S.N. Kerns v. J.L.R., S.N. Kerns v. J.L.R.

Scott N. Kerns, pro se and incarcerated for a 2001 conviction for indecent deviate sexual intercourse with a child, previously sued the victim and others in 2007 (First Complaint); the trial court dismissed that suit with prejudice and this Court affirmed.
In October 2015 Kerns filed a Second Complaint repeating substantially similar allegations that the victim and her mother conspired and lied to authorities, causing his imprisonment.
The victim moved to dismiss under Pa. R.C.P. No. 233.1 (designed to curb repetitive pro se litigation), arguing the claims were the same or related to those already resolved against Kerns.
The trial court granted the motion, dismissed the Second Complaint with prejudice, and barred Kerns from filing further pro se suits against the victim raising the same or related claims without leave of court.
Kerns appealed, arguing trial-court bias, that a default judgment against the victim’s mother was newly discovered evidence/admission, and that the victim should have been required to answer rather than move to dismiss.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Rule 233.1 applied because the claims were related and had been resolved in a prior court proceeding; the victim had no obligation to answer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial-court bias/prejudice in dismissing Second Complaint	Kerns asserted the court was biased and prejudiced against him	Victim argued dismissal was proper under Rule 233.1 given prior resolution of related claims	Not addressed on merits; Kerns failed to brief specifics, so court declined to consider it
Trial court should consider default judgment against victim’s mother as admission/new evidence	Kerns said default judgment against mother proves conspiracy and should be imputed to the victim	Victim argued default judgment is against mother only and does not admit facts as to victim; claims were duplicative and already resolved	Rejected: default judgment against mother is not an admission by the victim and does not defeat dismissal under Rule 233.1
Victim should have been required to answer rather than move to dismiss	Kerns contended he was entitled to have allegations tested on the merits	Victim relied on Pa. R.C.P. No. 233.1 and prior adjudication to support dismissal without an answer	Rejected: Rule 233.1 permits dismissal of duplicative pro se suits even if prior action did not reach a final merits judgment; no requirement to answer

Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Co., 105 A.2d 304 (Pa. 1954) (default judgment operates as admission by that defendant of well-pleaded facts)
Gray v. Buonopane, 53 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2012) (explaining Rule 233.1’s purpose to curb serial pro se litigation and allow dismissal of duplicative actions)
Coulter v. Ramsden, 94 A.3d 1080 (Pa. Super. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 233.1 dismissals)
Commonwealth v. Kerns, 844 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirming Kerns’ criminal judgment of sentence)