M.A. Robinson v. Officer Roundtree ( 2021 )

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mark Anthony Robinson, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 631 C.D. 2020
: Submitted: December 4, 2020
Officer Roundtree, Sergeant Book, :
and Jane Doe :
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge1
HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: July 22, 2021
Mark Anthony Robinson, pro se, appeals an order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) dismissing his complaint against
Officer Roundtree, Sergeant Book, and Jane Doe (collectively, Prison Employees)
for violating his constitutional rights. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure No. 240(j)(1),2 the trial court, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint as
frivolous. Robinson asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint.
Prison Employees have filed a motion to quash Robinson’s appeal for the stated
1
This case was assigned to the opinion writer before January 4, 2021, when Judge Leavitt
completed her term as President Judge.
2
It states:
If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking
of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
court prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal
if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding
or appeal is frivolous.
PA. R.C.P. No. 240(j)(1).
reason that he did not serve his statement of errors complained of on appeal upon
the trial court judge and, thus, waived all issues on appeal. We deny the motion to
quash, reverse the trial court’s order dismissing Robinson’s complaint, and remand
for further proceedings.
On September 4, 2019, Robinson filed a Section 1983 civil rights
complaint, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with the
trial court. The complaint alleged that Prison Employees violated his civil rights by
placing him in a restricted housing unit after he placed paper over a window to
obstruct the view of a female corrections officer into his cell, as a matter of decency.
Complaint, ¶¶1, 8, 11-13, 30, 42-44. Officer Roundtree asked Robinson to remove
the paper from his cell window and made offensive comments to him. Id. ¶¶12-14.
In response, Robinson asked to speak with her supervisor so he could file a complaint
against her. Id. ¶¶15-16. Officer Roundtree’s supervisor escorted Robinson to the
restricted housing unit. Id. ¶20. Officer Roundtree issued a misconduct report
against Robinson in retaliation for his attempt to enforce his first amendment right
to freedom of speech and “the right to complain” and did so without providing due
process. Id. ¶21. The complaint alleged that the misconduct report defamed him,
intentionally caused him emotional distress, and adversely affected his parole status.
Id. ¶¶11, 45-46. The complaint sought money damages and other relief as the court
deems appropriate.
On October 11, 2019, the trial court dismissed the complaint under PA.
R.C.P. No. 240(j). Its order explained the decision as follows:
Pa. R.C.P. [No.] 240(j) permits the court to dismiss an action
commenced simultaneously with a request to proceed in forma
pauperis if satisfied that the action is frivolous. Frivolous has
been defined as an action that lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact. The factual averments set forth in the [c]omplaint do
2
not set forth a cognizable claim in this [c]ourt. [Robinson] is
bringing a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for civil
rights violations against [Prison Employees] acting in both their
official and individual capacities. As such, this action must be
commenced in the Federal Court or the Commonwealth Court
because [Prison Employees] are employed by the
Commonwealth.
Trial Court Order, 10/11/2019, n.1. The trial court mailed its order to Robinson, but
its receipt was delayed. On January 9, 2020, Robinson filed a nunc pro tunc appeal
with the Superior Court and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
On February 26, 2020, in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(b), the trial court ordered Robinson to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal within 21 days. PA. R.A.P. 1925(b).3
3
It states, in relevant part, as follows:
(b) Direction to file statement of errors complained of on appeal; instructions to the
appellant and the trial court. If the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice
of appeal (“judge”) desires clarification of the errors complained of on appeal, the
judge may enter an order directing the appellant to file of record in the trial court
and serve on the judge a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal
(“Statement”).
(1) Filing and service. The appellant shall file of record the
Statement and concurrently shall serve the judge. Filing of record
shall be as provided in Pa. R.A.P. 121(a) and, if mail is used, shall
be complete on mailing if the appellant obtains a United States
Postal Service Form 3817, Certificate of Mailing, or other similar
United States Postal Service form from which the date of deposit
can be verified in compliance with the requirements set forth in Pa.
R.A.P. 1112(c). Service on the judge shall be at the location
specified in the order, and shall be either in person, by mail, or by
any other means specified in the order. Service on the parties shall
be concurrent with filing and shall be by any means of service
specified under Pa. R.A.P. 121(c).
