H.B. v. B.B.

J-A10001-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
H.B. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
B.B. :
:
Appellant : No. 2758 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered August 20, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations
at No(s): No. 1805V7461
BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JULY 27, 2020
B.B. appeals pro se from the Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) order
entered against him upon the petition of H.B. We dismiss the appeal.
From the certified record and the trial court’s opinion, we glean that
Appellant and H.B. are former intimate partners. H.B. filed a PFA petition and
obtained a temporary order. After a full hearing, the trial court entered a
permanent order on August 20, 2019, inter alia, prohibiting Appellant from
having contact with H.B. for three years. Appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal, but did not serve it upon any of the relevant parties, namely, H.B.,
the trial court, and the court reporter.1 See Notice of Appeal, 9/18/19, at
unnumbered 2. See also Trial Court Opinion, 12/4/19, at 2. Upon learning
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 As a result, the certified record contains no transcript of the PFA hearing.
J-A10001-20
of the appeal, the trial court entered an order instructing Appellant to file a
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant timely filed a response in which he, inter alia, directed the trial court
to file a complaint with the Superior Court if it did not know “the full details of
the case under appeal,” and expressed his willingness “to comply with a
request if formally written and served to me and The Superior Courts.” Order
Response, 11/22/19. Consequently, the trial court authored an opinion
pursuant Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) indicating that Appellant’s response contains “no
information whatsoever about how the trial court erred in rendering the
decision[.]” Trial Court Opinion, 12/4/19, at 4.2
Appellant’s filing in this Court is similarly deficient. Appellant’s brief
does not contain a statement of questions presented as required by Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(4). His brief also is in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (requiring a
statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3) (requiring a statement of the
scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of
argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8) (requiring an argument section). The
brief further is devoid of citations to the record or to legal authority as are
required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (b), respectively. Finally, rather than
attaching a copy of the trial court’s opinion to his brief as required by Pa.R.A.P.
____________________________________________
2The trial court opines that Appellant’s response warrants finding his issues
waived pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). See Trial Court Opinion,
12/4/19, at 4. Given our disposition infra, we do not reach the issue of Rule
1925(b) waiver.
-2-
J-A10001-20
2111(b), Appellant supplied an “Opinion” in which he offered his ideas about
“[t]he best way this could have been resolved . . . .” Appellant’s brief at
unnumbered 5.
“[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by a
pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special benefit.” Commonwealth
v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.Super. 2017). “[A] pro se litigant must
comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the
Court.” Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellant’s complete disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure and
the absence of a transcript of the proceedings below have left this Court
unable to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g., Commonwealth v.
Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa.Super. 1982) (declining to address merits of
appeal because the brief was “so defective as to preclude effective, appellate
review”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without considering its merits.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) (“If the appellant fails to take the action required by
these rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration for the
preparation of the transcript, the appellate court may take such action as it
deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.”); Pa.R.A.P.
2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the appellant
and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be . . . dismissed.”).
Appeal dismissed.
-3-
J-A10001-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/27/20
-4-