J-S58002-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ALTON D. BROWN, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
LARRY KRAMER,
Appellee No. 1966 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered October 6, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Civil Division at No.: 2013-01594
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2015
Appellant, Alton D. Brown, appeals pro se from the order sustaining
preliminary objections to his amended complaint against Appellee Larry
Kramer.1 We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
This is a highly convoluted lawsuit, compounded by Appellant’s endless
stream of ultimately superfluous motions, and a near constant shift in claims
and arguments. The brief is meandering, unfocused and substantially non-
compliant. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Appellant’s underlying claim, a
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
The trial court also entered orders denying Appellant’s motion for
sanctions, and denying a motion to compel discovery. Appellant has not
raised these additional issues in this appeal. Therefore, we deem them
abandoned.
J-S58002-15
breach of contract claim against the then-publisher of USA Today,
personally, is utterly frivolous.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them at length here.
For the convenience of the reader, we note that Appellant, currently an
inmate at S.C.I. Smithfield, and an admitted pro se filer of similar
complaints for eighteen years, chiefly claims a breach of contract, and
breach of warranty, personally, by Larry Kramer, formerly the editor and
publisher of the newspaper USA Today.2 Appellant complains that after his
subscription began, USA Today stopped publishing Las Vegas odds and other
related data on sporting events. Appellant claims he needs this information
to run his book-making operation in prison. (See Appellant’s Amended
Complaint, 5/21/14, at 2, ¶ 12).
____________________________________________
2
We take judicial notice that Appellee Larry Kramer, formerly publisher and
president of USA Today, resigned effective June 29, 2015, from the
newspaper and joined the board of directors of the new Gannett, in a
corporate restructuring by which Gannett, the new publishing company,
began trading as a separate company. See usatoday.com, June 8, 2015.
-2-
J-S58002-15
After a hearing, the trial court sustained Appellee’s preliminary
objections to the amended complaint, and denied the motion for
reconsideration. This timely appeal followed.3
Appellant raises three questions for our review on appeal:
I. Whether trial court erred as a matter of law or abused
[its] discretion by sustaining preliminary objections, including
the motion for reconsideration of same?
II. Whether trial court erred in [its] holding and actions
surrounding prison staff refusal to allow Appellant access to his
case files during hearing on preliminary objections?
III. Whether trial court’s claim that appeal is untimely is
supported by evidence?
(Appellant’s Brief, at 1).
In reviewing a trial court’s grant of preliminary objections,
the standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is
plenary. The salient facts are derived solely from the complaint
and pursuant to that standard of review, the court accepts all
well-pleaded material facts in the complaint, and all inferences
reasonably deduced therefrom must be accepted as true.
Martin v. Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc., 80 A.3d 813, 814 (Pa. Super.
2013) (citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude
that there is no merit to the issues Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial
____________________________________________
3
We give Appellant the benefit of the doubt that his appeal was timely filed,
pursuant to the Prisoner Mailbox Rule. See Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d
170, 178 (Pa. Super. 2001) (holding that prisoner mailbox rule applies to all
pro se filings by incarcerated litigants).
-3-
J-S58002-15
court opinion properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court
Opinion, 1/05/15, at 1-3) (concluding that Appellant (1) failed to establish in
his amended complaint that he had contracted personally with Appellee
Kramer; and (2) failed to allege averments of fraud with particularity).4
Additionally, we conclude that Appellant failed to raise and preserve,
or properly develop, his claim that the trial court could or should interfere
with the Department of Corrections based on his (Appellant’s) bald assertion
that prison staff interfered with his access to case files.
Finally, we note that we have given Appellant the benefit of the doubt
on the timeless of his notice of appeal, based on evidence of his apparent
timely mailing pursuant to the Prisoner Mailbox Rule. (See supra at 3 n.3;
see also Thomas v. Elash, supra at 178). Therefore, Appellant’s third
claim is moot.
