J. A29011/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ESTATE OF MARY AGNES LEWIS : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: RICHARD T. LEWIS :
:
:
:
: No. 155 WDA 2016
:
Appeal from the Order Dated January 6, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 0342 of 2015
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MOULTON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2016
Appellant, Richard T. Lewis, Jr., appeals pro se from the January 6,
2016 Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
which dismissed Appellant’s Petition for Citation Sur Appeal and Injunctive
Relief. Appellee has filed an “Application to Quash and/or Strike Appellate
Brief.” Because Appellant fails to make any coherent legal arguments in his
Appellate Brief and fails to meet other requirements, we are unable to
provide meaningful review. Accordingly, we quash this appeal and deny
Appellee’s Application as moot.
The facts are not relevant to our determination. Appellate briefs “must
materially conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure,” and this court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the
J. A29011/16
defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d
496, 497-98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Although appellate courts
are “willing to construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se
status generally confers no special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a
pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the
Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d
245, 251-252 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). This Court “will not act
as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.”
Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.Super.2014). Further,
“[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.” Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d
149, 151 (Pa. Super. 1981).
Appellant’s Brief not only fails to provide any coherent legal
arguments, but also utterly fails to comply with our rules of appellate
procedure. The argument section is completely devoid of, among other
things, any discussion and citation to supporting authority. Pa.R.A.P.
2119(b). Rather, Appellant includes medical conclusions, allegations of
incompetence directed toward the orphan’s court and attorneys, explicitly
racist statements, falsehoods, and blatant misrepresentations.
Additionally, Appellant’s Brief contains an argument section, but it is
not divided “into as many parts as there are questions to be argued.”
-2-
J. A29011/16
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).1 The Brief also does not contain a statement of
jurisdiction, the text of the order from which Appellant purports to appeal, a
statement of the scope and standard of review, or a summary of the
argument.2 Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (2), (3), (6); 2114; 2115; 2118.
Because of the Brief’s considerable defects, we are unable to perform
appellate review. We, thus, quash the appeal. The Prothonotary is directed
to strike this case from the argument list.
Appeal quashed. Appellee’s Application to Quash and/or Strike
Appellate Brief denied as moot. Case is stricken from the argument list.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/11/2016
1
The Rules of Appellate Procedure state clearly “that each question an
appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent
authority. Failure to do so constitutes waiver of the claim.” Giant Food
Stores, LLC v. THF Silver Spring Dev., L.P., 959 A.2d 438, 444 (Pa.
Super. 2008) (citations and quotation omitted); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) and (b).
2
Appellant’s Brief does contain a section labeled, “Summary Argument”
which spans nine pages. This “summary” appears to be the Brief’s argument
section.
-3-
In Re: Estate of Lewis, M. Appeal of: Lewis, R.
Combined Opinion