Full Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael Madigan, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 554 M.D. 2024 : Former Judge Stephen Baratta; : Former Master Lisa Tresslar; : Judge Paula Roscioli; Judge : Jennifer Sletvoldt; Judge John : Morganelli; Court Administrator : Jermaine Greene; Attorney Tyree : Blair, Spitale Vargo Madsen and : Blair LLP; Attorney Bruce Thomas, : Thomas and Thomas LLP; District : Attorney Robert Eyer; Attorney Steven : N. Goudsouzian; Steven N. : Goudsouzian and Associates LLP; : and Attorney Ron Creazzo, : Respondents : Submitted: May 12, 2026 BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOLF FILED: October 26, 2026 Before the Court are four sets of preliminary objections filed by Respondents to the original jurisdiction petition for review (Petition) of Michael Madigan (Petitioner), an unrepresented litigant. For the following reasons, we sustain the preliminary objection to Petitioner’s standing and dismiss the Petition in part. Further, concluding we lack jurisdiction over the remaining claims, we transfer those claims and the remaining preliminary objections to the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (Common Pleas). Petitioner filed the Petition on December 12, 2024. The Petition alleges the custody process and custody proceedings in Common Pleas are fraught with judicial corruption and abuse of power that detrimentally affected Petitioner’s and others’ rights. Pet. ¶¶ 19-33. As best we can tell from the face of the Petition, Petitioner alleges he was at some point a party to a custody proceeding in Common Pleas. See id. ¶¶ 27-28 (referring to a 2016 proceeding). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and state law, Petitioner seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and “reforms” of Common Pleas to address the alleged procedural breakdowns. Pet. ¶¶ 28, 34-38, 41. The Petition seeks relief against former Judge Stephen Baratta, Judge Jennifer Sletvoldt, and Judge John Morganelli, all of Common Pleas, and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC)1 (collectively, Judicial Respondents);2 former Common Pleas Custody Master Lisa Tresslar (Tresslar); former Common Pleas Divorce Master Steven N. Goudsouzian and his associate, Attorney Robert Eyer (collectively, Divorce Master Respondents); and Attorney 1 Although the caption of the Petition does not name AOPC, the Petition was served on AOPC. AOPC has entered an appearance and filed preliminary objections with Judicial Respondents, and is identified as a Respondent on the Court’s docket and orders. 2 Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Judge Paula Roscioli and District Court Administrator Jermaine Greene as respondents. 2 Tyree Blair and the law firm Spitale, Vargo, Madsen & Blair, LLP (collectively, Blair).3 Each group of Respondents filed preliminary objections.4 Judicial Respondents filed preliminary objections based on lack of standing, Eleventh Amendment5 immunity, sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and lack of jurisdiction in this Court to administer Common Pleas. Judicial Respondents also demur to the Petition on the merits on various grounds. Tresslar filed preliminary objections based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Section 1983 claims against Respondents, sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, and qualified immunity. Tresslar also objects based on insufficient specificity in the Petition. Divorce Master Respondents filed preliminary objections raising similar jurisdictional and immunity assertions as those of Tresslar. They add a demurrer to the Petition’s claim that Goudsouzian negligently failed to supervise Eyer, arguing this respondeat superior claim is impermissible under Section 1983. Divorce Master Respondents also invoke the two-year statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims and point out the alleged facts occurred in or about 2016. They argue the Petition cannot be amended to state a cause of action and should be dismissed with prejudice. 3 The Petition appears to proceed against Respondents in their official capacities. See also Petitioner’s Br. at 8, 16 (distinguishing personal-capacity liability). 4 When deciding preliminary objections, we accept as true all well-pled material facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts. Phantom Fireworks Showrooms, LLC v. Wolf, 198 A.3d 1205, 1214 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en banc). We need not accept unwarranted factual inferences, conclusions of law, arguments, or opinions. Id. To sustain preliminary objections, it must be clear the law will permit no recovery, even resolving doubts in favor of the non-movant. Id. 5 U.S. CONST. amend. XI. 3 Blair filed preliminary objections raising the same or similar jurisdictional objections as Tresslar and Divorce Master Respondents. Blair adds that, because he served only as a private attorney for Petitioner’s party opponent in a custody proceeding, he is not amenable to suit in our original jurisdiction. Blair also demurs and objects to the Petition on the basis that it lacks specificity and does not allege comprehensible facts amounting to a cause of action, such that he cannot prepare an adequate defense. Blair objects that the Petition’s allegations that he violated Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct lack specificity. We begin with Judicial Respondents’ preliminary objection to Petitioner’s standing. Judicial Respondents argue that the Petition does not allege any facts suggesting Petitioner is subject to ongoing litigation in Common Pleas, and his claims are the same as those of citizens in general, not particularized to him. Petitioner responds the Petition shows he is subject to custody and other orders in perpetuity, which creates an ongoing injury to him. Petitioner does not address whether any custody litigation involving him is ongoing. Nothing in the Petition states or suggests Petitioner’s ongoing interest in Common Pleas’s custody process or litigation, and Petitioner in his brief appears to acknowledge that any ongoing harm to him flows from the effects of Common Pleas’s orders, not from present or future proceedings. As alleged in the Petition, Petitioner’s interest in Common Pleas’s current custody process does not “surpass[] the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law,” so he does not have standing to vindicate that interest. Phantom Fireworks Showrooms, LLC v. Wolf, 198 A.3d 1205, 1215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en banc). Accordingly, we will sustain in part Judicial Respondents’ preliminary objection based on standing, and we will dismiss all claims in the Petition seeking prospective declaratory or 4 injunctive relief.6 We will overrule this preliminary objection with respect to remaining claims for money damages under Section 1983, however. Those claims seek retrospective relief for which the Petition pleads a substantial, direct, immediate interest. See id. Given our dismissal of the claims in the Petition for injunctive and declaratory relief, for ease of disposition, we next address Respondents’ preliminary objections to our subject matter jurisdiction. Respondents7 argue Section 761(a)(1)(v) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)(v),8 excludes the remaining 6 Further, we agree with Judicial Respondents that allowing amendment of the Petition to plead standing would be futile in this case. See Lacava v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 157 A.3d 1003, 1017 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (holding where a civil rights action is barred by immunity, amendment to the complaint is futile). Even if Petitioner could allege an ongoing interest in Common Pleas’s custody processes—which is doubtful given Petitioner’s admission his harm derives from Common Pleas’s orders, not future proceedings—all Respondents persuasively plead various immunities and jurisdictional bars. Specifically, judicial immunity would likely bar any claims against Divorce Master Respondents, Tresslar, and Judicial Respondents who are jurists or Common Pleas officials. See, e.g., Madigan v. Nazareth Area Sch. Dist. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 527 M.D. 2023, filed Mar. 19, 2026), slip op. at 7-8, 10-11, 2026 WL 772074 (applying judicial immunity to similar claims against jurists and Tresslar). Further, AOPC is an entity and not a “person” for purposes of Section 1983, so it enjoys sovereign immunity because the Commonwealth is the real party in interest. See Page v. Rogers, 324 A.3d 661, 676-77 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024). Finally, Blair and his law firm, which are private entities, are not governmental agencies or officials, so we lack original jurisdiction over claims against Blair. See Brown v. Taylor, 494 A.2d 29, 31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985); Madigan, slip op. at 11-12 (declining to exercise ancillary jurisdiction absent related claims properly in our original jurisdiction). Unreported opinions of this Court filed after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their persuasive value. Pa.R.A.P. 126(b); 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). We cite Madigan for persuasive value. 7 Judicial Respondents assert a distinct jurisdictional objection, arguing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to supervise Common Pleas. See Judicial Respondents’ Br. at 27-28. We must raise the issue of our jurisdiction sua sponte, however, and we thus consider the jurisdictional question discussed here with respect to all Respondents. See Commonwealth v. Blystone, 119 A.3d 306, 311 (Pa. 2015). 8 Section 761(a)(1)(v) excludes, from our original jurisdiction over civil actions against the Commonwealth, the following: “(v) actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass as to which (Footnote continued on next page…) 5 money damages claims from our original jurisdiction because they are in the nature of tort or trespass. Petitioner argues his claims are not merely for money damages, but seek declaratory and injunctive relief to address ongoing alleged misconduct, and thus are not subject to the trespass exception. See Petitioner’s Br. at 19, 24, 28, 34. It is well settled that “this Court lacks original jurisdiction over tort actions for money damages that are premised on either common law trespass or a civil action for deprivation of civil rights under [Section 1983].” Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004); see Balshy v. Rank, 490 A.2d 415, 420-21 (Pa. 1985) (holding Section 1983 damages claims are tort actions sounding in trespass and “are outside the original jurisdiction of Commonwealth Court”). Even when declaratory or injunctive claims are asserted together with damages claims, if the damages claims predominate, we lack jurisdiction. Miles, 847 A.2d at 164 (transferring action to court of common pleas). Here, the only claims remaining in the Petition are for money damages under Section 1983. Respondents are correct that we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims under the trespass exception to our jurisdiction. See id.; Balshy, 490 A.2d at 420-21. Thus, Petitioner’s argument—that the Petition sounds in prohibitory injunctive relief rather than trespass—is unavailing, as Petitioner lacks standing to maintain such claims, and only damages claims remain. Accordingly, we will sustain Respondents’ preliminary objections to our subject matter jurisdiction and transfer the remaining claims, together with the unresolved preliminary objections, the Commonwealth government formerly enjoyed sovereign or other immunity . . . .” 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)(v). 6 to Common Pleas. See Balshy, 490 A.2d at 421. _____________________________________ MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge 7 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael Madigan, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 554 M.D. 2024 : Former Judge Stephen Baratta; : Former Master Lisa Tresslar; : Judge Paula Roscioli; Judge : Jennifer Sletvoldt; Judge John : Morganelli; Court Administrator : Jermaine Greene; Attorney Tyree : Blair, Spitale Vargo Madsen and : Blair LLP; Attorney Bruce Thomas, : Thomas and Thomas LLP; District : Attorney Robert Eyer; Attorney Steven : N. Goudsouzian; Steven N. : Goudsouzian and Associates LLP; : and Attorney Ron Creazzo, : Respondents : ORDER AND NOW, this 26th day of October 2026, the preliminary objection to Petitioner’s standing filed by Respondents former Judge Stephen Baratta, Judge Jennifer Sletvoldt, and Judge John Morganelli of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (Common Pleas), and the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, is SUSTAINED, and all claims in the above-captioned petition for review seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against any party are DISMISSED with prejudice. Further, as to the remaining claims for money damages, Respondents’ preliminary objections to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction are SUSTAINED, and the claims for damages, together with all preliminary objections not resolved herein, are TRANSFERRED to Common Pleas for disposition. _____________________________________ MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge