Brown v. Levy, 25 A.3d 418

Brown, an inmate, sued multiple state agencies and individuals alleging denial of medical treatment and other constitutional violations.
The Prothonotary refused to accept Brown’s complaint for filing on two occasions.
Brown filed a mandamus action in trial court seeking to compel filing of the complaint.
The Prothonotary moved to dismiss under the PLRA, arguing Brown’s action is prison conditions litigation subject to three-strikes dismissal.
Trial court dismissed the mandamus action with prejudice, treating it as prison conditions litigation.
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed, holding the Prothonotary cannot refuse to accept a properly tendered filing and that the mandamus action is not governed by the three-strikes rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the three-strikes rule bars the mandamus action.	Brown contends mandamus seeks only filing and is not prison conditions litigation.	Levy argues the action is prison conditions litigation under PLRA §6601.	Three-strikes does not bar the mandamus action.
Whether the Prothonotary lacks authority to refuse filing of Brown's complaint.	Brown asserts the Prothonotary must file documents that conform to rules.	Levy asserts the Prothonotary may exercise discretion.	Prothonotary cannot refuse to accept properly tendered filings; reversal and remand.

In re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003, 936 A.2d 1 (Pa. 2007) (Clerk’s lack of interpretive authority; ministerial duties of prothonotaries)
Gotwalt v. Dellinger, 577 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super. 1990) (Prothonotary lacks judicial powers and cannot interpret statutes)
Thompson v. Cortese, 398 A.2d 1079 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (Prothonotary as ministerial, no discretion to refuse proper filings)
Warner v. Cortese, 288 A.2d 550 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972) (Prothonotary’s restricted authority; no statutory interpretation by clerk)
Brown v. Levy, 993 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Similar facts; distinguishable on whether filing authority was at issue)