Case Title: George Rahsaan Brooks-bey v. Mark Krysevig, et al. (Per Curiam Order)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 64WAP2002

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-95-2003] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT GEORGE RAHSAAN BROOKS-BEY, Appellant v. MARK KRYSEVIG, JOEL S. DICKERSON, WILLIAM STICKMAN, KEVIN LOCKETT, CRIS MONTENARO, THOMAS BINDER, DAVID BAILEY, C.O. 1 SNYDER, C.O. 1 MORROS, C.O. 1 FLOWERS, C.O. 1 LEONHISER, M.J. MATHEWS, IMAN TANKO IBRAHIM, C.O. 1 LINK, C.O. 1 BAYER, SGT. FEDORIW, SAGE, C.O. 1 BAYER, SANDY SAGE, SARA VANDENBRAAK, MARTIN F. HORN, W.F. PERRY, CAPTAIN YURICH, M. FEARSON, RICHARD NILES, CHARLES SIMPSON, RICHARD WATSON, DR. SWIERCZEWSKI, JOAN DELIE, TIM COLLIN, PHILLIP JOHNSON, ROBERT BITNER, THOMAS JAMES, in their individual capacities, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 64 WAP 2002 Appeal from the order of the Commonwealth Court entered May 13, 2002, at No. 708CD2001 dismissing the appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered February 28, 2001, at No. GD00- 18604. SUBMITTED: August 1, 2003 ORDER PER CURIAM DECIDED: JANUARY 18, 2005 AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2005, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED. The Commonwealth Court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant’s appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 105(a) (“These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every matter to which they are applicable.”); Pa.R.A.P. 902 (“Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but it is subject to such action as the appellate court deems appropriate. . . .”). The matter is remanded for review of the merits of appellant’s appeal. Mr. Justice Eakin dissents.