Opinion
769 C.D. 2023
08-22-2024
William Brandon Cummings, Appellant v. Sgt. DiPasquale
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Submitted: June 6, 2024
BEFORE: HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
STACY WALLACE, Judge.
William Brandon Cummings (Cummings), pro se, appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County's (trial court) order dated July 10, 2023 (Order) that dismissed his pro se complaint (Complaint) as frivolous under Section 6602(e)(2) of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(2), and consequently denied his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude our ability to perform meaningful appellate review of the trial court's Order is constrained by the trial court's failure to file a thorough Pa.R.A.P. (Rule)1925(a) (Rule 1925(a)) opinion. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for further consideration of this matter.
Rule 1925(a)(1) provides:
(1) General rule. Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the judge who entered the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, if the reasons for the order do not already appear of record, shall within the period set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 1931(a)(1) file of record at least a brief opinion of the reasons for the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained of, or shall specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found.Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(1).
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2023, Cummings filed his Complaint alleging Sergeant (Sgt.) DiPasquale (DiPasquale), a corrections officer at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Fayette (SCI-Fayette), violated Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983). Original Record (O.R.), Item No. 1 at 1.
On September 22, 2023, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) filed a Notice of Non-Participation indicating the DOC would not be participating in this appeal because the trial court dismissed the matter before service was effectuated on Sgt. DiPasquale.
While Cummings was an inmate in DOC custody at SCI-Fayette at the time he filed his Complaint, Cummings is currently incarcerated at SCI-Phoenix. See Inmate/Parolee Locator, Pa. Dep't of Corr., https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov (last visited August 21, 2024).
Section 1983 allows individuals to pursue an action against a "person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Complaint alleged DiPasquale violated Cummings' First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. Specifically, Cummings claimed DiPasquale consistently interrupted him while he was praying and denied him access to medical attention. Id. at 1-3. Additionally, Cummings asserted his housing area was infested with insects, mold, feces, and dust, and his meals were served cold because "DiPasquale refused to order the food trays be handed out on time and hot." Id. at 3. Finally, throughout his Complaint, Cummings claimed DiPasquale threatened him and, specifically, that DiPasquale threatened to kill him on numerous occasions. Id. at 1-2, 5. Cummings' Complaint alleged he was "in imminent danger," and while he understood he was "on the [three] strikes rule," he alleged DiPasquale threatened him with serious physical harm or death. Id. at 5. As for remedies, Cummings sought the following: $100,000, a trial by jury, and injunctive relief including access to medical treatment and care, access to whirlpool therapy, clean air vents, and fumigation of his housing unit. Id. at 4-5. Along with his Complaint, Cummings also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Id., Item No. 2.
On July 10, 2023, the trial court dismissed Cummings' Complaint as frivolous under Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA and noted Cummings had
filed at least nine (9) other actions; 1831 of 2008, G.D.; 1832 of 2008, G.D.; 2094 of 2008, G.D.; 2095 of 2008, G.D.; 2452 of 2008, G.D.; 2453 of 2008, G.D.; 2463 of 2008, G.D.; 2472 of 2008, G.D.; and 574 of 2023, G.D. which were considered by the [trial court] and dismissed.O.R., Item No. 4. Consequently, the trial court also denied Cummings' petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Id.
On July 17, 2023, Cummings filed his Notice of Appeal. Id., Item No. 6. The trial court directed Cummings to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal in accordance with the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Cummings filed on July 28, 2023. O.R., Item Nos. 7, 9. On August 3, 2023, the
trial court issued a Statement in Lieu of Opinion (Statement in Lieu), explaining: Upon review of the record, it is clear to the [trial court] that [Cummings] has previously filed prison conditions litigation, three or more of those have been dismissed pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6602 and [Cummings] has not made a credible allegation that he is in danger of serious bodily injury. Therefore, we determined that his complaint was frivolous pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6602(e)(2) and dismissed the litigation accordingly.
Upon review of [Cummings' Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal], we find no basis for any further analysis. Therefore, no further opinion shall be issued.Statement in Lieu, 08/03/2023, at 2.
DISCUSSION
We must now address whether the trial court erred by dismissing Cummings' Complaint and denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. We review the trial court's decision to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, violated a party's constitutional rights, or committed an error of law. Bailey v. Wakefield, 933 A.2d 1081, 1083 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
We begin by considering the PLRA's provisions regarding a trial court's dismissal of pending litigation. First, we consider Section 6602(e)(1)-(2) of the PLRA, entitled "Dismissal of litigation," which states the following:
Notwithstanding any filing fee which has been paid, the court shall dismiss prison conditions litigation at any time, including prior to service on the defendant, if the court determines any of the following:
(1) The allegation of indigency is untrue.
(2) The prison conditions litigation is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or the defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense, including immunity, which, if asserted, would preclude the relief.42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(1)-(2) (emphasis added). A frivolous action is one "which lacks any basis in law or fact." Robinson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 582 A.2d 857, 860 (Pa. 1990). It is a high standard intended "to avoid discouraging litigants from bringing appeals for fear of being wrongfully sanctioned." Canal Side Care Manor, LLC v. Pa. Hum. Rels. Comm'n, 30 A.3d 568, 576 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citation omitted).
