J. S02002/19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN J. LYNCH, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 1887 EDA 2018
:
JOSEPH ZWECHAROWSKI :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered May 22, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No. July Term, 2016 No. 02062
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 15, 2019
John J. Lynch appeals, pro se, from the May 22, 2018 order entered by
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting
Joseph Zwecharowski’s motion for summary judgment. After careful
consideration, we dismiss appellant’s appeal.
The trial court provided the following procedural history:
[Appellant] is an inmate that resides at SCI Camp Hill
. . . . [Appellant] initiated this case against [appellee]
on July 21, 2016. On November 22, 2016, [appellant]
filed his Third Amended Complaint against [appellee]
arising from a dispute between tenants in [appellee’s]
duplex residential property.
On December 8, 2016, [appellee] filed Preliminary
Objections to [appellant’s] Third Amended Complaint.
[Appellee] certified that, on December 8, 2016,
[appellee] served the Preliminary Objections upon
[appellant] by electronically filing them as well as by
mailing a copy of them by regular first class mail.
J. S02002/19
[Appellant] did not file a response to [appellee’s]
Preliminary Objections. On January 6, 2017, the trial
court granted [appellee’s] Preliminary Objections in
part and struck all claims for housing discrimination,
allegations of recklessness, claims for punitive
damages, and all references to State Farm Insurance
from [appellant’s] Third Amended Complaint with
prejudice.
On February 20, 2018, [appellee] filed a Motion to
Remove Case from Deferred Status (“Motion to
Remove”). [Appellee] certified that, on February 20,
2018, [appellee] served the Motion to Remove upon
[appellant] by electronically filing it as well as by
mailing a copy of it to [appellant] by regular first class
mail. [Appellant] did not file a response to
[appellee’s] Motion to Remove. On March 23, 2018,
the trial court granted [appellee’s] Motion to Remove.
On April 17, 2018, [appellee] filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Appellee] certified that, on that
same date, [appellee] served the Motion for Summary
Judgment upon [appellant] by electronically filing the
Motion as well as mailing a copy of the Motion for
Summary Judgment to [appellant] and [appellant’s]
[a]ddress by regular first class mail. [Appellant] did
not file a response to [appellee’s] Motion for Summary
Judgment. On May [22,] 2018, the trial court granted
[appellee’s] Motion for Summary Judgment. On
June 8, 2018, [appellant] filed a Notice of Appeal from
the trial court’s May [22,] 2018 order.
Trial court opinion, 8/2/18 at 1-2.
On June 20, 2018, appellant filed a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), even though the trial
court did not order him to do so. The trial court filed an opinion pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on August 2, 2018.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
-2-
J. S02002/19
1. Does the record and the several pleadings[,] the
complaint, amended complaint[, second,] and
third complaints with exhibits support the
courts [sic] order that appellant had not stated
claims of Housing discrimination, and violations
of 42 [U.S.C.] [§] 3617 of the Fair [H]ousing
Act?
2. Does the record in this matter support the order
of September 6th[,] 2016[,] that [appellant] for
injunctive relief had not stated a prima facie
case requiring relief pursuant to 42 [U.S.C.]
[§] 3613[(C)](1)(d) of the Fair [H]ousing Act[]
and that [appellee] did not serve [appellant]?
3. Does Certificate of Service stating that motion
was mailed to a location that the appellee and
appellee’s counsel know or reasonably should
have know [sic] the [r]esponding party is not
at [sic] constitute a valid certificate and
full fill [sic] due [p]rocess of [l]aw requirement?
4. Are the trial courts [sic] orders of March 16th[,]
2018[,] April 27, 2018, and May 22[,] 2018[,]
appropriate and based upon proper procedure?
Appellant’s brief at 6-8.
We are constrained to dismiss this appeal because appellants’ brief
entirely fails to adhere to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is
well settled that parties to an appeal are required to submit briefs in
conformity, in all material respects, with the requirements of the Rules of
Appellate Procedure, as nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will
admit. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “Although this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon the appellant.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-1212 (Pa.Super.
-3-
J. S02002/19
2010) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011). We
cannot advocate or act as counsel for appellants who have not substantially
complied with our rules. Bombar v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 78, 93
(Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “This Court may quash or dismiss an
appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211
(citation omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
Instantly, appellant’s pro se brief falls well below the standards
delineated in our Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, appellant’s entire
brief is comprised of prose in which appellant makes various allegations of
misconduct on the part of appellee. Moreover, the argument section of
appellant’s brief is not divided into as many parts as there are questions to be
argued in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), nor does he develop any analysis of
the issues raised. We further note that appellant’s brief lacks the necessary
citations to the record in violation of Rule 2119(b), and fails to provide this
court with references to the record, in violation of Rule 2119(c). Because of
the defects in the brief, we cannot reach a decision on the merits. Accordingly,
we dismiss appellant’s appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Appellant’s application to file a supplemental brief filed on November 7,
2018, is denied.
-4-
J. S02002/19
Appellant’s application to file a supplemental appendix filed on
November 21, 2018, is denied.
Appellant’s application for relief filed on December 3, 2018, is denied.
Appellant’s application to file a supplemental appendix filed on
February 6, 2019, is denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/15/19
-5-