Coulter, J. v. Lindsay, A.
159 A.3d 947
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Coulter pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault and subsequently had her parental rights terminated; Lindsay and others represented her in those proceedings.
- Over the next decade Coulter filed numerous state and federal suits challenging those matters; many were dismissed and appeals were denied.
- In 2015 Coulter sued her former counsel in Butler County raising claims she had previously asserted in federal court (Lindsay), and later filed a fifth amended complaint and a recusal motion.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 (dismissal of repetitive pro se suits), res judicata, and failure to state a claim; the trial court sustained defendants’ objections and dismissed the complaint on April 1, 2016.
- Coulter appealed pro se; she raised recusal, res judicata/Rule 233.1 dismissal, constitutionality of Rule 233.1 (authority and vagueness), statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim.
- The Superior Court affirmed, held Rule 233.1 constitutional and not void for vagueness, upheld dismissal under Rule 233.1, awarded fees, and imposed a filing injunction barring further pro se non‑criminal appeals to the court without leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial-court recusal | Trial judge biased; panel assignment improper | No timely objection; judges impartial and assignment followed rules | Waived on appeal; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Dismissal under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 / res judicata | Claims are not "related" to prior litigation | Claims are identical/related and were resolved in Lindsay (dismissed with prejudice) | Rule 233.1 applies; dismissal under 233.1 was proper |
| Validity/authority of Rule 233.1; vagueness challenge | Supreme Court lacked power to promulgate; rule is unconstitutionally vague | Rule is procedural, within Supreme Court rulemaking power; terms like "related" and "resolved" give sufficient guidance | Rule 233.1 is procedural, valid, and not void for vagueness |
| Sanctions and filing injunction | Injunction and fees improper | Litigation is vexatious and burdensome; prior injunctions in other courts support restraint | Fees and appellate-level filing injunction warranted; Coulter barred from further pro se non-criminal appeals without leave |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lokuta, 11 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (recusal objections must be raised promptly)
- Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 436 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1981) (distinguishing procedural vs. substantive rulemaking power)
- Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2012) (interpretation and scope of Pa.R.C.P. 233.1)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 117 A.3d 757 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate courts may impose counsel fees sua sponte for frivolous appeals)
- Winpenny v. Winpenny, 775 A.2d 815 (Pa. Super. 2001) (vexatious litigation can justify costs, fees, and filing restrictions)
- Chipps v. U.S.D.C. for the M.D. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72 (3d Cir. 1989) (pattern of groundless litigation can justify pre-filing restrictions)