J.D. Schneller v. Clerk of Courts of the First Judicial District of PA Prothonotary of the First Judicial District of PA
352 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Appellant James D. Schneller (pro se) filed a Complaint for writ of mandamus against the Clerk of Courts/Prothonotary of the First Judicial District, alleging documents transferred to the criminal division were never docketed after an August 11, 2014 transfer order.
- He filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with the Complaint. Common Pleas sua sponte dismissed the Complaint on September 21, 2015 as frivolous under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j)(1), reasoning mandamus to a Court of Common Pleas falls within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
- Appellant filed a Motion to Open (to amend the Complaint) and two motions for reconsideration; Common Pleas denied those motions (Feb. 3 and Feb. 22, 2016) and treated the Motion to Open as post-decisional/reconsideration relief.
- Appellant appealed on February 29, 2016. The Commonwealth Court held the September 21, 2015 dismissal was a final, appealable order and the appeal was untimely; motions for reconsideration did not toll the 30-day appeal period because they were not expressly granted.
- The Commonwealth Court quashed the appeal and dismissed Appellant’s ancillary motion for relief as the Court lacked jurisdiction once the appeal was quashed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Common Pleas properly dismissed Complaint as frivolous under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j)(1) | Schneller argued dismissal was improper; sought mandamus to force docketing and to permit filing motions | Common Pleas argued mandamus to a court of common pleas implicates the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction and the petition was frivolous | Not reached on merits — appeal of dismissal was quashed as untimely |
| Whether the September 21, 2015 Order was a final, appealable order | Schneller contended post-dismissal motions and motion to open restarted appeal period | Commonwealth argued the dismissal disposed of all claims and was final; appeal period ran from Sept. 21, 2015 | Court held the Sept. 21 Order was final and appeal period began then; appeal untimely |
| Whether timely-filed motions for reconsideration or Motion to Open tolled the 30-day appeal period | Schneller argued his motions (including Motion to Open) tolled or restarted the appeal period | Commonwealth argued motions were not granted and thus did not toll the appeal period; Motion to Open was treated as improper/post-decisional/reconsideration | Held motions did not toll the appeal period because they were not expressly granted; Motion to Open treated as motion for reconsideration and non-appealable |
| Whether orders denying reconsideration and the denial of the Motion to Open are separately appealable | Schneller argued denial of Motion to Open was independently appealable and restarted the appeal period | Commonwealth argued denials of reconsideration and denial of post-decisional relief are non-appealable | Held denials of reconsideration and denial of Motion to Open are not appealable; no new appeal period was created |
Key Cases Cited
- Verrichia v. Commonwealth, 639 A.2d 957 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (suit against a Commonwealth employee in official capacity is a suit against the entity)
- City of Phila. v. Frempong, 865 A.2d 314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (untimely appeals must be quashed absent fraud or court breakdown)
- Oak Tree Condo. Ass’n v. Greene, 133 A.3d 113 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (post-decisional motions do not toll the appeal period unless expressly granted)
- In re Estate of Merrick, 247 A.2d 786 (Pa. 1968) (denial of reconsideration of a final decree is not reviewable on appeal)
- Stockton v. Stockton, 698 A.2d 1334 (Pa. Super. 1997) (no appeal from court’s refusal to modify or rescind its order under Section 5505)