J-S52003-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
CHARLES T. PICARELLA, JR., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
MICHAEL McCARTHY : 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 know-
it-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. Id., ¶¶ 14, 17.
-2-
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 know-
it-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. .
·
An d smce j to enJOY
you see:tp · ..
wntmg 1 etters to newspapers, 1 ook
inside yourself an9 see if you have the backbone and fortitude to
write an open letterI to The News-Time 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 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
1A 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-2002-
1286, 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 Charles H. Saylor,
cc: 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.
··- .; .. ·:··
·-
__ .__ .