A.D. Brown v. C. Blaine, Jr., 1589 C.D. 2016

Alton D. Brown, a Pennsylvania prisoner, filed a 2002 civil action against DOC employees and was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status in April 2002.
In 2011 the trial court revoked Brown’s IFP under the PLRA “three strikes” provision and dismissed the case; this Court upheld the revocation but remanded for a determination of fees Brown must pay to proceed (per Lopez v. Haywood).
The trial court initially identified a fee total, the matter was appealed, and this Court directed the trial court to calculate fees based on the schedule in effect when each document/appeal was filed.
The trial court then issued orders finding Brown owed $613.00, and subsequently entered an order dismissing his complaint with prejudice for failure to pay that amount.
The trial court later acknowledged it had quoted “current fees” in error and recalculated the proper total as $286.99 for the relevant filing years.
The Commonwealth Court vacated the August 26, 2016 dismissal and remanded with instructions that Brown be given 30 days to pay $286.99 or have his complaint dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown’s concise statement was timely filed	Brown contended it was timely mailed	Trial court initially questioned timeliness	Court found, under the prisoner mailbox rule, Brown’s concise statement was timely filed
Whether trial court adequately explained fee calculation	Brown argued he lacked an explanation for how fees were computed	Trial court pointed to its fee schedules and later admitted it had used incorrect "current" fees	Court held trial court corrected its error and provided a fee breakdown totaling $286.99
Whether dismissal for failure to pay $613 was proper	Brown argued dismissal was improper because fee amount was incorrect	Defendants relied on trial court orders requiring payment	Court vacated dismissal because the March 3, 2016 order used an incorrect fee amount and remanded to give Brown 30 days to pay $286.99 or face dismissal
Whether trial judge should have recused for bias	Brown claimed judge was biased and should recuse	Trial court denied recusal, asserting actions were not intentional or biased	Court rejected recusal claim: unfavorable rulings alone do not show bias and record shows correction of fee error

Lopez v. Haywood, 41 A.3d 184 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (prisoners whose IFP status is revoked must be given opportunity to pay fees before dismissal)
Brown v. Beard, 11 A.3d 578 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard of review for trial court procedural rulings)
Kittrell v. Watson, 88 A.3d 1091 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (prisoner mailbox rule — filing deemed made when given to prison officials)
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa.) (unfavorable rulings do not by themselves establish judicial bias)
Jae v. Good, 946 A.2d 802 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (PLRA "three strikes" dismissal authority)
Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 58 A.3d 118 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (context on Brown’s history of frivolous filings)