(2) Time for filing and service.
(i) The judge shall allow the appellant at least 21 days
from the date of the order’s entry on the docket for
3
On March 13, 2020, Robinson filed his Rule 1925(b) statement and a proof of
service, stating that it was mailed to the trial court’s Prothonotary. Proof of Service,
3/11/2020. The caption on the proof of service contained the name “The Honorable
Judge William P. Mahon” under the docket number. Id.On March 23, 2020, the trial court issued an order in lieu of a Rule
1925(a) opinion. See PA. R.A.P. 1925(a).4 Therein, the trial court stated that
Robinson’s appeal should be quashed because Robinson had failed to serve his Rule
1925(b) statement on the trial court judge, thereby waiving all issues. Trial Court
Order, 3/23/2020, at 1-2.
the filing and service of the Statement. Upon
application of the appellant and for good cause
shown, the judge may enlarge the time period
initially specified or permit an amended or
supplemental Statement to be filed. Good cause
includes, but is not limited to, delay in the production
of a transcript necessary to develop the Statement so
long as the delay is not attributable to a lack of
diligence in ordering or paying for such transcript by
the party or counsel on appeal. In extraordinary
circumstances, the judge may allow for the filing of
a Statement or amended or supplemental Statement
nunc pro tunc.
***
PA. R.A.P. 1925(b).
4
It states, in relevant part, as follows:
General rule. Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, upon receipt of the notice
of appeal, the judge who entered the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, if the
reasons for the order do not already appear of record, shall within the period set
forth in Pa. R.A.P. 1931(a)(1) file of record at least a brief opinion of the reasons
for the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained of, or shall specify in
writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found[.]
PA. R.A.P. 1925(a)(1) (emphasis added).
4
On March 26, 2020, Robinson filed a Nunc Pro Tunc Rule 1925(b)
Statement. Therein, Robinson alleged that coronavirus and social distancing
protocols established by the Department of Corrections had interfered with his
ability to gain access to the prison’s law library; as a result, he could not conduct
“adequate research of PA. R.A.P. 1925 and its subchapters.” Nunc Pro Tunc
Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal ¶4. The attached proof of service lists
the “Honorable Judge William P. Mahon” and the prothonotary for the Superior
Court. Proof of Service, 3/26/2020. The trial court received Robinson’s Nunc Pro
Tunc Rule 1925(b) Statement on April 2, 2020. On April 7, 2020, the trial court
denied Robinson’s request for nunc pro tunc relief for the stated reason that
Robinson had “failed to plead and prove any facts” to show “a breakdown in the
prison or Court systems.” Trial Court Order, 4/7/2020, at n.1. On April 20, 2020,
the Superior Court transferred Robinson’s appeal to this Court.
On July 27, 2020, this Court issued an order directing the parties to
address whether Robinson timely complied with the trial court’s order to file a Rule
1925(b) statement. This Court’s order authorized the parties to address the question
either in their briefs on the merits of Robinson’s appeal or in an appropriate motion.
Prison Employees subsequently filed a motion to quash Robinson’s appeal, asserting
that Robinson’s failure to serve his Rule 1925(b) statement upon the trial court judge
has resulted in a waiver of all issues on appeal. Prison Employees’ Motion to Quash
¶¶8-9.
We begin with Prison Employees’ motion to quash. Our Supreme
Court requires strict adherence to the requirement that an appellant timely comply
with a trial court’s order to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Castillo,
5
888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005). It is the trial court’s order that triggers an appellant’s
obligation under PA. R.A.P. 1925(b).
In Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., 6 A.3d 1002,
1003 (Pa. 2010) (plurality opinion), our Supreme Court considered whether “an
appellant’s failure to personally serve on a trial judge a court-ordered statement of
errors complained of on appeal, in accordance with PA. R.A.P. 1925, results in
waiver of all issues, when the court’s order itself does not comply with Rule 1925.”
There, the lower court had ordered the appellants “to file [the Rule 1925(b)
statement] with the [c]ourt and a copy with the trial judge,” but it did not instruct
appellants to “serve” a copy of the statement on the trial judge as required by PA.
R.A.P. 1925(b). Berg, 6 A.3d at 1008. Because the appellants provided the
prothonotary with the original and one copy of their Rule 1925(b) statement, i.e., the
copy for the trial judge, our Supreme Court held that appellants had substantially
complied with the lower court’s order. Berg, 6 A.3d at 1008.5 Accordingly, the
Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Superior Court that the appellants had
waived all issues on appeal.
Here, the trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order stated as follows:
AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2020, it is hereby
ORDERED that pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), [] Robinson [at
the state correctional institution in Coal Township] is hereby
ORDERED to file of record and serve upon the undersigned, a
concise statement (“Statement”) of the errors complained of on
appeal in the above captioned matter. The Statement must be
5
Berg concerned an earlier version of PA. R.A.P. 1925. See Berg, 6 A.3d at 1006 n.7 (explaining
that the rule was substantially amended in 2007 and again in 2009). Nevertheless, the Berg
standard still determines whether an appellant has complied with a court’s order to file a Rule
1925(b) statement. See Mojica v. SCI-Mahanoy Security, 224 A.3d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020);
Commonwealth v. Matsinger, 68 A.3d 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013); Commonwealth v. Jones, 193 A.3d
957 (Pa. Super. 2018).
6
filed of record. The Statement must be served upon the
undersigned pursuant to Pa.[ ]R.A.P. [] 1925(b)(1). The
Statement must be filed and served no later than twenty-one (21)
days from the date of entry on the docket of this Order. Any issue
not properly included in the Statement timely filed and served
pursuant to Pa.[ ]R.A.P. [ ]1925(b) shall be deemed waived.
Attention is directed to Pa.[ ]R.A.P. [] 1925(b)(4) which sets
forth requirements for the Statement.
Trial Court Order, 2/26/2020, at 1 (bold in original and emphasis added). Because
the order explicitly required service upon the trial court judge, the order does not
suffer from the deficiency identified by the Supreme Court in Berg.
Robinson’s proof of service shows that he timely mailed “correct
copies” of the Rule 1925(b) statement to the trial court prothonotary. Proof of
Service, 3/11/2020. However, Prison Employees argue that this filing did not effect
service on the trial court judge.
Rule 1925(b) provides, in relevant part:
The appellant shall file of record the Statement and concurrently
shall serve the judge. . . . Service on the judge shall be at the
location specified in the order, and shall be either in person, by
mail, or by any other means specified in the order[.]
PA. R.A.P. 1925(b)(1) (emphasis added). Rule 1925(b) also specifies the
information that must be provided with respect to service on the judge; it states:
(3) Contents of order. The judge’s order directing the filing and
service of a Statement shall specify:
***
(iii) that the Statement shall be served on the judge
pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) and both the place the
appellant can serve the Statement in person and the
address to which the appellant can mail the
Statement. In addition, the judge may provide an
7
email, facsimile, or other alternative means for the
appellant to serve the Statement on the judge[.]
PA. R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii) (emphasis in original and added). In sum, the trial court’s
order must specify either the place where the appellant can personally serve the judge
or the address the appellant can use to serve the judge by mail.
In Commonwealth v. Matsinger, 68 A.3d 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), the
appellant had included a note with his Rule 1925(b) statement requesting that it be
forwarded to the judge. We concluded that this sufficed because the trial court’s
order did not give the appellant the “critical information regarding the proper method
for filing and service” of his Rule 1925(b) statement. Matsinger, 68 A.3d at 395.
Accordingly, this Court did not apply waiver.
Likewise, here, the trial court’s order required Robinson to serve the
Rule 1925(b) statement upon the trial court judge, but the order did not provide
critical information on how Robinson was to effect this service. Robinson attempted
to effect meaningful service by noting the judge’s name, i.e., “The Honorable Judge
William P. Mahon,”6 in the captions of his proof of service and his Rule 1925(b)
statement that he filed with the prothonotary. Proof of Service, 3/11/2020. We
conclude that Robinson has substantially complied with the trial court’s order
directing him to “file of record and serve upon the [judge]” a Rule 1925(b) statement.
Trial Court Order, 2/26/2020, at 1; Matsinger, 68 A.3d at 395. Accordingly, we will
deny Prison Employees’ motion to quash Robinson’s appeal and review the merits
of Robinson’s appeal.
Robinson has raised one issue in his Rule 1925(b) statement, i.e., that
the trial court erred when it dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The
6
The trial court judge’s name did not appear in the caption used by the trial court; thus, Robinson
added it to his filings.
8
trial court held that Robinson’s civil rights action had to be filed in a federal court
or in this Court because state employees were the named defendants. Robinson
contends that the trial court had jurisdiction because of the prison’s location in
Chester County.
Prison Employees agree with Robinson that the trial court erred in its
holding that it lacked jurisdiction over Robinson’s civil rights complaint. However,
they point out that the trial court dismissed Robinson’s complaint for a second
reason, namely, that the “[t]he factual averments set forth in the [c]omplaint [did]
not set forth a cognizable claim[.]” Trial Court Order, 10/11/2019, n.1. Prison
Employees argue that the complaint was properly dismissed because “it fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Prison Employees’ Brief at 10. Prison
Employees’ brief explains in detail that because Robinson’s complaint did not plead
facts to show a causal connection between his confinement in the restricted housing
unit and his litigation efforts, it does not state a constitutional claim.
The trial court’s order consisted of one sentence dismissing the
complaint. It explained its decision in a footnote, which stated as follows:
The factual averments set forth in the [c]omplaint do not set forth
a cognizable claim in this [c]ourt. [Robinson] is bringing a cause
of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for civil rights violations
against [Prison Employees] acting in both their official and
individual capacities. As such, this action must be commenced
in the Federal Court or the Commonwealth Court because
[Prison Employees] are employed by the Commonwealth.
Trial Court Order, 10/11/2019, n.1 (emphasis added). By stating that Robinson’s
complaint did not set forth a “cognizable claim in this [c]ourt” and identifying two
tribunals where the complaint should have been filed, the trial court limited the basis
for its decision as lack of jurisdiction.
9
Prison Employees argue the trial court had a second reason for its
dismissal, i.e., that the complaint did not “set forth a cognizable claim.” Trial Court
Order, 10/11/2019, n.1. However, this argument ignores the words “in this [c]ourt”
and the remainder of the paragraph, which addresses only jurisdiction.7 Id. The trial
court did not explain why Robinson’s claims lack an arguable basis in either law or
fact. For these reasons, we reject Prison Employees’ assertion that the trial court
dismissed Robinson’s complaint for any reason other than lack of jurisdiction.
Robinson preserved the jurisdiction issue in his Rule 1925(b)
Statement, and Prison Employees agree with Robinson that the trial court erred in
concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. No further review is required by this Court.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing Robinson’s complaint due
to lack of jurisdiction and remand this matter to the trial court for further
proceedings.
____________________________________________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita
7
The trial court’s order in lieu of a 1925(a) opinion requested this Court to quash Robinson’s
appeal for failure to serve his 1925(b) statement upon the judge. The order also states, in
conclusory fashion, that “the appeal is not cognizable[.]” Trial Court Order, 3/23/2020, at 1
(emphasis added). The trial court offered no explanation or support for this conclusion. Though
the trial court offered no explanation, the term “cognizable” is commonly understood to mean
“[c]apable of being judicially tried or examined before a designated tribunal; within the court’s
jurisdiction.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 327 (11th ed. 2019) (emphasis added). Moreover,
Robinson understood that the trial court cited only one reason for dismissal as he states, “the [trial
court’s] order . . . does not contend the required standard has been met to establish a claim of
frivolous.” Robinson Brief at 7 (emphasis added).
10
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mark Anthony Robinson, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 631 C.D. 2020
:
Officer Roundtree, Sergeant Book, :
And Jane Doe :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2021, we deny the motion to quash
filed by Officer Roundtree, Sergeant Book, and Jane Doe. We REVERSE the
October 11, 2019, order of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas and
REMAND this matter for further proceedings.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
____________________________________________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita