J-S34026-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ALTON D. BROWN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: ALTON D. BROWN :
:
:
:
:
: No. 302 WDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Civil Division at CP-26-MD-0000471-2021
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED: OCTOBER 26, 2022
Alton D. Brown (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order dismissing his
“Petition for Review of Denial (Deemed) of Private Criminal Complaint”
(Petition). Consistent with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in
Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514, 515 (Pa. 2013), we affirm.
Nearly a decade ago, the Supreme Court observed that Appellant is
“serving 108 to 216 years’ imprisonment[, and] is a frequent flier of frivolous
litigation in the Commonwealth and federal courts.” Id.
More recently, the trial court explained:
On December 2, 2021, [Appellant] filed his Petition for Review. In
the Petition, he requested review of a private criminal complaint
he had submitted to the Fayette County District Attorney on
December 19, 2017, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. On February
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S34026-22
9, 2022, this [c]ourt issued an Order dismissing Appellant’s
Petition as frivolous pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6602(e)(2).
Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 4/8/22, at 1 (footnote omitted).
The trial court further observed:
[Appellant’s] complaint listed eleven (11) crimes, including:
Corrupt Organization - 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 911, which Appellant alleges
was committed because “unlike other public law enforcement
agencies and public officials/employees, corrupted gangs,
organizations, and other groups operating within the Pa. D.O.C.,
especially white supremacist groups, has [sic] been allowed to
racially profile, abuse, and harass Africans for years, without being
subjected to any consequences”; and Trafficking in Individuals -
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3011, which Appellant alleges was committed
because he “has been transferred to three (3) different institutions
where he has been exploited by the homosexual elements of the
Pa. D.O.C. for sexual gratification purposes, especially the
repeated subjecting [of] him to unlawful cavity body searches
under the security pretext,” Private Criminal Complaint at ¶ 12.
Id. at 2 n.4.
The trial court dismissed Appellant’s Petition “as frivolous, pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6602(e)(2).” Order, 2/9/22, at 2. Rule 6602 concerns prisoner
filing fees, and the subsection relied upon by the trial court states:
(e) Dismissal of litigation.—Notwithstanding any filing fee
which has been paid, the court shall dismiss prison conditions
litigation at any time, including prior to service on the defendant,
if the court determines …
(2) The prison conditions litigation is frivolous or malicious or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or the
defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense,
including immunity, which, if asserted, would preclude the
relief.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6602(e)(2) (emphasis added).
-2-
J-S34026-22
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and statement of matters
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). He presents two
questions for our review:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO REQUIRE A
RESPONSE TO THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ADD[ED] TO THE
ARBITRARY DEEMED DENIAL OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
AND CONSTITUTE[D] A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS?
II. WHETHER [THE TRIAL COURT] EXCEED[ED] ITS
AUTHORITY BY ACTING AS PROSECUTOR WHEN IT CITED
GROUNDS FOR THE DENIAL OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT,
THEN APPROVING THE DENIAL ON SAID GROUNDS?
Appellant’s Brief at 1.
Appellant argues the trial court erred by failing to require the District
Attorney to respond to his private criminal complaint, and “making the
decision in the first instance.”1 Id. at 2. Appellant focuses on Pa.R.Crim.P.
506, regarding private complaints,2 but disregards 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6602(e)(2),
____________________________________________
1 The Commonwealth has not filed a brief.
2 The Rule states:
(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the
complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the
Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without
unreasonable delay.
(B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth:
(1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this
decision on the complaint form and transmit it to the issuing
authority;
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S34026-22
and the trial court’s authority under Pennsylvania’s Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6601, et seq.
In 2013, Appellant was the appellee in Brown v. Levy, supra, where
the Supreme Court unanimously held that his mandamus action seeking to
compel the Montgomery County Prothonotary to accept his complaint,
“constitute[d] ‘prison conditions litigation’ as that term is defined in § 6601 of
the Pennsylvania Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6601, et seq.
(“PLRA”), thereby subjecting the action to dismissal pursuant to the ‘three
strikes’ rule of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f).” Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d at 517.3
____________________________________________
(2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the
reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant.
Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas
for review of the decision.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(A)-(B).
3 The Supreme Court determined Appellant had “run afoul of [the] three-
strikes-and-you’re-out policy.” Brown, 73 A.3d at 515 n.1, citing Brown v.
Beard, 492 F.Supp.2d 474, 476 (E.D.Pa.2007). The Court quoted the federal
district court, which relayed:
[N]umerous other cases [have been] dismissed against
[Appellant] for being frivolous, brought in bad faith, or failing to
state a claim. See, e.g., Brown v. Brierton, et al., No. 91–CV–
471 (M.D.[ ]Fla. Oct. 17, 1991) (Black, J.) (doc. no. 6) (dismissing
prisoner rights case for abuse of judicial process); Brown v.
Brierton, No. 92–2030 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 1992) (denying appeal
of prisoner civil rights case because appeal was not taken in good
faith under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
since the case was dismissed without prejudice for Brown’s abuse
of the judicial process); Brown v. Barton, et al., No. 93–CV–45
(M.D. [ ]Fla. Sep[t]. 12, 1994) (Moore II, J.) (denying appeal of
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-4-
J-S34026-22
Although the Supreme Court addressed subsection (f), its analysis is
applicable to subsection (e), which the trial court relied on in this case. See
Order, 2/9/22, at 2; see also Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 4/8/22, at 1.
Section 6606(e)(2) states “the court shall dismiss prison conditions
litigation … if the court determines … [t]he prison conditions litigation is
frivolous or malicious.” The Supreme Court explained:
“Prison conditions litigation” is defined in the PLRA as: “A civil
proceeding arising in whole or in part under Federal or State law
with respect to the conditions of confinement or the effects of
actions by a government party on the life of an individual confined
in prison. The term includes an appeal.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6601
(emphasis added).
Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d at 517 (italics in original). The Supreme Court
further concluded it was “reasonable to assume that Congress wished to apply
____________________________________________
prisoner civil rights case because not taken in good faith); Brown
v. Federal Laboratories, Inc., No. 89–507 (M.D.[ ]Fla.1989)
(dismissing claim as frivolous)....
Id., at 476–77. Just a small sampling of the complaints
[Appellant] has filed in Pennsylvania include: Brown v.
Beard, 11 A.3d 578 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (dismissing prison
conditions litigation as frivolous speculation); Brown v. Pa.
Department of Corrections, 913 A.2d 301 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)
(dismissing request to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for
writ of mandamus under “three strikes” rule as baseless,
groundless, and frivolous); Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2003) (complaint dismissed for failure to state claim);
and Brown v. James, 822 A.2d 128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (request
to proceed in forma pauperis on petition for writ of mandamus
dismissed under “three strikes” rule).
Id.
-5-
J-S34026-22
the PLRA’s deterrent effect to prisoners’ complaints, regardless of the type
of pleading filed by the prisoner to obtain relief. As the General
Assembly patterned Pennsylvania’s PLRA after the federal PLRA, we conclude
this rationale holds true in Pennsylvania as well.” Id. at 518-19 (emphasis
added).
Here, the trial court’s order dismissing Appellant’s Petition was issued
from “THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FAYETTE COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION,”
with the caption: “IN RE Alton D. Brown, Petitioner.” Order, 2/9/22, at 1.
The trial court expressly determined Appellant’s Petition was “frivolous.” Id.;
see also Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 4/8/22, at 3 n.5 (trial court observing
Appellant “signed his private criminal complaint and his Statement of Errors
with the alias: ‘Political Prisoner #DL4686.’ This perhaps sheds some light
on his perspective.”). We discern no error in the trial court’s dismissal of
Appellant’s Petition.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/26/2022
-6-