J-S05040-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
LAWRENCE HIGGINS, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
FRANK BONIN FUNERAL PARLOR AND
DONNA GEORGE,
Appellees No. 1150 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered June 30, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Civil Division at No.: 2013-04341
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED MARCH 01, 2017
Appellant, Lawrence Higgins, appeals pro se from the trial court’s
order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Appellee,
Frank Bonin Funeral Parlor, and dismissing his complaint.1 We affirm.
The relevant background of this case is as follows. On April 10, 2013,
Appellant, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Frank Bonin Funeral Parlor
and Ms. George, who is the mother of Appellant’s late son, Jared Higgins.
The crux of Appellant’s complaint is that Appellees arranged for Jared
Higgins’ cremation, which violates Appellant’s religious beliefs, without his
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
The court also granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by
Appellee, Donna George, in an earlier order.
J-S05040-17
consent; he seeks $250,000.00 in damages from each Appellee. Ms. George
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on August 14, 2014, which the
trial court granted on December 22, 2014, and dismissed the complaint
against her. Frank Bonin Funeral Parlor filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings on February 10, 2016, which the trial court granted on June 30,
2016, and dismissed the complaint against it. Appellant timely appealed,
but failed to comply with the trial court’s October 24, 2016 directive to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
On appeal, Appellant argues, inter alia, “the [trial] court erred in
dismissing the case [where Appellees] disregarded Pennsylvania law and
went behind a father[’]s back and cremated his son[’]s body.” (Appellant’s
Brief, at 2) (most capitalization omitted). However, prior to addressing the
merits of this appeal, we must determine whether Appellant properly
preserved his issues for our review.2 Rule 1925(b) provides, in relevant
part, “Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance
with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.” Pa.R.A.P.
____________________________________________
2
We are cognizant that Appellant is incarcerated in Texas for murder and is
proceeding pro se. It is well-settled that, “although this Court is willing to
construe liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally
confers no special benefit upon an appellant,” and a pro se litigant must
comply with our procedural rules. Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d
245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 879 A.2d 782 (Pa. 2005)
(citation omitted).
-2-
J-S05040-17
1925(b)(4)(vii). This Court has held: “Our Supreme Court intended the
holding in [Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998),] to operate
as a bright-line rule, such that failure to comply with the minimal
requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) will result in automatic waiver of the
issues raised. . . . Indeed, our Supreme Court does not countenance
anything less than stringent application of waiver pursuant to Rule
1925(b)[.]” Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs,
Inc., 88 A.3d 222, 224 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (some citations and
internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original).
Here, the trial court issued an order in compliance with Rule 1925(b),
requiring Appellant to file a concise statement within twenty-one days and
advising: “Any issue not properly included in the statement timely filed and
served pursuant to [Rule 1925(b)] shall be waived.” (Concise Statement
Order, 10/24/16, at ¶ 3). Despite this directive, Appellant never filed a Rule
1925(b) statement. Consequently, he has waived his issues on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., supra at 224.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.3
____________________________________________
3
Moreover, even if Appellant had complied with the court’s order, his
defective brief substantially hinders our ability to conduct meaningful
appellate review. For example, it omits a statement of the questions
involved and a summary of the argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a), 2118.
The body of the brief is rambling, disjointed, and lacks cogent legal analysis
supported by relevant authority and citation to the certified record. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(c). Therefore, we could dismiss the appeal for this
reason as well. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101.
-3-
J-S05040-17
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/1/2017
-4-
Higgins, L. v. Frank Bonin Funeral Parlor
Combined Opinion