable to send his payment with delivery confirmation or a return receipt request. 2 Apparently, Crock filed a nunc pro tunc appeal with the Superior Court, which denied the request without prejudice to [Crock s] right to seek or to continue to seek as the case may bethe requested relief in the trial court. See Superior Court Deputy Prothonotary Valecko s letter to Crock, dated March 1, 2007 (referring to that court s order), Certified Record item no. 21. Common pleas granted the petition for permission to appeal nunc pro tunc because of the Superior Court s order and the lack of opposition to the request. The appeal was subsequently transferred to this court. Because no issue is raised challenging common pleas grant of permission to appeal nunc pro tunc, and we are affirming common pleas order dismissing the complaint, we will not examine whether common pleas properly granted the right to file an untimely appeal. 2 Cmwlth. 1990) (holding permissible to rule on defense of immunity raised in preliminary objection where it was apparent from complaint that action against governmental entity did not fall within enumerated exceptions to immunity and opposing party waived procedural defect). Here, the defense can be decided solely from the complaint and no purpose would be served in delaying a ruling thereon. Accordingly, common pleas did not err in addressing the matter on preliminary objections. Relying primarily on federal caselaw discussing common law concepts of immunity, including Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988), Crock contends that Judge Saviekis actions are not protected by the doctrine of immunity because the duty to forward notice of payment to the Department is administrative and not judicial in nature.3 We disagree. It is unnecessary for this court to undertake a discussion of common law principles of judicial immunity or the federal cases relied on by Crock because Judge Saviekis is statutorily immune from suit. The Commonwealth, its agencies, officials, and employees, are immune from suit for actions arising from the performance of their duties. See 1 Pa. C.S. § 2310 (establishing immunity for Commonwealth officials and employees under Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution); 42 Pa. C.S. § 8521 (providing that unless otherwise provided in that subchapter, no provision of the Judicial Code shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity); 42 Pa. C.S. § 8522 (setting forth limited exceptions to sovereign immunity). See also Stackhouse (discussing sovereign immunity). Moreover, [t]he exceptions to sovereign 3 In Forrester, the United States Supreme Court concluded that absolute judicial immunity did not extend to a civil suit seeking damages for the demotion and discharge of a probation officer because the conduct complained of was taken while the judge was acting in an administrative capacity rather than judicial. 3 immunity are strictly construed because of the clear intent to insulate the government from exposure to tort liability. Stackhouse, 892 A.2d at 59 (internal quotations and citations omitted). It is well-established that magisterial district judges are employees of the Commonwealth and, therefore, are immune from suit when acting within the scope of their duties, except in those areas where the legislature has waived immunity. Cimino v. DiPaolo, 786 A.2d 309 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); Heicklen v. Hoffman, 761 A.2d 207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). See also Logan, 728 A.2d at 998 (stating that, [j]udges are absolutely immune from liability for damages when performing judicial acts, even if their actions are in error or performed with malice, provided there is not clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject matter and person ). Here, accepting the averments of the complaint as true, Judge Saviekis had a duty to report Crock s payment to the Department of Transportation and failed to do so in a timely a manner. Even so, Judge Saviekis failure to allegedly report the payment in a timely manner clearly occurred while he was acting in his official capacity as a magisterial district judge. Moreover, although recordkeeping and reporting on activities in court cases is not adjudicative in nature, it is a part of the court s judicial duties, as contrasted with the sort of court administration activities involved in Forrester. Accordingly, Judge Saviekis is protected by immunity absent an applicable statutory exception. Since Crock s complaint alleging a negligent or willful failure to timely report the payment does not fall within the enumerated exceptions to immunity, the complaint was properly dismissed. Common pleas order is affirmed. 4 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Thomas Crock, Appellant v. Magistrate 05-3-17 A Saviekis : : : : : : : No. 2123 C.D. 2007 ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2008, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
