Henry, M., Jr. v. Rhoads, H. ( 2023 )

J-A27020-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
MARCUS A. HENRY, JR. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
HOLLIE RHOADS, TIM MORRIS AND : No. 317 MDA 2022
DIAKON ADOPTION AND FOSTER :
CARE :
Appeal from the Order Dated January 25, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):
21-13213
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: AUGUST 2, 2023
Marcus A. Henry, Jr. appeals from the order granting the preliminary
objections of Hollie Rhoads, Tim Morris, and Diakon Adoption and Foster Care1
(“Diakon”) (together, “Appellees”), and dismissing his complaint. Henry has
waived all issues by failing to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). We therefore dismiss the appeal.
Henry filed a pro se complaint alleging that Diakon placed his three
biological children in foster care with Rhoads and Morris (“Foster Parents”),
who made false statements about him, including that he had physically abused
the children and violated a Protection from Abuse order. He alleged that
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellees’ brief states that the party’s name is “Diakon Child, Family, and
Community Ministries.”
J-A27020-22
Diakon was negligent for placing the children with Foster Parents. Appellees
filed preliminary objections arguing, among other things, that they are
immune under the Child Protective Services Law (“CPSL”), 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
6318(a)(2). The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the
complaint, and Henry appealed.
The court entered an order on March 1, 2022, directing Henry to file a
Rule 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, within 21
days. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).2 The order advised Henry, “Any issue not
included in a timely filed and served Statement of Errors Complained of on
Appeal shall be deemed waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Order, 3/1/22, at 1; see
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iv). The court did not receive Henry’s statement within
21 days — that is, by March 22, 2022.3 The trial court accordingly authored
an opinion stating that Henry had waived all issues.
Two weeks later, on April 5, 2022, the trial court’s prothonotary time-
stamped and docketed Henry’s Rule 1925(b) statement. The proof of service
indicated Henry sent the statement to the court via U.S. Mail two days before
the deadline, on March 20, 2022. Henry filed a “Motion to Clarify Delivery of
____________________________________________
2 The order is dated February 28, 2022, but a March 1, 2022, docket entry
states that the prothonotary provided Rule 236 notice on March 1, 2022. The
order was therefore “entered’” on March 1, 2022. See Pa.R.A.P. 108(b)
(providing order is entered on date clerk notes in docket that notice of order
has been given).
3 See Pa.R.C.P. 106(a) (“When any period of time is referred to in any rule,
such period in all cases . . . shall be so computed as to exclude the first and
include the last day of such period”). March 22, 2022, did not fall on a weekend
or holiday.
-2-
J-A27020-22
Appellant’s Concise Statement of Errors” in this Court. He alleged that he first
mailed the statement to the trial court on March 20, 2022, two days before
the deadline, but the prothonotary sent it back to him, unfiled, demanding an
$8.00 filing fee. Henry claimed he then returned the statement with the fee.4
Appellees argued for dismissal of the appeal based on Henry’s untimely
Rule 1925(b) statement. However, we determined that the date Henry filed
the statement was the date it was first received by the prothonotary,5 and
that the resolution of this operative factual issue was not apparent on the face
of the record. We therefore remanded the case to the trial court to determine
whether the prothonotary had received and rejected the statement prior to
the March 22 filing deadline. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(1); Bank of New York
Mellon v. Brooks, No. 1362 EDA 2016, 2017 WL 1437521, unpublished
memorandum at *3 and n.3 (Pa.Super. 2017) (remanding for determination
of when prothonotary received Rule 1925(b) statement, even where
prothonotary time-stamped and docketed the statement after the deadline,
where proof of service stated appellant mailed the statement before the
deadline). We retained jurisdiction.
____________________________________________
4 We denied the motion without prejudice.
5 See Mariano v. Rhodes, 270 A.3d 521, 530 (Pa.Super. 2022) (if a
prothonotary rejects civil pleadings filed within time limits, based on an initial
failure to pay a filing fee, it does not affect the timeliness of the filing); see
also Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88
A.3d 222, 226 nn.5, 6 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (when the appellant does
not obtain a certificate of mailing, the date of filing is the date the
prothonotary received the statement).
-3-
J-A27020-22
The trial court has since responded. It issued an order stating that it
held a hearing at which the deputy prothonotary for the trial court testified
and at which Henry had an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. The court
found that the prothonotary’s office first received Henry’s statement on March
23, 2022. See Order, 5/25/23, at 1.
We do not have discretion to entertain issues that were not included in
a timely statement. Greater Erie Indus. Dev. Corp., 88 A.3d at 225. There
is no exception to Rule 1925(b) for pro se litigants who miss the deadline by
even one day. See Commonwealth v. Boniella, 158 A.3d 162, 164
(Pa.Super. 2017). As the prothonotary of the trial court received Henry’s
statement one day after the March 22, 2022, deadline, it is untimely, and all
issues are waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). We accordingly dismiss the
appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/2/2023
-4-