Caterbone, S. v. Residents of Lancaster County ( 2016 )

J-A14016-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
STANLEY J. CATERBONE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY OF
LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee No. 1561 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered August 20, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Civil Division at No(s): CI-15-06985
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MAY 10, 2016
Stanley J. Caterbone appeals, pro se, from the order entered August
20, 2015,1 in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing his
action as frivolous. Because we find that substantial defects in Caterbone’s
brief preclude us from conducting meaningful review, we dismiss this appeal.
We have garnered the facts underlying this appeal from the certified
record. On August 17, 2015, Caterbone filed a pro se petition for a
preliminary injunction, seeking a “cease and desist order” against the
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
We note Caterbone purportedly appealed from the September 1, 2015,
order of the trial court denying his motion for reconsideration of the August
20, 2015, order. See Notice of Appeal, 9/8/2015. However, the appealable
order is the August 20, 2015, order dismissing his petition and action.
Therefore, we have changed the caption accordingly.
J-A14016-16
residents of Lancaster County from participating in “organized stalking
and/or electronic and mind manipulation torture being committed against
[him.]” Preliminary Emergency Injunction for Relief, 8/17/2015, at 3. In
particular, he requested the court enlist the media, “specifically Lancaster
Newspapers and WGAL-TV 8 to provide a public community wide media
campaign to bring awareness to this order.”2 Id. at 11 (capitalization
omitted). Moreover, that same day, Caterbone filed a petition to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”), asserting that he was unable to pay the fees and
costs of prosecuting the action. See Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
8/17/2015.
On August 20, 2015, the trial court entered an order dismissing
Caterbone’s action as frivolous. See Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1) (stating a trial
court may dismiss a frivolous action filed simultaneously with a petition to
proceed IFP). Caterbone subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the trial court promptly denied on September 1, 2015, and this timely
appeal followed.3
However, we find that we are unable to address the merit of this
appeal because the brief Caterbone provided to this Court has substantial
____________________________________________
2
It does not appear Caterbone served his petition upon anyone, except for
the trial court.
3
The trial court did not direct Caterbone to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
-2-
J-A14016-16
defects which preclude our review. As this Court has reiterated on
numerous occasions:
While [we are] willing to liberally construe materials filed by a
pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any
particular advantage because [he] lacks legal training. As our
supreme court has explained, “any layperson choosing to
represent [himself] in a legal proceeding must, to some
reasonable extent, assume the risk that [his] lack of expertise
and legal training will prove [his] undoing.”
O'Neill v. Checker Motors Corp., 567 A.2d 680, 682 (Pa. Super. 1989)
(citations omitted). Accord Branch Banking & Trust v. Gesiorski, 904
A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006); Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159(Pa. Super. 1996). Indeed, “pro se status does not entitle a party to any
particular advantage because of his or her lack of legal training.” First
Union Mortgage Corp. v. Frempong, 744 A.2d 327, 333 (Pa. Super.
1999).
The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide, in relevant
part:
Briefs and reproduced records shall conform in all material
respects with the requirements of these rules as nearly as the
circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they
may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or
reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the
appeal or other matter may be quashed or dismissed.
Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (emphasis supplied). Here, Caterbone’s brief does not
contain a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of the order in question, a
statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions
involved, or a conclusion “stating the precise relief sought.” Pa.R.A.P.
-3-
J-A14016-16
2111(a). Indeed, upon our review of Caterbone’s brief, we are unable to
discern why he believes the trial court’s dismissal of his action was incorrect,
the nature of his underlying claims, or even the relief he seeks. “When
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. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014,
1017 (Pa. Super. 1993) (citation omitted). Therefore, we are compelled to
dismiss this appeal.
Nevertheless, we note that even if we were able to consider the
validity of the trial court’s ruling, we would find Caterbone is entitled to no
relief. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j) “provides for a court,
prior to acting on a petition to proceed [IFP], to dismiss an action … if the
court is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous.”
Pa.R.C.P. 240 Comment, 2012. An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Ocasio v. Prison Health Services, 979 A.2d
352, 354 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). Here, the trial court
explained in its opinion, “[e]ven a cursory review of [Caterbone’s] action
reveals that it is meritless, involves absolutely no justiciable issues and,
regardless, addresses matter for which he utterly lacks standing.” Trial Court
Opinion, 11/20/2015, at 1. Caterbone provides us with no basis to overturn
the court’s ruling. Therefore, even if we did not dismiss this appeal, we
would affirm the order of the trial court.
-4-
J-A14016-16
Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Application for relief
denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/10/2016
-5-