Joseph F. BOYLE, Appellant, v. Helen B. O‘BANNON, Secretary Department of Public Welfare Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
March 31, 1983
458 A.2d 183
Argued Jan. 25, 1983.
The Order of the Superior Court affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed. The indictments are quashed and appellant discharged.
MCDERMOTT, J., concurred in the result.
Walter F. Froh, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before ROBERTS, C.J., and NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, MCDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON and ZAPPALA, JJ.
OPINION
LARSEN, Justice.
In this appeal we are confronted with the question of whether a court has the power and authority to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, before the complaint is served on the named defendant and without affording the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard.
On June 24, 1981, the appellant, Joseph F. Boyle, filed, pro se, an action in equity against Helen B. O‘Bannon, Secretary, Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In his complaint appellant alleges that the defendant wilfully infringed upon his legally protected rights by malicious conduct which invades his privacy, subjects him to continual harrassment, physical molestation, and psychological abuse, and tends to heap public ridicule upon him.1
On June 25, 1981, one day after the appellant filed his complaint, and before the complaint was served on the defendant, the Commonwealth court, without further comment, entered the following per curiam order:2
“Now, June 25, 1981, the above proceeding is hereby dismissed as frivolous. The chief clerk is directed to return to plaintiff the filing fee in this matter and the check tendered by plaintiff for service of the complaint.”
We find it is highly irregular and improper for a court to intercept a lawsuit between the prothonotary‘s office and the sheriff‘s desk and summarily dismiss the action; that the Commonwealth court erred in dismissing appellant‘s complaint and denying him an opportunity to be heard; and therefore we reverse.
“All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by one course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay...”
When the appellant properly commenced his action and paid the required filing fee he activated the judicial machinery of the Commonwealth. The initiation of a lawsuit
Whether the appellant‘s averments are sufficient to allege a cause of action is not the question; and, if a cause of action is stated, the appellant‘s ability to prove his allegations by competent evidence likewise is not the point. The fundamental issue is the appellant‘s right to due process of law.4 “For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: ‘parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard....’ Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall 223, 233, 17 L.Ed. 531.” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972). The precipitate abortion of appellant‘s embryonic lawsuit before service of process, without appearance by the defendant, and without proper motion and hearing is repugnant to traditional notions of justice and fair play, and conflicts with the due process requirements of the
There is no rule of civil procedure which authorizes a court to arbitrarily deny a litigant service of process of a complaint lawfully filed. If a court could decide summarily
The appellant‘s lawsuit may be entirely frivolous and lacking in merit; and his complaint may fail dismally to aver a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. In addition, it may be that he cannot amend his complaint to state an actionable claim. These, however, are questions that must be decided after and not before the litigants have had an opportunity to be heard.
Essentially, the appellee‘s argument, distilled to its essence, is that any reasonable person can readily see that the plaintiff‘s complaint contains nothing but outrageous, fanciful averments, incapable of proof and beyond belief. Therefore, it is more convenient for the court to step in at the outset and do then what everyone knows it would do after service and after hearing from the parties. Further, appellee argues that the court is already overburdened with “legitimate” litigation and the summary action taken here serves both the interests of justice and judicial economy.
We are well aware of the busy caseloads faced by the courts and we can appreciate an interest in minimizing frivolous lawsuits. Nonetheless, we cannot allow any action which permits denial of access to the courts in the name of judicial economy. Due process cannot be abolished to achieve judicial efficiency and convenience. See Davis v. Porch, 268 Pa. 376, 112 A. 32 (1920); Allegheny County v. Milk Control Board, 417 Pa. 22, 207 A.2d 838 (1965). Lyndall v. High School Committee, 19 Pa.Super.Ct. 232; Swainband v. Yoder, 79 Pa.Super.Ct. 132.
Reversed and remanded to the Commonwealth Court for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
NIX, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which MCDERMOTT, J., joins.
MCDERMOTT, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
HUTCHINSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
ZAPPALA, Justice, concurring.