____________________________________________
4
Moreover, for the sake of clarity and completeness, we conclude on
independent review that, in addition to a veritable cornucopia of procedural
and technical defects, there is no merit to Appellant’s overarching claim.
Appellant not only fails to show that he contracted directly with Appellee
Kramer for a subscription to USA Today; he offers no pertinent argument or
supporting evidence in the record for his claims. Furthermore, he fails to
develop a legal argument that a subscriber to a publication has any
contractual right or claim to specific editorial content, much less a warranty,
express or implied, that the publisher will maintain specific editorial content
for the length of any individual subscription. We observe that Appellant cites
to caselaw for general principles only. None are pertinent to his specific
claims.
-4-
J-S58002-15
Order affirmed. 5
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/25/2015
____________________________________________
5
We direct the Prothonotary to forward a copy of this memorandum to the
Superintendent at SCI Smithfield for appropriate review of Appellant’s self-
confessed operation of a facially illegal gambling business in prison.
-5-
Circulated 10/29/2015 04:56 PM
ALTON D. BROWN~· : IN'THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : OF HUNTINGDON
. ·. . COUNTY,
~. . . .. \
vs. : PENNSYLVANIA,
: CIVIL DIVISION
u r-..,
LARRY KRAMER,et al.;. .::i::;:;:,
·co· ·-.....,.,
C.:.'-'>
Defendant : NO. CP-31-CV-01594-2013 <--
::,,.
:z::
·-n
=:;:g,..,
I
U1
r=
::--; -<
rn
MEMORANDUM :-=.,~ '1J •:J
·. . ' r )
-:; r-:1
[;?
::>22 N
.-~ L~
-Plaintiff has appealed fromourOctober 6, 2014 Orders-granting
, Preliminary Objections, denying a Motion for Sanctions and denying a Motion to
Compel Dlscoverv.! We write to fulfil our duties pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. No. 1925(a).
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is an inmate at the State
Correctional Institution at Smithfield and 'Defendant, Larry Kramer, is the
president and publisher of. the ·of the "USA
. . . .
Today
. newspaper."
.' .
Plaintiff commenced this action by Com pl a int filed on December 12, 2013.
An Amended Complaint was subsequently filed on May 21, 2014, and Defendant
filed. Preliminary Objections on·July 18, 2014. The Amended Complaint raises .
counts of Breach of Contract (Co.u nt I), Breach of Warranty (Count II), a nd
Misrepresentation (Count Ill). We held argument on October 2, 2014 wherein
Plaintiff participated via video conference from the State Correctional Institution
ui Cl) ~
at Smithfield. By Order dated October 6, 2014, this Court sustained the
U.!
5 ~ ::r:
<'.( .....
~· Preliminary Objections to·Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. On November 18, 2014,
B~ fJ.w~ ~O Plaintiff filed an untimely Notice of Appeal from our October: 6·, 2014 Orders. 2 We
,
~gg .~ ~ would also note that the caption of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint added U.S.A.
}~~80~§ re Today as a Defendant, whereas in the original Complaint, Larry Kramer was the
'-'-0 07 ~
o .co 2
L!...CT:-W':7
o sole named Defendant,
0 ,I:c:5 ~·
>-- <( I- I- I.
e:: Q.. I :,..-
I
l
1-zoz Z _,__...,- 1
ln'.his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Plaintiff failed to address any issues relating to the denial
wl-Qo~ of the Motion for Sanctions or the denial of the Motion to Compel Discovery. This Memorandum only addresses
L!...1-1-WO
o:z;~~z the issues raised in the Pa.R.A.P; 1925(b) statement.
w·~.o:._o 2
The docket transcript indicates, that the appeal was filed on November 18, 2014, however, there is an indication·
o :JU::
_ Cf) -
z "1-I r.!.li'
1-o:: r-w o 1- on the envelope that the Prothonotary received the Notice of Appeal on November 7, 2014. Giving Plaintiff the
o ::i O LLi rx: