Holz, T. v. Langton, D. ( 2018 )

J-S01032-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
TIM E. HOLZ : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
v. :
:
D. LANGTON, SUSAN HEATH :
:
Appellee : No. 1478 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
Civil Division at No(s): 17-424
TIM E. HOLZ : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
v. :
:
THE AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL :
ASSOCIATION :
:
Appellee : No. 1479 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered July 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Union County
Civil Division at No(s): 17-425
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MURRAY, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2018
Appellant, Tim E. Holz, appeals pro se from the orders entered in the
Union County Court of Common Pleas, which denied his petitions to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed his complaints as frivolous for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
J-S01032-18
The trial court provided some of the relevant facts and procedural
history of this appeal as follows.
[Appellant] in these matters, Tim E. Holz, is a federal
inmate who was incarcerated in the Allenwood Federal
Correction Center, located in White Deer Township, Union
County, Pennsylvania. Based on correspondence from
[Appellant], the [c]ourt believes [Appellant] has been
transferred to a federal correctional institution in Texas.
[Appellant] is attempting to file two (2) civil actions in this
[c]ourt. He has filed Petitions for [IFP] Status, which the
[c]ourt has denied. [Appellant] has appealed the [c]ourt’s
denial of [Appellant’s] [IFP status] to permit him to file the
Complaints without costs.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the [c]ourt
appropriately denied him [IFP status].
It would appear that [Appellant] qualifies for [IFP] status
as he is incarcerated in a federal correctional institute.
However, other circumstances of this case warrant the
denial of that status.
[Appellant] has filed or has attempted to file thirty-seven
(37) civil actions in this [c]ourt since 2012.
Every single case has been dismissed either summarily by
the [c]ourt or after preliminary objections were filed. Nine
(9) of these cases were appealed to the Superior Court and
the appeal was either quashed or dismissed. Every single
case filed by [Appellant] was frivolous, alleged utterly
ridiculous allegations and demanded millions or billions of
dollars in damages. In one (1) case, [Appellant] alleged
that Judge Michael T. Hudock, President Judge of the 17 th
Judicial District, “jumped out of a perfectly flying airplane
and took the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with him
without a parachute in 50,000 feet commercial airliner
airspace”. He then went on to allege that Judge Hudock
conspired to murder him.
This is an illustration of the pleadings that have been filed
by [Appellant] in the past.
-2-
J-S01032-18
In the present cases, CV-17-424, [Appellant] alleges in his
complaint that a correctional officer or another federal
employee did not mail legal mail of his and he further
complains about FBI informants in the prison system. He
seeks $100,000.00 in punitive damages.
In CV-17-425, he complains that three (3) correctional
officers suffocated him and he was dead for 9 minutes and
50 seconds before being resuscitated by a lieutenant. He
further complains about prison accreditation by the
American Correctional Association.
(Trial Court Opinion, filed September 25, 2017, at 1-3) (footnotes omitted).
Preliminarily, we observe:
[A]ppellate briefs and reproduced records must materially
conform to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. This Court may
quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform
to the requirements set forth in Pennsylvania Rules of
Appellate Procedure. Id. Although this Court is willing to
liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se
status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To
the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a
legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume
that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his
undoing.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa.Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 591 Pa. 704, 918 A.2d 747 (2007) (some internal citations omitted).
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide guidelines regarding
the required content of an appellate brief as follows:
Rule 2111. Brief of the Appellant
(a) General Rule.—The brief of the appellant, except as
otherwise prescribed by these rules, shall consist of the
following matters, separately and distinctly entitled and in
the following order:
-3-
J-S01032-18
(1) Statement of jurisdiction.
(2) Order or other determination in question.
(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the
standard of review.
(4) Statement of the questions involved.
(5) Statement of the case.
(6) Summary of argument.
(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to
challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if
applicable.
(8) Argument for appellant.
(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief
sought.
(10) The opinions and pleadings specified in
Subdivisions (b) and (c) of this rule.
(11) In the Superior Court, a copy of the statement
of errors complained of on appeal, filed with the trial
court pursuant to Rule 1925(b), or an averment that
no order requiring a statement of errors complained
of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) was
entered.
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Additionally, Rule 2119(a) provides:
Rule 2119. Argument
(a) General rule. The argument shall be divided into as
many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall
have at the head of each part—in distinctive type or in
type distinctively displayed—the particular point treated
therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.
Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Importantly:
-4-
J-S01032-18
The argument portion of an appellate brief must include a
pertinent discussion of the particular point raised along
with discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. This
Court will not consider the merits of an argument, which
fails to cite relevant case or statutory authority. Failure to
cite relevant legal authority constitutes waiver of the claim
on appeal.
In re Estate of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal
denied, 620 Pa. 724, 69 A.3d 603 (2013) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).
As an equally important matter, Rule 240(j)(1) of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Rule 240. In Forma Pauperis
* * *
(j)(1) 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.
Note: A frivolous action or proceeding has been
defined as one that “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989).
Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1) (emphasis added) and Note. “Appellate review of a
decision dismissing an action pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 240(j) is limited
to…whether an appellant’s constitutional rights have been violated and
whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.”
-5-
J-S01032-18
Bell v. Mayview State Hosp., 853 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa.Super. 2004).
The Federal Tort Claims Act confers exclusive jurisdiction in the federal
courts for all claims brought under the Act. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b)(1).
Additionally,
A party seeking judicial resolution of a controversy in this
Commonwealth must, as a prerequisite,
establish...standing to maintain the action. Kuropatwa v.
State Farm Ins. Co., 554 Pa. 456, 460, 721 A.2d 1067,
1069 (1998). See also Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC
v. Commonwealth, 585 Pa. 196, 888 A.2d 655 (2005)
(stating standing to sue is threshold requirement to judicial
resolution of dispute).
The issue of standing is generally distinguishable
from the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Hertzberg v. Zoning [Bd. of Adjustment of City]
of Pittsburgh, 554 Pa. 249, 255 n. 6, 721 A.2d 43,
46 n. 6 (1998)…. …
In re Duran, 769 A.2d 497, 501 n. 2 (Pa.Super.2001)
(some internal citations omitted). The general principle
behind the necessity for standing to sue is to protect
against improper plaintiffs.
Step Plan Services, Inc. v. Koresko, 12 A.3d 401, 417-18 (Pa.Super.
2010) (some internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Pennsylvania
law on common law standing provides that a person can invoke the
jurisdiction of a court to enforce private rights or maintain an action for the
enforcement of such rights, only if that person has in an individual or
representative capacity some real interest in the legal right that is the
subject matter of the controversy. In Interest of G.C., 673 A.2d 932, 935
(Pa.Super. 1996). See generally In re T.J., 559 Pa. 118, 124, 739 A.2d
-6-
J-S01032-18
478, 481 (1999) (stating: “In determining whether a party has standing, a
court is concerned only with the question of who is entitled to make a legal
challenge and not the merits of that challenge”; “the purpose of the
‘standing’ requirement is to insure that a legal challenge is by a proper
party”). There is no private cause of action against the American
Correctional Association based on accreditation; a cognizable claim, if any,
against the American Correctional Association must implicate individual
constitutional rights. See generally Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543
n.27, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 1876 n.27, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, ___ n.27 (1979) (stating:
“And while the recommendations of [correctional associations] may be
instructive in certain cases, they do not establish the constitutional minima;
rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question”;
violation of accreditation standards is not per se violation of constitutional
rights).
Instantly, Appellant presents no cogent argument and completely
violates the structural requirements of the appellate rules. Therefore, he
has arguably waived any claims for review. Moreover, after a thorough
review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the
reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michael H. Sholley, we conclude Appellant
merits no relief on appeal. The trial court opinion correctly discusses and
properly disposes of any issues. (See Trial Court Opinion at 3-4) (finding:
Appellant is federal inmate formerly incarcerated in federal facility in PA; his
-7-
J-S01032-18
sole issue on appeal is whether court appropriately denied Appellant IFP
status; although Appellant’s incarceration in federal prison qualifies him for
IFP status, other circumstances warrant denial of IFP status; in present
cases, Appellant alleges frivolous claims against corrections officers and
federal employees; Federal Tort Claims Act preempts subject matter
jurisdiction over specific claims Appellant has against federal employees
while he is in federal prison; further, Appellant lacks standing to raise his
claim against American Correctional Association; both complaints are facially
frivolous and indicate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or Appellant
lacks standing to bring his particular claims). Accordingly, we affirm.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/22/2018
-8-
Circulated 02/08/2018 04:29 PM
FILED
UN!ON COUNTY Pt1
2011 SEP 25 PH 3: 58
PROTHONOTARY
CLERK OF COURTS
TIME. HOLZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff OF THE 17rH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
vs. UNION COUNTY BRANCH
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
D. LANGTON, SUSAN HEATH,
Defendants "NO. 17-424,
TIME. HOLZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff OF THE 17rH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
vs. UNION COUNTY BRANCH
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
THE AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant NO. 17-425
ORDER
.:»:
AND NOW, this 2.5 day of September, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Clerk of Courts transmit the record to the Superior Court.
BY THE COURT:
cc:
Coded q.,
Z(J ·/7
Alisha A Smith q, / D
Ff LED
1
YJiON COUNTY Pt
2017 SEP 25 PH 3: 58
PROTHONOTARY
:.LERK OF COURTS
TIME. HOLZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff OF THE 17rH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
vs. UNION COUNTY BRANCH
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
D. LANGTON, SUSAN HEATH,
Defendants NO. 17-424
TIME. HOLZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff OF THE 17rH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
vs. UNION COUNTY BRANCH
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
THE AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant NO. 17-425
OPINION
SHOLLEY, J. - September 25. 2017
The plaintiff in these matters, Tim E. Holz, is a federal inmate who was
incarcerated in the Allenwood Federal Correction Center, located in White Deer
Township, Union County, Pennsylvania. Based on correspondence from the plaintiff,
the Court believes the plaintiff has been transferred to a federal correctional Institution
in Texas.
The plaintiff is attempting to file two (2) civil actions in this Court. He has filed
Petitions for In Forma Pauperis Status which the Court has denied. The Plaintiff has
1
appealed the Court's denial of the plaintiff's in forma pauperis standing to permit him to
file the Complaints without costs.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Court appropriately denied him in forma
pauperis standing.
It would appear that the plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status as he is
incarcerated in a federal correctional institute. However, other circumstances of this
case warrant the denial of that status.
The plaintiff has filed or has attempted to file thirty-seven (37) civil actions in this
Court since 2012.
Every single case has been dismissed either summarily by the Court or after
preliminary objections were filed.1 Nine (9) of these cases were appealed to the
Superior Court and the appeal was either quashed or dismissed.2 Every single case
filed by the plaintiff was frivolous, alleged utterly ridiculous allegations and demanded
millions or billions of dollars in damages. In one (1) case 3, the plaintiff alleged that
Judge Michael T. Hudock, President Judge of the 17th Judicial District, "jumped out of a
perfectly flying airplane and took the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with him without a
parachute in 50,000 feet commercial airliner airspace". He then went on to allege that
Judge Hudock conspired to murder him.
This is an illustration of the pleadings that have been filed by the Plaintiff in the
past.
112-727, 12-740, 12-801, 12-857, 12-889, 13-001, 13-014, 13-023, 15-538, 15-607, 15-660, 16-140, 16-141, 16-
144, 16-298, 16-300, 16-310, 16-311, 16-312, 17-216, 17-283, 17-284, 17-285, 17-286, 17-303, 17-304, 17-305, 17-
306, 17-424, 17-425, 17-426, 17-459, 17-460, 17-461, 17-462, 17-463, and 17-495.
11958 MDA 2012, 99 MDA 2013, 163 MDA 2012, 249 MDA 2013, 663 MDA2013, 668 MDA 2013, 673 MDA
2013, 2000 MDA 2015, 2225 MDA 2015.
3
CV-13-014
2
In the present cases, CV-17-424, the plaintiff alleges in his complaint that a
correctional officer or another federal employee did not mail legal mail of his and he
further complains about FBI informants in the prison system. He seeks $100,000.00 in
compensatory damages and $100,000.00 in punitive damages.
In CV-17-425, he complains that three (3) correctional officers suffocated him
and he was dead for 9 minutes and 50 seconds before being resuscitated by a
lieutenant. He further complains about prison accreditation by the American
Correctional Association.
Upon receiving the file the Court reviewed the Petition for In Forma Pauperis
status and the content of the Complaint. Initially, as the plaintiff asserts claims against
federal employees, the Federal Tort Claims Act would preclude this Court from having
jurisdiction over any claims the plaintiff may have over federal employees while he is in
a federal correctional institution.
Further, the plaintiff would not have standing to pursue a claim against the
American Correctional Association in their determination of whether to certify a federal
institution or not.
The Complaints on their face are entirely frivolous or clearly indicate this Court
has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Given the multiple frivolous filings of the
plaintiff, the fact that a review of the pleadings the plaintiff seeks to file do not indicate
3
any claims which the plaintiff could pursue in this Court, the denial of the in forma
pauperis status was appropriate.
BY THE COURT:
cc: ,Pfaintiff, Inmate #15079-064, c/o
P.O. Box 26030, Beau o
� uty Court Administrate
.)-Oministrative Assistant
4