PUNXSUTAWNEY: A Pittsburgh-area attorney currently incarcerated in a state correctional institution has filed a sweeping federal civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging unlawful arrest, prosecution, and incarceration stemming from a vigilante sting operation conducted by 814 Pred Hunters, LLC.

The case, filed as a jury trial demand, names 814 Pred Hunters, its founder Brian Knepp, unidentified John and Jane Does, Punxsutawney Borough Police Chief Matt Conrad, Corporal Jeff Winfield, Punxsutawney Borough, Jefferson County District Attorney Jeff Burkett, and Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, as defendants

Court records show the civil cover sheet was filed December 1, 2025, and summonses were issued December 17, 2025 to the various defendants.

The Plaintiff And The Allegations

The plaintiff, Paul A. Luvara, alleges that he was the target of what he characterizes as an illegal vigilante sting operation conducted by 814 Pred Hunters, a group that publicly identifies itself as exposing alleged online predators.

In the complaint, Luvara claims members of 814 posed as minors online, engaged in communications with him, and later coordinated with local law enforcement for his arrest

He further alleges that:

  • No actual minor was involved.
  • The communications were exclusively with adults posing as minors.
  • Police conducted no independent investigation prior to arrest.
  • The arrest and prosecution relied solely on materials gathered by the vigilante group.

The complaint asserts violations of federal civil rights law under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and multiple constitutional protections, including Fourth Amendment claims related to arrest and prosecution.

Background Of The Criminal Case

According to the complaint, Luvara was arrested December 2, 2023 in Punxsutawney. He alleges members of 814 were present and livestreamed the arrest

The complaint states he later entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced May 8, 2025 to 30 to 84 months in a Pennsylvania state correctional institution, along with fines, fees, SORNA registration requirements, and probation conditions

Luvara is currently incarcerated at SCI Forest in Marienville, according to the filing

He now seeks to “unwind” that plea agreement, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and unconstitutional prosecution.

Claims Against Law Enforcement And County Officials

The lawsuit asserts that:

  • Chief Matt Conrad and Corporal Jeff Winfield arrested him without probable cause.
  • The Punxsutawney Borough Police Department relied exclusively on vigilante-obtained communications.
  • District Attorney Jeff Burkett prosecuted the case despite allegedly unlawful evidence.
  • Jefferson County maintained unconstitutional policies permitting such prosecutions.

The complaint alleges that police and county officials acted “under color of state law” and violated constitutional rights

It further claims the borough and county maintained policies, customs, or practices that enabled the alleged constitutional violations.

Habeas Corpus Petition Included

Notably, the filing is not limited to civil damages. It also includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241, seeking:

    • Vacating of the guilty plea
    • Immediate release from incarceration
    • Dismissal of charges
    • Preclusion of further prosecution on double jeopardy grounds

Relief Sought

Luvara is seeking:

    • Compensatory damages
    • Punitive damages against individual defendants
    • Attorneys’ fees and costs
    • Declaratory relief
    • Immediate release from prison through habeas proceedings

Defense Response

A Notice of Appearance has been filed on behalf of Jefferson County and District Attorney Jeff Burkett by counsel from Jones Passodelis, PLLC, indicating formal legal representation has entered the case.

As of this publication, no substantive response or motion to dismiss has been ruled upon.

Broader Implications

The lawsuit raises significant legal questions about:

  • The role of vigilante groups in online sting operations
  • Whether communications with adult decoys satisfy Pennsylvania statutes
  • The extent of law enforcement reliance on third-party investigative conduct
  • Municipal liability under federal civil rights law
  • Prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity defenses

The case could potentially test how Pennsylvania courts treat evidence generated by non-law-enforcement online sting groups when police later act upon it.

Current Status

The case remains pending in federal court. Summonses have been issued, and defendants are expected to respond within the time permitted under federal procedural rules

No findings of liability have been made. All allegations contained in the complaint remain claims made by the plaintiff and have not been adjudicated.