Coulter, J. v. Forrest, T.
Coulter, J. v. Forrest, T. No. 779 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 7, 2017Background
- Appellant Jean Coulter pleaded nolo contendere (2007) to aggravated assault and was sentenced with probation; her parental rights were later involuntarily terminated. While on probation, appellees Forrest and Hoerner served as her probation officers.
- Coulter filed numerous pro se suits in state and federal courts challenging probation conditions and alleging constitutional violations by the appellees; those suits were repeatedly dismissed.
- Coulter filed an amended complaint in Dauphin County (June 2013) repeating claims against Forrest and Hoerner; appellees moved to dismiss under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 in December 2015.
- An Allegheny County court entered a December 17, 2015 order under Rule 233.1 restricting Coulter’s ability to file further pro se civil actions naming previously sued defendants without leave; that order was circulated to other judges.
- Dauphin County granted appellees’ Rule 233.1 motion and dismissed Coulter’s amended complaint (April 14, 2016); Coulter’s post-trial motion for reconsideration/recusal was effectively denied and she timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Coulter’s Argument | Appellees’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Constitutionality of Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 | Rule 233.1 is void, unconstitutionally vague, and exceeds Supreme Court rulemaking authority | Rule 233.1 is procedural, aimed at curbing frivolous pro se litigation, and within the Court’s rulemaking power | Rule 233.1 is procedural, within authority, and not unconstitutionally vague — claim denied |
| 2. Whether trial court improperly relied on Allegheny County order / judicial notice | Allegheny order didn’t apply to this Dauphin action (filed earlier); court improperly relied on it | Court used Allegheny opinion as background; appellees showed prior related, resolved litigation against same/related defendants | Court did not improperly take dispositive judicial notice; dismissal under Rule 233.1 was proper |
| 3. Whether claims were “related” and “resolved” under Rule 233.1 | Coulter’s claims against appellees were not previously resolved and are distinct | Appellees demonstrated prior pro se suits raising same/related claims were litigated and resolved against Coulter | Court correctly found claims related and previously resolved and dismissed under Rule 233.1(a) |
| 4. Denial/consideration of recusal motion | Trial court refused to consider timely recusal/reconsideration motion based on inapplicable local rule; constituted per se abuse | Court argues Coulter failed to develop/cite authority on appeal; recusal not warranted on record; adverse rulings alone don’t show bias | Appellant waived the issue by failing to brief/support it; even on merits, recusal not justified — claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Coulter v. Lindsay, 159 A.3d 947 (Pa. Super. 2017) (upholding Rule 233.1’s purpose and describing Coulter’s prolific frivolous filings)
- Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 436 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1981) (Supreme Court rulemaking power permits procedural rules that may have collateral substantive effects)
- Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2012) (interpreting “related” and “resolved” under Rule 233.1 to allow dismissal where prior matters were adjudicated or settled)
- In re William L., 383 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 1978) (vagueness standard: rule invalid if it permits arbitrary/discriminatory enforcement)
- 220 Partnership v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 650 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Super. 1994) (court ordinarily should not judicially notice records of another case)
- Goodheart v. Casey, 565 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1989) (standards for requesting judicial recusal)