OPINION NOT REPORTED
David George Lusick, pro se, appeals from the May 4, 2015 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) that sustained the preliminary objections filed by Lynne Abraham, Elizabeth Varki Jobes, John Hunter Bennett, Thomas Dolgenos, Robert M. Falin, Ronald Eisenberg, Arnold Gordon, Lynne Herbert O'Connor, Karen Brancheau, Hugh J. Burns, Brad Bender, and Andrew Klein (Defendants), and dismissed Lusick's case. We affirm.
On July 14, 1994, Lusick was found guilty of multiple counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, and corruption of minors, and was sentenced to 12-35 years in prison. Lusick is currently serving this term at the State Correctional Institution at Albion.
On August 26, 2009, Lusick commenced an action against Defendants, who are District Attorneys (DAs), Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs), and Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) that prosecuted his criminal case at the trial level, on appeal, and at state and federal post-conviction reviews. Lusick asserted claims of malicious prosecution and malpractice arising out of his 1994 criminal prosecution.
On November 13, 2012, Lusick filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. Thereafter, Lusick filed an amended complaint adding additional defendants and alleging that Defendants: (1) violated the rules of professional conduct and the American Bar Association standards; (2) fraudulently concealed certain facts; and (3) failed to disclose certain facts and gave misleading and incomplete testimony. (Amended Complaint, at 71-75; SRR at 77-81.)
In response, Defendants filed preliminary objections, seeking, among other things, dismissal of Lusick's case because the claims against Defendants are barred by the doctrine of high public official immunity, and also because Lusick failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted in his malicious prosecution claim, as the underlying conviction had not been vacated. On May 4, 2015, the trial court sustained Defendants' preliminary objections and dismissed Lusick's case with prejudice. Lusick appealed to the Superior Court, which transferred the matter to this Court.
Initially, we address whether the trial court erred in sustaining Defendants' preliminary objection that found Lusick's case barred by the doctrine of high public official immunity.
In Lindner v. Mollan, 677 A.2d 1194, 1195 (Pa. 1996) (citations omitted), our Supreme Court stated that:
Here, Lusick alleges misconduct by the former Philadelphia DA and numerous former and current DDAs and ADAs related to their official conduct during various court proceedings while representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and prosecuting Lusick. Thus, because all Defendants are prosecutors that are being sued because of their official conduct, the trial court did not err in granting Defendants' preliminary objection and dismissing Lusick's case pursuant to the doctrine of high public official immunity.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AND NOW, this 14