U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew Brann on Wednesday dismissed most of Centre County District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller’s claims in a lawsuit against Centre County, county officials, a county judge, her former paralegal and four attorneys.
“The County is extremely pleased with Judge Brann’s well-written and thoughtful decision dismissing all the claims against it and its current [and] former representatives,” said attorney Mary Lou Maierhofer, who is representing Centre County.
Parks Miller’s suit had charged defamation, malicious prosecution, legal malpractice and other claims in a 13-count complaint against the dozen defendants. Brann left open the possibility for Parks Miller to file an amended complaint against two current and one former county commissioners on a search and seizure issue.
“We’re very disappointed with the decision,” said Parks Miller’s attorney Bruce Castor. “It will take some time to break down everything the court wrote, and then I will discuss with the DA whether, and more probably what, to appeal.’
Castor was also recently named Pennsylvania Solicitor General by Attorney General Kathleen Kane.
Brann ruled that Centre County Judge Pamela Ruest was immune from the suit, including defamation claims, because the claims against her fall “squarely within the realm of judicial acts.”
“Judges may be sued. But judges cannot be sued for engaging in judicial tasks,” he wrote in a memorandum in favor of Ruest.
Parks Miller had been accused of forging Ruest’s name on a fake bail order for an informant as part of an investigation of an alleged murder plot by a Centre County Correctional Facility inmate in 2013.
Based on information from paralegal Michelle Shutt, who had formerly worked in the DA’s office, attorney Philip Masorti filed a complaint alleging Parks Miller had forged Ruest’s signature. Ruest said she couldn’t recall if she had signed the order. A state grand jury concluded that Ruest had signed the order and cleared Parks Miller of criminal wrongdoing.
“The grand jury found as a fact that county officials failed to follow the statutes,” Castor said. “The grand jury found as a fact that the judge signed the order, meaning it also found as a fact that the affidavit was false. Without hesitation, others ‘piled on,’ hoping to ruin the reputation of the DA. Her office was searched. They tried to have her arrested and imprisoned. All flowing from a false affidavit that so many people wanted to be true, but wasn’t.”
Regarding the statutes, the grand jury that cleared Parks Miller stated the county used the County Code to ask the Bellefonte Police to resume its investigation of Parks Miller after the case had been referred to the Attorney General. However, the grand jury said the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, which vested the AG with jurisdiction, supersedes the County Code and no further action should have been taken by the county. Maiehofer pointed out that the grand jury noted to confusion between the statutes, and in Parks Miller’s right-to-know litigation against the county, the Commonwealth Court noted that district attorneys are governed by the County Code
Hours after Brann’s decision, Centre County President Judge welcomed Ruest back to hearing cases.
“The Court of Common Pleas is pleased to welcome Judge Pamela A. Ruest back to hearing cases in the Criminal Division of the Court, after her long-awaited dismissal from the legal action filed by the District Attorney against the County of Centre and many officials of the County,” Kistler said in a statement.
Brann ruled that Shutt meanwhile was immune from part of the suit based on her grand jury testimony and privileged disclosure to Masorti. He also dismissed Parks Miller’s allegations that Shutt stole emails. Brann wrote that the DA herself circulated the emails in question to at least 11 people and couldn’t be considered private property.
Brann also dismissed claims against Masorti. In ruling in his favor on a claim, among others, of breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty related to the emails, Brann wrote that there was no confidential relationship between Masorti and Parks Miller for which fiduciary duties would be owed.
“The amended complaint consists of 311 vitriolic paragraphs, filled with extraneous background information seemingly designed to evince an unnecessary motive for Defendants to dislike her,” Brann wrote.
In dismissing complaints against attorneys Andrew Shubin and Shawn McGraw, who works in Shubin’s firm and represented Shutt, Brann said “Parks Miller’s amended complaint consists of 311 rambling paragraphs, so inartfully pled that the reader can barely discern who said what about Parks Miller in order to substantiate her claims.”
Attorney Kathleen Yurchak, who represented Shutt in the lawsuit, called the ruling in favor of her client and others ‘a great day for justice in Centre County.’
‘Judge Brann’s decision vindicates the right of courageous citizens like Michelle Shutt to speak truthfully and to participate in criminal investigations, even those involving government officials like Parks Miller,’ Yurchak said in a statement.
Brann also dismissed claims against attorney Bernie Cantorna, including breach of fiduciary duty, again stating there was no confidential relationship and again strongly criticizing Parks Miller’s pleading.
“Her pleading continues for a rambling 311 paragraphs, much of which is filled with vitriol and extraneous background information seemingly designed to evince a completely unnecessary motive,” Brann wrote.
The judge dismissed most of the claims against the county Centre County Commissioners Steve Dershem and Michael Pipe, former Commissioner Chris Exarchos, county administrator Tim Boyde and county solicitor Louis Glantz.
Parks Miller had claimed the county officials had pressured the Bellefonte Police Department to investigate her, made unwarranted authorizations for right-to-know access to the DA’s office phone records and made defamatory statements about her even after a grand jury had cleared Parks Miller of wrongdoing.
Defamation charges were dismissed against the county officials based on immunity and because Brann found statements not to be defamatory. He dismissed other charges as well, including injurious falsehood, infliction of emotional distress, tortious conduct, conspiracy, common law abuse of process and malicious prosecution. He dismissed a legal malpractice claim against Glantz because the county solicitor was not her attorney.
The sole claim Brann did not dismiss is a Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. He granted Parks Miller an opportunity to amend her complaint on that count. The charge against the county defendants in their official capacities was dismissed, but may be amended and brought against them as individuals. To bring the complaint against the county itself, she will have to amend it to allege a policy or custom of illegal searches and seizures.
“While Ms. Parks Miller has an opportunity to file a second amended complaint to try to make a claim only under a Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim, I do not believe that she can make such since the county and its representatives were not involved,” Maierhofer said. “I believe that the Judge is providing the opportunity to amend just that one claim as it was not clearly plead in her amended complaint. During oral argument, her counsel clarified the claim, so the Judge is giving her another opportunity but with strict guidance by him to put the claim on paper.”
Castor, meanwhile, expressed dismay at the dismissal of claims.
“It is incomprehensible to me our system of justice holds no one accountable for what these people did to an elected official who only wants to lock up criminals to make Centre County a safer place. Something she is very good at doing,” he said. “If this can happen to the district attorney, it can happen to anyone without fear of punishment. I find that concept hard to accept.”