Second, we review Section 6602(f)(1)-(2) of the PLRA, commonly referred to as the "three strikes" rule (three strikes rule). This section provides:
If the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation and:
(1) three or more of these prior civil actions have been dismissed pursuant to subsection (e)(2); or
(2) the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation against a person named as a defendant in the instant action or a person serving in the same official capacity as a named defendant and a court made a finding that the prior action was filed in bad faith or that the prisoner knowingly presented false evidence or testimony at a hearing or trial;
the court may dismiss the action. The court shall not, however, dismiss a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order which makes a credible allegation that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)(1)-(2) (emphasis added). This Court has explained the three strikes rule does not totally impair an inmate's ability to pursue prison conditions litigation; instead, "[i]t only restricts [an inmate's] ability to pursue such actions in forma pauperis" since "[t]here is a legitimate governmental interest in deterring frivolous law suits." Jae v. Good, 946 A.2d 802, 809 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Here, the trial court issued its Order stating Cummings' Complaint was frivolous under Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA. In its Order, the trial court remarked, in a footnote, that Cummings "filed at least nine (9) other actions . . . which were considered by the court and dismissed." O.R., Item No. 4. Additionally, the trial court opted not to file a Rule 1925(a) opinion, instead filing its brief Statement in Lieu.
Rule 1925(a) "require[s] a trial court, upon notice of appeal from an order issued by that court, to file an opinion detailing the reasons for the order or to specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found." Lemon v. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 763 A.2d 534, 538 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (emphasis added). The purpose of Rule 1925(a) "is to facilitate appellate review of a particular trial court order. Additionally, . . . the rule fulfills an important policy consideration by providing . . . the legal basis for a judicial decision." Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 868 A.2d 379, 383 (Pa. 2005). This Court cannot conduct meaningful appellate review of a trial court's order, nor the issues raised by the appellant, "[w]ithout an explanation of why [a] complaint is frivolous." Brown v. Zaken (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1347 C.D. 2016, filed Sept. 21, 2017), slip op. at 4.
Unreported memorandum opinions of this Court issued on or after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their persuasive value. See Section 414(a) of this Court's Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).
Here, we conclude the trial court failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 1925(a). First, the trial court cited Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA in its dismissal order, which requires a trial court to dismiss prison conditions litigation if the litigation is frivolous. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(2). Despite citing this section, the trial court failed to offer any explanation for its determination that the Complaint was frivolous. "Such lack of explanation does not satisfy the requirement of [] Rule 1925(a)(1) that a trial court provide 'the reasons for the order,' and does not 'facilitate appellate review of [the] . . . trial court['s] order.'" Tejada v. Dowd (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 484 C.D. 2021, filed May 25, 2022), slip op. at 3 (citations omitted).
Second, it is unclear from the record whether the trial court intended to dismiss the Complaint under Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA, as it cited, or, alternatively, under Section 6602(f)(1) of the PLRA's three strikes rule. Despite citing Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA in its Order, the trial court references the numerous other actions Cummings filed and that the trial court dismissed. Again, in its Statement in Lieu, the trial court cites Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA as its basis for dismissal but notes the trial court dismissed three or more of Cummings' previous filings as frivolous. These references in the trial court's Order and Statement in Lieu cause this Court to question whether the trial court intended to dismiss the Complaint under the three strikes rule. Nevertheless, even if this was the trial court's intent, the trial court has still failed to provide sufficient reasoning to dismiss the Complaint under the three strikes rule. While Cummings admits in his Complaint that he is subject to the three strikes rule, this Court is unable to discern, based on the record before us, the bases for the previous dismissals and whether Cummings' previous prison conditions actions were dismissed as frivolous. Moreover, even if we assume Cummings is a three strikes rule litigant, the three strikes rule provides the trial court may exercise its discretion to dismiss the action, not that it must. Without any explanation from the trial court, this Court is unable to conduct meaningful appellate review of the trial court's exercise of discretion in this matter.
Additionally, the three strikes rule prohibits a trial court from "dismissing a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order" when an inmate credibly alleges that he "is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f) . Thus, the trial court was required to perform a credibility analysis of Cummings' allegation that DiPasquale repeatedly threatened to kill him. Because the trial court's Statement in Lieu simply says "[Cummings] has not made a credible allegation that he is in danger of serious bodily injury," Statement in Lieu, 08/03/2023, at 1, the trial court failed to satisfy Rule 1925(a)'s requirement that it provide the reasons for its order such that this court can conduct appellate review.
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 1925(a) by filing an opinion detailing the reasons for its Order, and the rationale for its decision is not readily apparent from the record, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review in this matter. See Miller Dev. Corp. v. Union Twp. Mun. Auth., 666 A.2d 391, 395 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we must remand and direct the trial court to prepare a supplemental opinion in support of its Order that complies with Rule 1925(a) and the foregoing opinion.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of August 2024, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) to prepare and forward to this Court, within 90 days, an opinion in support of its July 10, 2023 order that complies with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). The Prothonotary shall send a copy of this Order and the foregoing opinion to the Honorable Joseph M. George, Jr. and the trial court's prothonotary. The trial court's prothonotary shall return the record to this Court within 15 days of the trial court's issuance of its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Jurisdiction retained.