J-S22007-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOSEPH PIOLE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
DAVID NICELY, NICELY CONTRACTING
Appellee No. 645 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Civil Division at No(s): AR-12-004250
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MAY 29, 2015
Appellant, Joseph Piole, appeals pro se from the judgment entered in
favor of Appellee, David Nicely, Nicely Contracting, on March 24, 2014, in
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We dismiss the appeal.
The pro se brief Appellant has submitted to this Court substantially
fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s
Brief does not include: (1) a statement of jurisdiction; (2) a copy of the
order or other determination in question; (3) statements of the scope and
standard of review; (4) a statement of the questions involved; (5) a
statement of the case; (6) a summary of the argument; (7) a short
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S22007-15
conclusion stating the precise relief sought; or (8) a copy of the Rule
1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). The argument section of
Appellant’s brief, such as it is, is not “divided into as many parts as there are
questions to be argued” and contains no “discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).
Indeed, the argument section of Appellant’s six-page appellate brief
contains not a single citation to supporting case law or other relevant legal
authority. Correspondingly, there is no developed legal argument in the
entirety of Appellant’s brief. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state
unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by
discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.” Eichman v. McKeon, 824
A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003). Furthermore, “[w]hen issues are not
properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly
inadequate to present specific issues for review[,] a Court will not consider
the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d
939, 942-943 (Pa. Super. 2006).
“While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro
se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage
because she lacks legal training. As our supreme court has explained, any
layperson choosing to represent herself in a legal proceeding must, to some
reasonable extent, assume the risk that her lack of expertise and legal
training will prove her undoing.” Id. at 942 (citation omitted). In the
present case, even a liberal construction of Appellant’s brief cannot remedy
-2-
J-S22007-15
the serious inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal due to the
substantial briefing defects in Appellant's brief, which hampered our ability
to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Appeal dismissed.
Judge Lazarus joins in the memorandum.
Judge Strassburger files a dissenting memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/29/2015
-3-