Picarella, C., Jr. v. McCarthy, M. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S52003-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 CHARLES T. PICARELLA, JR., Appellant v. MICHAEL McCARTHY : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 104 MDA 2017 Appeal from the Order entered December 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County, Civil Division, No(s): CV-16-2173 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2017 Charles T. Picarella, Jr. (“Picarella”), pro se, appeals from the Order dismissing as frivolous his defamation action against Michael McCarthy (“McCarthy”). We affirm. On June 19, 2016, the following letter to the editor, authored by McCarthy, was published in the News-Item, a newspaper circulated in Shamokin, Pennsylvania: Once again, convicted felon Charles Picarella, who’s serving a lengthy sentence in state prison for his string of guilty pleas for illegal drug activities, is on his soap box. This time he’s blathering about the use of confidential informants by law enforcement. His latest rant is as accurate as a Flat Earth Society newsletter. According to inmate Picarella, using confidential informants perpetuates the demand for drugs and is the root cause of drug suppliers. No, inmate Picarella, it’s not informants, it’s the loathsome, contemptible, evil sleaze bags selling this poison who are solely to blame. So why don’t you take a hard look in the mirror? J-S52003-17 Inmate Picarella whines and complains incessantly, but never once apologized to the victims of his criminal behavior and the families he destroyed. Nor has he offered viable solutions for anything. To him there’s always somebody or something else to blame. His continual avoidance of responsibility for his destructive anti-social behavior is obvious, as is his lack of remorse. His failure to conform to a law-abiding society put him where he is today and will remain for a long time, thereby descending farther and farther into the black hole of irrelevance. So here’s a challenge: Cut out your half-baked jailhouse knowit-all rhetoric and misconception of self-righteousness. Quit whining and start showing some character. Take responsibility for the staggering number of crimes documented in your lengthy criminal history, and admit that you’re responsible for contributing to the misery and hopelessness of some of the shattered lives that are addicted to heroin and drifting aimlessly in the economically depressed Mount Carmel and Shamokin area you wrote about. And since you seem to enjoy writing letters to newspapers, look inside yourself and see if you have the backbone and fortitude to write an open letter to The News-Item and make a public apology to the victims whose lives you helped destroy and their families. Include the honest law-abiding citizens whose tax dollars are being spent to keep criminals like you behind bars. Man-up and do something productive for once. Trial Court Opinion, 3/31/17, at 2-3 (unnumbered). On December 14, 2016, Picarella filed a pro se defamation action against McCarthy. Picarella’s Complaint averred that the letter falsely claimed that he had not taken responsibility or expressed remorse for his criminal conduct. Complaint, ¶¶ 10-13. The Complaint further averred that the publication of the letters darkened Picarella’s reputation, constituted libel, and caused damage and injury to his reputation. -2- Id., ¶¶ 14, 17. J-S52003-17 Picarella sought $50,000 in compensatory damages, and additionally sought punitive damages. Picarella filed a Petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 15, 2016, the trial court entered an Order denying Picarella’s Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissing the Complaint as frivolous. Trial Court Order, 12/15/16, at 1. Thereafter, Picarella, pro se, filed the instant timely appeal, followed by a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal. Picarella presents the following claim for our review: “Did the [trial] [c]ourt err in dismissing this matter as frivolous [p]ursuant to Pa.R.C.[P.] 240(j)[?]” Brief of Appellant at 4. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j) provides, in relevant part, as follows: (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 one that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1).1 1 As we review Picarella’s Complaint, we are mindful that a pro se complaint should not be dismissed simply because it is not artfully drafted. Bell v. Mayview State Hosp., 853 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa. Super. 2004). -3- J-S52003-17 In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Picarella’s claim and concluded that it lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/31/17, at 2-4 (unnumbered). We agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as set forth in its Opinion, and affirm on this basis. See id. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/21/2017 -4- Circulated 08/03/2017 03:14 PM IN TH COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHU BERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHARLES PICARELLA, J PLA NO. CV-2016-21 73 vs. .. ~. ,· . . --~·' -< ' w en MICHAEL McCARTHY, DEF NDANT STATEM NT IN LIEU OF FORMAL OPINION SAYLOR, J. Plaintiff, Charles Pie rella, Jr., initiated this action by filing a Complaint on December 14, 2016. On De ember 15, 2016, this court entered an Order pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 2400)(1) dis issing Plaintiff's Complaint as frivolous and lacking an arguable basis in law. Plain 'ff filed a timely Notice of Appeal and on .January I 0. 2017. this court directed Plaintiff t file a concise statement of the matters complained of on appeal. Plaintiff in his 1925( ) statement contends this court erred by finding the Plaintiff's Complaint failed o state a valid claim as it lacked an arguable basis either in law or fact and thus, frivolo s. Plaintiff's Complain alleges one count of defamation pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343. Specifically, Plaintif alleges that Defendant's letter to the editor of a local newspaper has "darkened th reputation of Plaintiff'. He further alleges he has suffered damage and injury in his na e and reputation, "and has been brought into disgrace and disrepute among his neighb rs and diverse other persons ... ". Pl 's. Comp!. Ex. C. In an action for defa ation it is the trial court's functio!n to determine whether a challenged publication is cap ble of a defamatory meaning. Green v. Mizner, 692 A.2d i 169, 172 (Pa. Super. 1997). publication is defamatory if it tends to blacken a persons ! reputation in the community. Id. The court must view the statement "in context" and consider "the effect the state ent is fairly calculated to produce, the impression it would naturally engender, in the mi ds of the average persons among whom it is intended to circulate." Remick v. Manfr dy, 238 F.3d 248, 260 (3d. Cir. 2QO I) (quoting Bakerv. ! Lafayette College, 532 A.2d 99, 402 (Pa. 1987). Furthermore, an opinion cannot be defamatory unless it "may re sonably be understood to imply ~he existence of undisclosed defamatory fact justifying the opinion". Hill v. Cosby, 665 Fed.Appx. 169. 174 (3d. Cir. 2016) (quoting aker, supra). The letter, as attache to Plaintiffs Complaint, states the following: To the editor: On e again, convicted felon CharlesPicarella, who's serving a le gthy sentence in state prison for! his string of guilty pleas for ill gal drug activities, is on his soap box. This time he's blatheri g about the use of confidential inforrnants by law enforcement. His latest rant is as accurate as a !Flat Earth Society newslette . According to inm te Picarella, using confidential informants perpetuates the de and for drugs and is the root cause of drug suppliers. No, i ate Picarella, it's not informants] it's the loathsome, conte ptible, evil sleaze bags selling this poison who are solely to lame. So why don't you take a hard look in the mirror? · Inmate Picarella hines and complains, incessant!), but never once apologized t the victims of his criminal behavior and the families he destro ed. Nor has he offered viable solutions for anything. To him there's always somebody or something else to blame. His conti ual avoidance of responsibility fer his destructive anti-so9ial behavior is obvious, as is his lack of remorse. His failu]e to conform to a law-abiding society put him where he is to1ay and will remain for a long time, thereby descending farther and farther into the black hole of irrelevance. So here's a challen~e: Cut out your half-baked jailhouse knowit-all rhetoric and np.isconceptionof self-righteousness. Quit whining and start showing some character. Take responsibility for the staggering riumber of crimes documented in your lengthy criminal history, arid admit that you're responsible for contributing to the !misery and hopelessness of some of the shattered lives thatiare addicted to heroin and drifting aimlessly in the economically depresses Mount Carmel and Shamokin area you wrote abo~t. . · j · .. An d smce you see:tp to enJOY wntmg 1 etters to newspapers, 1 ook inside yourself an9 see if you have the backbone and fortitude to write an open letter to The News-Time and make a public I apology to the victims whose lives you helped destroy and their families. Include the honest law-abiding citizens whose tax dollars are being spent to keep criminals like you behind bars. Man-up and do so~ething productive for once. Michael J. McCajhy I In reviewing the lette~ authored by the Defendant, this court concludes the letter is not defamatory. Defendant's letter to the editor is merely an expression of his opinion of I Plaintiff. Importantly, Plainiiff disclosed the factual basis for his opinion which is I Plaintiff's criminal record. ln Pennsylvania, "pure opinions" which are defined as statements that provide fact1 on which the opinion-holder basis his opinion, are not ! actionable. Hill, supra. Plaintiff is incarcerated in a state correctional institution for multiple felony drug offenses, facts which are of public record. 1 It is clear to this court that the communication is incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning given the fact that I 1 A review of the Northumberland County Clerk of Court public records illustrates Plaintiffs lengthy criminal record involving numerobls felony drug convictions: CR-2002-213, CR-2002-1 152, CR-20021286, CR-2005-1050, CR-2006-311, CR-2007-942, CR-2008-565, CR-2012-1258, and CR-2013-4 72. I Plaintiff is a convicted felon nd Defendant's statements relate solely to Plaintiffs known, unlawful conduct. R mick at 260 (noting that "a publication is defamatory if it ascribes to another 'conduct, haracter or a condition that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his lawful business, trade or profession") (quoting Restatement (Second) of To s § 573 (1977)). Accordingly, the appeal should be quashed. BY THE COURT: 3/3;/;7 , Date cc: ____£_ Charles H. Saylor, Charles Picarella, Jr., #JD0020, SCI-Benner Twp, 301 Institution Dr., Bellefonte. PA 16823 Michael McCarthy, 43 Stoner Rd., Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Law Clerk Court - ..... '-::::c ..... _ C)t. ··- .; .. ·:·· ·- __ .__ . -..;

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.