J. S41030/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DWAYNE ANDERSON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JOHN W. PERSON :
: No. 3757 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division No(s): August Term, 2015 No. 150803144
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2016
Appellant, Dwayne Anderson, appeals pro se from the September 16,
2015 Order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
dismissing his Complaint as frivolous pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 240(j). After
careful review, we affirm.1
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
Appellant has also filed a Motion for Court’s Order seeking an Order to
compel the Prothonotary of this Court to ensure that this Court’s “decision
be sent to [Appellant] the proper and traditional way, via U.S. Mail.” Motion
for Court’s Order, 5/13/16, at 2. In the Motion, Appellant claims that he
received a letter from this Court on April 19, 2016, notifying him that “the
Court’s decision in this appeal will be sent to [him] by e-mail only[,]” but
that as an incarcerated individual, he does not have an e-mail address. Id.
at 1. In fact, this Court’s letter dated April 13, 2016 notified Appellant that
if he has an e-mail address on the docket, the Court’s decision in this appeal
will be sent to him by e-mail only. Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion for
Court’s Order is denied.
J.S41030/16
The trial court recounted the facts and procedural history as follows:
On August 25, 2015, [Appellant] commenced this action by
Complaint. Contemporaneously with the filing of the
Complaint, [Appellant] filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis.
The Complaint alleges [Appellee] John Person is a Deputy
Prothonotary for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In April
2015, [Appellant] filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in
the Supreme Court, Eastern Division[ ] ; the Petition
requested the Supreme Court use its mandamus authority
to order the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to take
certain actions in the matter of Dwayne Anderson v.
Aramark Services, Inc., January Term 2015 No. 1750.
By letter dated June 3, 2015, [Appellee] informed
[Appellant] that if he wished to continue his Petition for
Mandamus, he would need to serve it on all parties by no
later than June 17, 2015, and provide to the Supreme
Court the following: 1) a copy of [Appellant’s] inmate
account statement;[ ] 2) a certificate of service for the
Petition for Writ of Mandamus; and 3) an Amended Petition
for Writ of Mandamus containing the trial court docket
number in Anderson v. Aramark. [Appellant] alleges
that on June 15, 2015, he sent a letter to [Appellee]
providing a copy of his inmate account statement and
explaining that he was unable to serve his Petition because
prison officials denied him the ability to make copies. The
Complaint alleges that on June 18, 2015, [Appellee] wrote
[Appellant] a letter “[informing him], without reason(s)
that his subject Mandamus Petition had been
discontinued.” Complaint at p. 2 (brackets in original).
[Appellant’s] Complaint alleges the following causes of
action: 1) discrimination; 2) violation of [Appellant’s]
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; 3) denial of [Appellant’s] right of
access to the courts; 4) violation of [Appellant’s] First
Amendment rights; and 5) violation of [Appellant’s] right
to due process. Central to each of these causes of action
is [Appellant’s] allegation that [Appellee] treated him
differently based on [Appellant’s] status as an incarcerated
individual. See Complaint at p.2 (stating “The described
actions of [Appellee] constituted discrimination on the
-2-
J.S41030/16
basis of my status as an incarcerated person”) (emphasis
in original).
By Order docketed September 16, 2015, this [c]ourt
dismissed [Appellant’s] Complaint pursuant to Rule 240(j).
Trial Ct. Op., 1/8/16, at 1-2.
Appellant timely appealed from the Order dismissing his Complaint.
The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Concise Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal.
On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in dismissing the
underlying action. Appellant’s Brief at 6. In support of this claim, Appellant
argues that the trial court “made no findings of fact or conclusions of law to
support his order of dismissal of this action as frivolous and that [his] action
does not state a claim against [Appellee] under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Id.
“Appellate review of a decision dismissing an action pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 240(j) is limited to a determination of whether an appellant’s
constitutional rights have been violated and whether the trial court abused
its discretion or committed an error of law.” Bell v. Mayview State
Hospital, 853 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa. Super. 2004).
Rule 240(j)(1) provides:
If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or
proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a
petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court
prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action,
proceeding or appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue
-3-
J.S41030/16
or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is
frivolous.
Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1). As the note to Rule 240(j)(1) explains, “[a] frivolous
action or proceeding has been defined as one that ‘lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.’” Id. at Note (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319 (1989)). Moreover, “an action is frivolous ‘if, on its face, it does
not set forth a valid cause of action.’” Bell, 853 A.2d at 1060 (quoting
McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A.2d 797, 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)). “As we
review Appellant’s complaint for validity under Rule 240, we are mindful that
a pro se complaint should not be dismissed simply because it is not artfully
drafted.” Id.
The trial court offered the following explanation for dismissing
Appellant’s Complaint as frivolous:
In this case, the Complaint alleges [Appellee] violated
numerous of [Appellant’s] constitutional rights and
otherwise discriminated against [Appellant] based on
[Appellant’s] status as an incarcerated individual.
However there are absolutely no facts alleged to
support this allegation. (emphasis added). The
Complaint implicitly alleges [Appellant] is an incarcerated
individual, and that [Appellee] was aware [Appellant] was
incarcerated; however, it does not allege any facts to show
that [Appellant’s] status as an incarcerated individual
played a role in the decision to discontinue the case.
Indeed, the Complaint explicitly states, [Appellee’s] letter
of June 18, 2015 informed [Appellant] “without reason(s),
that [his] subject Mandamus Petition has been
discontinued.” Complaint at p.2 (brackets and emphasis
added by trial court). Furthermore, there are no factual
allegations to support the conclusion that [Appellee] was
the individual who caused [Appellant’s] Petition to be
marked discontinued; rather, the Complaint simply states
-4-
J.S41030/16
that [Appellee] was the author of the June 18, 2015 letter.
In the absence of an allegation that [Appellee] made the
decision to discontinue [Appellant’s] Petition, [Appellant’s]
Complaint appears to be nothing more than an attempt to
shoot the proverbial messenger.
Trial Ct. Op. at 3.
The trial court dismissed Appellant’s Complaint because it was
frivolous in that it lacked sufficient factual allegations to support a
discrimination claim. In merely stating baldly that the trial court failed to
support its decision with adequate findings of fact or conclusions of law,
Appellant fails to demonstrate how the court’s frivolity determination
requires reversal. As such, Appellant has not met his burden of convincing
us that the trial court’s decision was improper. The York Grp., Inc. v.
Yorktowne Caskets, Inc., 924 A.2d 1234, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“[T]he
appealing party bears the burden of establishing that the trial court’s
decision is erroneous.”). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/21/2016
-5-