W. Rankins v. COI McConaughey

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
William Rankins, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 978 C.D. 2021
: Submitted: February 11, 2022
COI McConaughey, COI Drening, :
COI Boyd, COI Park, COI Rentz, :
COI Low, Superintendent Luther, :
Assistant Superintendent Hollidaugh :
and CO Grassmyer :
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: March 22, 2023
Williams Rankins (Rankins), pro se, appeals from the April 30, 2021 Order
of the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County (common pleas), granting
Rankins’ Motion for In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Status but dismissing Rankins’ Civil
Complaint (Complaint) as frivolous pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 240(j)(1), Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1). Because common pleas granted Rankins
IFP status, it lost the opportunity to dismiss the Complaint as frivolous under Rule
240(j)(1). As a result, the Court is constrained to vacate common pleas’ Order to
the extent it dismissed this matter as frivolous and remand this matter for further
proceedings.
On December 23, 2020, Rankins filed a Complaint against
COI McConaughey, COI Drening, COI Boyd, COI Park, COI Rentz, COI Low,
Superintendent Luther, Assistant Superintendent Hollidaugh, and CO Grassmyer
(collectively, Appellees), all of whom are employed by the Department of
Corrections (DOC) at the State Correctional Institution at Smithfield (SCI-
Smithfield). Therein, Rankins alleged that Appellees violated his rights under the
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, U.S.
CONST. amends. I, VIII, XIV. Specifically, Rankins averred that Appellees violated
his First Amendment right to access the courts, by withholding legal mail from a
federal magistrate judge such that by the time it was received, the deadline to file
objections had nearly run, and it was too late to request additional time. (Complaint,
Record Item 1 at 1.) Rankins also alleged that Appellees engaged in cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment by refusing to provide
him with two hours of physical recreation time on two occasions and conspiring to
conduct repeated and unwarranted “pat” searches to harass and humiliate Rankins.
(Id. at 1-3.) Rankins also averred Appellee Drening used excessive force by spraying
him with pepper spray in an unprovoked attack. (Id. at 3-5.) Lastly, Rankins avers
that Appellee Hollidaugh, a grievance officer at SCI-Smithfield, violated his First
and Fourteenth Amendments by “thwart[ing] [the] administrative process.” (Id. at
9.)
On December 28, 2020, common pleas entered an Order directing, among
other things, that “the Prothonotary . . . take no action on this matter[,] until
[Rankins] pays the appropriate filing fee or until he files and is approved for [IFP]
status.” (Common Pleas’ December 28, 2020 Order, Record Item 2.) On January
21, 2021, Rankins filed a Motion for IFP. (Motion for IFP, Record Item 3.)
2
On April 30, 2021, prior to service of the Complaint on Appellees, common
pleas entered the Order granting Rankins IFP status and dismissing his Complaint
pursuant to Rule 240(j)(1). Therein, common pleas states that the Complaint, “lacks
an arguable basis in law or in fact, and thus does not set forth a valid cause of action.”
(Common Pleas’ April 30, 2021 Order, Record Item 6, at 1.) Specifically, common
pleas held Rankins did not establish Appellees’ action with regard to his mail was
intentional or that Rankins suffered any injury as a result of the alleged delay. (Id.
at 2.) Common pleas also held that Rankins did not “state clear and specific legal
bases for his Eighth Amendment claims” or “specify what category of claims he is
asserting.” (Id. at 2-3.) Common pleas stated it “could try to guess what types of
claims [Rankins] is trying to raise under the Eighth Amendment, but any conclusion
that might be drawn would be exactly that – a guess.” (Id. at 3.) Common pleas
explained that to do so would “effectively require [it] to act as counsel for [Rankins],
sifting through his raw allegations to identify what claims might be possible and then
establish what the elements are[,]” which it declined to do. (Id.)
Thereafter, Rankins filed his Notice of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior
Court, which subsequently transferred Rankins’ appeal to this Court. On November
23, 2021, Appellees filed their Notice of Non-Participation because the matter was
dismissed by common pleas as frivolous prior to service of the Complaint. This
matter is now before this Court to determine whether the trial court erred in
dismissing Rankins’ Complaint as frivolous under Civil Rule 240(j)(1).1
Rule 240(j)(1) states:
1
Our review of a trial court’s decision dismissing a matter pursuant to Civil Rule 240(j)(1)
is “limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights have been violated, [and] whether
the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” McGriff v. Vidovich, 699 A.2d
797, 798 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
3
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.Civ.P. 240(j)(1) (emphasis added). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Id., Note (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). “In evaluating the legal sufficiency of the challenged
pleading, we accept as true all well-pled material, and relevant facts alleged and
every inference that is fairly deducible therefrom.” Scrip v. Seneca, 191 A.3d 917,
923 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). When “we review [a pro se] complaint for validity under
Rule 240. . . [it] should not be dismissed simply because it is not artfully drafted.”
Ocasio v. Prison Health Servs., 979 A.2d 352, 354 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citing Hill v.
Thorne, 635 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1993).2 Rather, “the right to amend should be liberally
granted at any stage of the proceedings unless there is an error of law or resulting
prejudice to an adverse party.” Werner v. Zazyczny, 681 A.2d 1331, 1338 (Pa. 1996).
It is not necessary to determine whether Rankins’ Complaint was frivolous or
whether he should have been permitted to file an amended pleading to cure the
alleged deficiencies identified by common pleas. This is because common pleas had
already granted Rankins IFP status and thus lost the ability to dismiss the matter as
frivolous under Rule 240(j)(1). In Grosso v. Love, 667 A.2d 43 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995),
the Court held dismissal under Rule 240(j)(1) could only occur before common
pleas grants IFP status. The Court recently reaffirmed this principle in LeBlanc v.
2
While not binding, Superior Court decisions “offer persuasive precedent where they
address analogous issues.” Lerch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 180 A.3d 545, 550 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2018).
4
Wetzel, 286 A.3d 394 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). Accordingly, the Court is constrained to
vacate common pleas’ Order to the extent it dismissed the Complaint as frivolous
and remand this matter for further proceedings.
__________________________________________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
5
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
William Rankins, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 978 C.D. 2021
:
COI McConaughey, COI Drening, :
COI Boyd, COI Park, COI Rentz, :
COI Low, Superintendent Luther, :
Assistant Superintendent Hollidaugh :
and CO Grassmyer :
ORDER
NOW, March 22, 2023, the April 30, 2021 Order of the Court of Common
Pleas of Huntingdon County is hereby VACATED to the extent it dismissed the
Complaint filed by William Rankins as frivolous. The Order granting Rankins in
forma pauperis status is otherwise AFFIRMED. This matter is REMANDED for
further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
__________________________________________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge