A.D. Brown v. C. Blaine, Jr. ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Alton D. Brown,                               :
    :
    Appellant                  :
    :
    v.                               : No. 1589 C.D. 2016
    : Submitted: September 15, 2017
    Conner Blaine Jr.; LT. R. Oddo,               :
    T.D. Jackson; Lt. McCombic;                   :
    Charles Rossi; Sargeant Lipscomb;             :
    Officer Marshall; Officer Romano;             :
    Keri Cross; Frank J. Zaborowski; and          :
    B.E. Ansell                                   :
    BEFORE:      HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
    HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
    SENIOR JUDGE COLINS                                   FILED: October 27, 2017
    Alton D. Brown (Appellant or Brown) appeals pro se from the August
    26, 2016 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County (Trial Court)
    dismissing his complaint with prejudice. (Certified Record (R.) Items No. 5 and 16,
    Trial Court Order.) For the reasons set forth below, we vacate and remand to the
    Trial Court, with instructions to provide Appellant thirty (30) days in which to pay
    filing fees in the amount of $286.99 or have his complaint dismissed with prejudice.
    Appellant is incarcerated in the Pennsylvania prison system, and in
    2002, he filed an action against various guards, officers and employees (collectively,
    Appellees or Defendants) of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC). In
    conjunction with his complaint, Brown filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis
    (IFP), which was granted on April 12, 2002. On September 20, 2011, Defendants
    filed a Motion to Remove IFP and Dismiss the Case, and on November 3, 2011, the
    Trial Court granted the motion, found Brown to be an abusive litigator,1 and
    dismissed his case under Pennsylvania’s Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42
    Pa. C.S. §§ 6601-6608. Brown appealed to this Court, and in an unpublished
    memorandum opinion, Brown v. Blaine, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 863 C.D. 2012, filed
    April 18, 2013), 
    2013 WL 3973380
    , we upheld the Trial Court’s determination to
    revoke Brown’s IFP status, but vacated that portion of the Trial Court’s order that
    dismissed Brown’s complaint and remanded, pursuant to Lopez v. Haywood, 
    41 A.3d 184
    , 188-89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), for a determination of the amount of court
    1
    Section 6602(f) of the PLRA, 42 Pa. C.S. § 6602(f), commonly referred to as the “three strikes
    rule,” allows the trial court to dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis complaint where the prisoner
    has a history of filing frivolous litigation. Jae v. Good, 
    946 A.2d 802
    , 807 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal
    denied, 
    959 A.2d 930
    (Pa. 2008). In Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 
    58 A.3d 118
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), this Court summarized Brown’s prolific history of filing frivolous and
    abusive pro se lawsuits concerning the conditions of his confinement, quoting this Court’s decision
    in Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 93 M.D. 2011, filed
    March 29, 2012), slip op. at 12 n.7:
    Our research has shown that Brown has filed well over twenty pro
    se matters in which he challenges the conditions in which he is
    housed and/or the medical treatment he has received for various
    alleged ailments. The matters have been filed in various Courts of
    Common Pleas, this Court, and in the Federal Courts throughout the
    country. With few exceptions, these matters have been dismissed as
    being frivolous, without merit, or for not demonstrating that Brown
    was in imminent danger of serious bodily 
    injury. 58 A.3d at 121
    (citations omitted).
    2
    fees Brown was required to pay in order to be able to proceed with the action. As
    this Court determined in 
    Lopez, 41 A.3d at 188-89
    , where a prisoner’s IFP status has
    been revoked under Section 6602(f) of the PLRA, he or she must be provided the
    opportunity to pay the required filing fees and litigation costs prior to the dismissal
    of the complaint.
    By its September 15, 2014 Order, the Trial Court noted that the fee
    schedule provided by the Greene County Prothonotary had changed in the past year,
    and found that under the current fee schedule, Brown was required to pay $96.00 for
    a complaint, $83.50 for the Superior Court Fee, and $35.00 for the Lower Court
    Appeal Fee, for a total of $214.50 in order to proceed with the remand of this case.
    (R. Item 41.) Brown thereafter appealed the Trial Court’s September 15, 2014 Order
    to this Court, and in an unpublished memorandum opinion, Brown v. Blaine, Jr.,
    Oddo, Jackson, McCombic, Rossi, Lipscomb, Marshall, Romano, Cross,
    Zaborowski and Ansell, (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1752 C.D. 2014, filed November 17,
    2015), 
    2015 WL 7356181
    , this Court held that appropriate filing fees and court costs
    were those fees and costs in effect at the time the relevant complaint and subsequent
    appeals were filed, and remanded to the Trial Court, with an instruction to issue a
    new order reflecting its determination of the correct fees and costs. On March 3,
    2016, the Trial Court issued an order determining that Appellant was required to pay
    $613.00 in court fees and costs; Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, and
    on March 8, 2016, the Trial Court issued an Opinion and Order reaffirming its
    determination.2 (R. Item 21.) On August 26, 2016, pursuant to its March 8, 2016
    2
    The certified record includes a handwritten listing of fees totaling $613.00. The handwritten list
    is not specifically indexed in the Index of Documents, but rather is sandwiched between record
    items 21 and 22. The Trial Court’s March 8, 2016 order does not refer to a handwritten list,
    referencing only the total amount of court fees and costs due. The Trial Court’s 1925(a) opinion,
    however, acknowledges the Court’s handwritten list of fees, stating:
    3
    order and a Motion for Entry of Final Order filed by Appellant, the Trial Court issued
    the order before us, which dismissed the complaint with prejudice.3 (R. Item 16.)