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority today, I believe the basis for the result can be found in our Rules of Civil Procedure. Our Rules of Civil Procedure provide the mechanism for discouraging the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Thus, the Commonwealth Court‘s action in sua sponte dismissing the appellant‘s complaint was unwarranted. In view of the rationale I advocate in determining this appeal, it is not necessary to reach the constitutional issues addressed by the majority. However, as the majority holds, judicial economy must give way to free access to our courts. Therefore, the proper procedure should have been to permit the Commonwealth to file preliminary objections in accordance with our Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby giving the appellant the opportunity to establish the basis for his lawsuit. Because the Commonwealth Court usurped the procedure provided for by our Rules, I must concur in the result reached by the majority and reverse the decision of the Commonwealth Court.
ROBERTS, C.J., joins in this concurring opinion.
I dissent from the majority‘s reversal of the Commonwealth Court‘s dismissal of a complaint that is delusional on its face. See Opinion of Mr. Justice Larsen, 500 Pa. at 496 n. 1, 458 A.2d at 183 n. 1 (filed this day). While
The history of this appellant‘s groundless litigation since 1979 in state and federal courts is as follows:
In Boyle v. Osterhout Free Library, No. 79-1166, U.S. Dist. Court, M.D.Pa. (October 26, 1979), an action seeking to enjoin the library from the dissemination of false information which caused claimant great mental distress and anxiety was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In Boyle v. Commonwealth, No. 79-1200, U.S. Dist. Court, M.D.Pa. (October 29, 1979), an action alleging agents of the Department of Mental Health and Retardation violated his civil rights because several attorneys chose not to represent him against the major television networks which allegedly disseminated false information, causing him great anxiety and mental stress, was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
In Boyle v. Commonwealth, No. 79-1263, U.S. Dist. Court, M.D.Pa. (October 29, 1979), a civil rights actions charging “agents of the Commonwealth interfered with [Boyle‘s] exercises of his constitutional rights in various ways, ranging from intercepting his thoughts and broadcasting them publicly as a means of harassment, to rigging [his] automobile with devices which dispense narcotic gases and lock his transmission so he is unable to drive,” was dismissed because the allegations were beyond belief.
In Boyle v. Osterhout Free Library, No. 282-C of 1980, Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (December 8, 1980), a trespass action claiming dissemination of false information regarding the terms of office of the successors to
In Boyle v. Osterhout Free Library, No. 146-E of 1980, Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (April 14, 1981), an equity action seeking to require the library to make available its factual and true edition rather than its non-factual and false editions of information, alleged the library gave Boyle the false set of publications such as the issue of Time which said Ronald Reagan was elected. This action was dismissed as without merit, it being recognized and accepted that Ronald Reagan was elected and is now President.
In Boyle v. Commonwealth, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, No. 81-3-441, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (December 4, 1981) the appeal was discontinued with exhibit attached, see Appendix to this dissent, as appellant wished to institute an action for equitable relief in the federal district court.
In Boyle v. Osterhout Free Library, No. 559, E.D.Misc. Dkt., Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (January 18, 1982), a Petition to Assume Original Jurisdiction alleging (a) the suit in equity against the Osterhout Free Library (seeking to require the library to afford all factual publications showing Ronald Reagan was not the President of the United States previously denied) was improperly dismissed on April 14, 1981 as without merit, (b) the Department of Public Welfare interfered with Boyle‘s interstate telephone survey to determine who is the current President of the United States, (c) the library‘s October 19, 1981 edition of Newsweek reporting the assassination of President Anwar Sadat was a non-factual edition and (d) the library kept altered texts available for the purpose of denying factual information to Boyle. This action was denied per curiam.
In Boyle v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, No. 611, E.D.Misc.Dkt.1981, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (January 18, 1982), a Petition to Assume Original Jurisdiction seeking to compel answers to interrogatories in Boyle v. Commonwealth, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, No. 2766-C of 1980 and alleging the Luzerne County Court “consented to conduct a false court proceeding whereby the plaintiff-petitioner in a drugged state” (drugs allegedly given by employees of the Department of Public Welfare) testified against a Mrs. Joyce Rittenhouse and alleging a denial of rights secured by section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, was dismissed per curiam.
In Boyle v. Commonwealth, Department of Welfare, No. 4144C of 1980, Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (February 18, 1982) a trespass action alleging the Department of Public Welfare through its agents intentionally and maliciously caused Boyle to suffer emotional distress in 1974 through acts of economic and psychological intimidation similar to those set forth in two federal actions and Boyle v. Osterhout Free Library, No. 2282-C of 1980, Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, was dismissed because the allegations were beyond belief and unsupported by facts capable of proof, and because of the bar of the statute of limitations.
