Picarella, Jr., C. v. Detalente, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S19018-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CHARLES PICARELLA JR., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. JORDAN DETALENTE, Appellee No. 1418 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order Entered May 13, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County Civil Division at No(s): CV-2013-623 BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MAY 07, 2014 Appellant, Charles Picarella, Jr., appeals from an order entered on May 13, 2013 in the Civil Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County that denied his petition to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint. We affirm. Appellant is an inmate in the state correctional facility in Frackville, Pennsylvania. On April 3, 2013, Appellant filed a complaint sounding in slander against Jordan Detalente in the Northumberland County Court of Detalente falsely reported to a law enforcement officer that he had exposed himself and that he was in possession of a firearm. Appellant included a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with his complaint. By order filed on J-S19018-14 forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint. appeal followed. Trial Court Order, 5/13/13. This The trial court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant alleges in his brief that the trial court erred in its May 13 th ruling because his complaint possessed a foundation in both law and fact and, therefore, could not be deemed frivolous. See We disagree. Where a litigant petitions the court to proceed in forma pauperis, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j) permits the court to dismiss the satisfied that the action is frivolous. In relevant part, Rule 240(j) states: Rule 240. In Forma Pauperis * * * (j)(1) If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous. Note: A frivolous action or proceeding has been defined as Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Pa.R.C.P. 240(j). -2- J-S19018-14 complaint on grounds that the claims he advanced were frivolous. This Court has previously held that a defendant's statements to law enforcement officials, accusing the plaintiff of criminal activity and uttered for the purpose of convincing proper authorities to institute criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, are absolutely privileged as statements preliminary to judicial proceedings. Pawlowski v. Smorto, 588 A.2d 36, 42-43 (Pa. Super. 1991); Restatement (Second) Torts ยง 587 cmt. b (judicial proceedings prosecuting attorney or other proper officer preliminary to a proposed criminal prosecution whether or not the information is followed by a formal complaint to be defamatory fall within the scope of the absolute judicial forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint as frivolous. Thus, we affirm. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/7/2014 -3-
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.
