Coulter v. Ramsden
94 A.3d 1080
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Coulter (pro se) filed a complaint in Allegheny County (Jan 10, 2013) asserting claims related to a 2007 aggravated-assault plea and subsequent termination of parental rights in Butler County (2011).
- Coulter previously filed materially similar federal suits (Western Dist. of Pa.) that were dismissed and resulted in the federal court labeling her a vexatious litigant.
- The Allegheny County trial court dismissed Coulter’s 2013 complaint under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 (motion to dismiss repetitious pro se litigation) after oral argument; Coulter’s petition for reconsideration was denied.
- Coulter appealed pro se, raising timeliness, transfer/§5103(b) arguments, claims of trial-court bias/disqualification, and a constitutional challenge to Rule 233.1.
- The Superior Court affirmed: appeal was timely; Rule 233.1 applied because the claims were related to prior federal litigation that had been resolved; multiple arguments were waived for lack of development or for not being preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Coulter argued her notice of appeal was timely filed. | Appellees contended any timeliness defect would bar review. | Appeal was timely (notice filed within 30 days of Feb. 8, 2013 order); Court had jurisdiction. |
| Whether §5103(b) required treating the state suit as a transfer from federal court | Coulter argued federal dismissal for lack of jurisdiction meant her state action should be treated as a transfer under 42 Pa.C.S. §5103(b). | Appellees noted the federal court did not dismiss solely for lack of jurisdiction and Coulter did not comply with §5103(b)(2)’s transfer procedure. | Court held federal dismissal was not solely for lack of jurisdiction and Coulter did not file the certified transcript required for §5103(b)(2); §5103 transfer did not apply. |
| Dismissal under Pa.R.C.P. 233.1 (duplicative pro se litigation) | Coulter argued dismissal was improper because state claims were not previously resolved by the federal court. | Appellees argued the current claims were the same or related to prior federal claims resolved by the federal court and Rule 233.1 permits dismissal of repetitious pro se suits. | Court affirmed dismissal: claims and parties were sufficiently related; prior federal proceeding resolved the matters; trial court did not abuse discretion and properly barred additional pro se filings under Rule 233.1(c). |
| Alleged bias / need for remand to unbiased court; challenge to senior judge assignment; equal-protection challenge to Rule 233.1 | Coulter alleged bias, improper denial of argument, improper appointment of senior judge, and that Rule 233.1 discriminates against pro se plaintiffs. | Appellees asserted these issues were either unsupported or waived for failure to raise them below or develop legal argument. | Court found these issues waived: arguments were either undeveloped (no citation/analysis) or not raised timely in trial court (recusal/disqualification/constitutional challenge). |
Key Cases Cited
- Sigall v. Serrano, 17 A.3d 946 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for procedural-rule interpretation and motions to dismiss).
- Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2012) (interpretation and purpose of Pa.R.C.P. 233.1; allows summary dismissal of repetitious pro se claims without strict res judicata elements).
- Krankowski v. O’Neil, 928 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2007) (timeliness of appeal implicates appellate jurisdiction).
- Strunk, 953 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2008) (issues not preserved below are waived; parties must permit trial court opportunity to correct errors).
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate arguments not supported by authority may be deemed waived).