K. Alexander v. CO Volkert, K. Alexander v. CO Volkert

Keith Alexander, an inmate at SCI–Coal Township, sued several prison officials alleging unconstitutional interference with his outgoing legal mail and seeking damages.
The complaint followed earlier filings (including an October 7, 2015 complaint) and a prior Commonwealth Court dismissal (Alexander I) related to filing disputes with the county Clerk of Courts.
On March 31, 2016 Alexander refiled his complaint and a praecipe to proceed in forma pauperis; the trial court dismissed the complaint on May 4, 2016 as frivolous under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j)(1).
Alexander appealed; the trial court ordered him to file a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement within 21 days. He served the statement on the trial judge but did not file it of record with the trial court.
The trial court filed a statement in lieu of an opinion noting the complaint did not plead fraud, embezzlement, or retaliation and asserting that interfering with routine prison operations is not for the courts to decide.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal on alternative grounds, finding Alexander waived all appellate issues by failing to properly file his Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement with the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint as frivolous under Pa. R.C.P. 240(j)(1)	Alexander contended defendants violated his First Amendment and state-constitutional rights by failing to deliver outgoing legal mail and alleged related fraud/embezzlement/retaliation	Trial court maintained the claims lacked a proper basis and noted routine prison operations are non-justiciable; dismissal as frivolous was appropriate	Not reached on the merits; appeal waived because Alexander failed to file the Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors of record with the trial court
Whether appellate issues were preserved despite procedural defects in service	Alexander served the concise statement on the judge and attached it to a filing in this Court	Appellees and trial court argued the statement must be filed of record with the trial court per Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(3); failure to do so causes waiver	Held waived: service alone was insufficient; failure to file of record with the trial court waived all appellate issues

Buehl v. Beard, 54 A.3d 412 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (courts will generally not interfere with day-to-day prison operations)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (frivolous action definition: lacks an arguable basis in law or fact)
Gibraltar Rock, Inc. v. New Hanover Twp., 118 A.3d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (appellate court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to preserve issues)
In re Clinton Cnty. Tax Claims Bureau Consol. Return for Sale of Sept. 24, 2012, 109 A.3d 331 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (failure to comply with Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) results in waiver of issues)