Obviously, the issue in this appeal is not the denial of access to the court system. The question is whether or not a court will be required to compel a responsive pleading before disposing of a patently frivolous action. Such a rule would unfairly place an economic burden upon persons who become the objects of Mr. Boyle‘s litigious whims. It is apparent appellant has caused an inordinate consumption of the valuable time of an already overburdened judiciary, as well as the waste of precious tax dollars expended to provide a rational legal system. It should be unnecessary to state that due process does not require the courts to allow such nonsensical profligacy. The Commonwealth Court properly summarily dismissed the action and should be affirmed.
MCDERMOTT, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.
Exhibit “A”
| First Draft | October 19, 1981 |
| Second ” | ” 20, 1981 |
| Typed | ” 21, 1981 |
| Mailed | ” 22, 1981 |
Dear Frank, Ruby & Mom;
The contents of this memorandum pertains to the description of the control mechanisms and the functions they perform on and within my Fiat automobile, a Fiat model X 1/9. I have brought two suits against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the removal of these control mechanisms. The first was dismissed in federal court and the second is now before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and it too may have a fatal defect as to the caption of the parties. I purchased this automobile from Cresko Motors, Market Street, Kingston, Pennsylvania on February 23, 1979. I will now set forth a description of those control mechanisms and their functions. The first control mechanism which I became aware of is the one that controls whether or not I am able to shift gears. I presume this mechanism is electronically controlled and when engaged it prohibits me from changing gears. This mechanism as well as the others that I will describe are used to annoy, harass and to intimidate and frighten me. At the discretion of the employees of the DPW they electronically regulate the amount of gas fed into the carburetor thereby directly controlling the speed of the automobile. There is also a mechanism that electronically shuts down the engine, stalls it out and I am unable to restart it until the employees of the DPW decide to allow me to do so.
When these control mechanisms are used it is very frustrating, embarrassing and when used on interstate highways or in moving traffic very frightening. One day while I was driving Mom downtown the auto was stalled out in the middle of the intersection of Market and Ridge Streets, I
Another mechanism on the auto controls the recessed head lights and the electrical current to the light bulbs, in other words I can‘t travel at night unless they put the lights on and on occasions they have refused me that right. Their is
This ends the second of the series of letters to my family detailing acts of a governmental agency since the abolishment of my Constitutional Rights.
| cc: Honorable H. H. Baker, Jr. | |
| ” R. C. Byrd | |
| ” S. I. Hayakawa | |
| ” W. G. Magnuson | /s/ Joseph F. Boyle |
| ” G. McGovern | Joseph F. Boyle |
| ” C. Pell | |
| ” W. Proxmire | |
| ” S. Chisholm | |
| ” D. J. Flood | |
| ” B. M. Goldwater, Jr. | |
| ” J. J. Rhodes | |
| ” P. W. Rodino, Jr. | |
| ” J. C. Wright |
MCDERMOTT, Justice, dissenting.
From time to time all courts have the melancholy task of hearing complaints, filed pro se, by persons seeking refuge from imagined enemies. The farther the enemy from reality, the more real to them. They are sad and tedious occasions. Patient as a court may be, there must come an end, not only for the convenience of the court, but more specifically, for those against whom the proceedings are leveled. Persons are put to expense and discomfiture to answer complaints that are manifestly irrational, and to deny allegations that are the stuff of fevered sleep.
An issue raised in this case is when such proceedings can be properly ended. Under the circumstances, I am almost reluctant to say, for it sounds a chord from Wonderland, that they can end only after they begin. That is, the Prothonotary cannot refuse to accept and file, nor the Sheriff refuse to serve a complaint, however absurd. Only a court can dismiss a complaint. A question raised here is whether a court may do so sua sponte.
HUTCHINSON, Justice, dissenting.
A cursory perusal of this appellant‘s factual allegations reveals he has no rights which are affected in the real world. The facts he pleads are from a world of fantasy. Furthermore, plaintiff was not deprived of his right to file this action. The court received and examined it. However, it did not require the defendant to assert her right to be heard. On the facts of this case she should not be required to. Indeed, it would have been pointless to do so since she was wholly successful.