    Much of Appellant’s argument on appeal concerns matters previously
    disposed of and therefore moot. Appellant first asserts that he is entitled to a
    determination of whether he timely mailed his Concise Statement of Errors
    Complained of on Appeal.4 However, on March 30, 2017, the Trial Court issued an
    order finding, pursuant to the Prisoner Mailbox Rule,5 that Appellant’s concise
    statement was timely filed. (R. Item 7.) Appellant further argues that he has been
    denied an explanation as to how the Trial Court calculated his fees and costs. There
    is no merit to this argument. In its opinion pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925, the Trial
    Court acknowledged that in its March 30, 2017 order, it erroneously listed “current
    fees” and not the fee schedule for the appropriate year. (R. Item 6.) The Trial Court
    stated:
    By Court Order dated March 8, 2016, [the Trial Court] directed
    [Appellant] to pay $613.00 to avoid dismissal and also provided the
    fees associated with the above number and term, as provided by the
    Prothonotary Office of Greene County – which was a handwritten
    list of fees. The Court concedes that the list of fees were “current
    fees” and not the fee schedule for the appropriate year…[The Trial
    Court] was in error when it quoted filing fees as $613.00 and the
    fees that would be needed to file are $286.99.
    (Trial Court Opinion, R. Item 6.)
    3
    Our review of the trial court’s decision is limited to a determination of whether constitutional
    rights were violated, or whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.
    Brown v. Beard, 
    11 A.3d 578
    , 580 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
    4
    By order dated September 19, 2016, the Trial Court ordered that Appellant file a concise
    statement of matters complained of on appeal within twenty-one days (R. Item 14).
    5
    Under the prisoner mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se filing is deemd to be filed at the time it is
    given to prison officials or put in the prison mailbox. Kittrell v. Watson, 
    88 A.3d 1091
    , 1096-97
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
    4
    After an extensive review of this file, [the Trial Court]
    finds that the filing fees, as per the year of the filing of said
    document(s) as provided by the Prothonotary Office of
    Greene County to this Court are as follows:
    Complaint, docketed 4/10/02…………… .$65.50
    Sheriff Fees for Service of Complaint
    docketed 04/16/02………….……………..$81.49
    Appeal, docketed12/27/02…… …………..$35.00
    Appeal, docketed 12/04/03………………..$35.00
    Appeal, docketed 12/21/09………………..$35.00
    Appeal, docketed 04/08/10………………..$35.00
    TOTAL FEES: $286.99
    (Id.) The Trial Court has therefore fully complied with this Court’s November 17,
    2015 order, setting forth the appropriate court fees and costs that Appellant is
    required to pay.
    Appellant argues, finally, that the Trial Court’s behavior reflects a bias
    and prejudice against him, and that it should therefore have recused itself from this
    matter. We reject this argument. In denying Appellant’s request for his recusal,
    Judge Dayich opined that “this Court’s actions are not intentional and not done to
    prevent and/or delay the trial and not designed to cause the Plaintiff an unnecessary
    appeal and related fees and costs.” (Id.) Our Supreme Court has established that
    unfavorable rulings do not form the basis for a claim of bias and prejudice.
    Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 
    720 A.2d 79
    , 90 (Pa. 1998); see also Commonwealth
    v. Boyle, 
    447 A.2d 250
    , 252 (Pa. 1982) (a recusal is required only where the party
    requesting recusal establishes that there is a substantial doubt as to the jurist’s ability
    to preside impartially). The record here reflects that the Trial Court has corrected
    its error in calculating the fees owed.
    5
    However, the Trial Court has admitted that the order of March 3, 2016
    required Appellant to pay an incorrect amount of fees and costs. Accordingly, the
    order of August 26, 2016 dismissing the complaint for failure to pay that amount
    cannot stand. We therefore vacate the order of the Trial Court, and remand this
    matter to the Trial Court, for the purpose of providing Appellant thirty (30) days in
    which to pay filing fees in the amount of $286.99 or have his complaint dismissed
    with prejudice.
    ____________________________________
    JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
    Judge Cosgrove did not participate in the decision of this case.
    6
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Alton D. Brown,                               :
    :
    Appellant                   :
    :
    v.                                : No. 1589 C.D. 2016
    :
    Conner Blaine Jr.; LT. R. Oddo,               :
    T.D. Jackson; Lt. McCombic;                   :
    Charles Rossi; Sargeant Lipscomb;             :
    Officer Marshall; Officer Romano;             :
    Keri Cross; Frank J. Zaborowski; and          :
    B.E. Ansell                                   :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 2017, the August 26, 2016 order
    of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County (Trial Court) dismissing Appellant
    Alton D. Brown’s complaint with prejudice is vacated. We remand this matter to
    the Trial Court, with instructions to provide Brown with thirty (30) days within
    which to pay filing fees in the amount of $286.99 or have his complaint dismissed
    with prejudice.
    Jurisdiction relinquished.
    ____________________________________
    JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1589 C.D. 2016

Judges: Colins, Senior Judge

Filed Date: 10/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024