IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Terrence Andrew Harris, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1323 C.D. 2020

: Submitted: October 15, 2021 PA Attorney General, : Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,: Secretary John E. Wetzel, : Chief Dorina Varner, Cpt. Brownawell, : Jullian Deiley, Kellanie Anderson, : Lisa Eddy, Grievance Officer Eric W. : Tice, Jim Logan, Smart : Communications, Lt. Leidhecker, : PA Attorney General Josh Shapir o, :
and Office of the Governor :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT , Judge

HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON , Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER

, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE CROMPTON FILED: December 29, 2021

Terrence Andrew Harris (Harris), an incarcerated individual, appeals,

pro se , an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County (trial court) that

denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis because his complaint failed to

a llege any arguable cause of action and failed to set forth any arguable basis for a

cause of action . T he trial court simultaneously dismiss ed Harris’s complaint and2

den ied his request to proceed in forma pauperis

. For the following r easons , we

affirm.

Harris, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset

County (SCI

- Somerset), filed a complaint in the trial court naming the Secretary of

Corrections and numerous others, including the Pennsylvania Attorney General and

the Office o f the Governor of Pennsylvania (collectively, Defendants) and,

simultaneously, filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

.

In his complain t to the trial court, Harris stated that he was asserting “a

[] mail censorship campaign” by the Departm ent of Corrections ( DOC ) and its staff

which caused him injury. Harris’s Complaint to trial court at 15a, November 9,

2020. Harris further asserted “prima facie, ipso facto, non

- feasances” and “ mens rea

by all Defendants.” Id

. Harris stated that “pub lishers and mail senders suffer injury

with mail censorship.” Id . Harris further alleged:

10. [Harris] has successfully provided a ten (10) year + trend of inmate grievance system tyranny [sic] and oppression. 11. [Harris] has successfully provided fu ll documentation of a continuous “mail censorship” upon self by [] DOC. 12. [Harris] has successfully provided full [Pennsylvania]

RTKL [ 1 ] reporting of inmate grievance performance(s). 13. [Harris] has successfully provided evidence of due process

denia ls upon all [Pennsylvania] facilities. 14. [Harris] asserts a coll u sional conspiracy to squash nearly

100 % of all yearly inmate grievances. 15. [Harris] has exhausted all administrative remedies and plea ds with [] DOC to provide a lawful relief.
16. [Ha rris] asserts Defendant(s) defy legislation, have no accountability and follow a messiah complex.

1 This is presumably a reference to a request under the Commonwealth’s Right

- to

- Know
Law, Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§67.101

- 67.3104. Harris makes reference to this
again later as “R.T.K.L

, ” rather than as “RTKL.”3 17. [Harris] seeks damages as well as a cease [

- ] and [

- ] desist
order, et al

.

Harris ’s Complaint to trial court at 15 b , November 9, 2020

. 2

Harris claimed to be seeking compensatory damages in the amount of

“1 Troy [Ounce] (or equivalent current value)” against each Defendant jointly or

severally and punitive damages in the amount of “10 Troy [Ounces] (or equivalent

current value)” against eac h Defendant. Harris’s Complaint to trial court at 4i

. ,

November 9, 2020

.

The trial court issued an order stating , in pertinent part :

Simply stated, Rule 240 [ 3 ] allows us to dismiss the case if we find the

action to be frivolous. Notably, we may only dismiss an action under this Rule if we have not yet granted the plaintiff in forma pauperis status. In other words, once we grant the plaintiff in forma pauperis

s tatus, we are not permitted to dismiss his or her action under the Rule 240 test of frivolity. Grosso v. Love

, 667 A.2d 43, 44 (Pa. C mwlth

. 1995). Therefore, we take this opportunity to review the merits of [Harris’s] Complaint now, before granting him in forma pauperis

status.

In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 [ Pa.C.S. ]
§ [ § ] 6601 [

- 6608] , provides that the court shall dismiss prison conditions litigation at any time if the court determines that the litigation is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or the defendant is entitled to assert a valid affirmative defense.

42 Pa.C.S. [] § 6602(e)(2) [ 4 ] [ (e mphasis a dded ) ]

. One such affirmative

2 In addition, Harris offers quotes from Paul G. Caram (Zion University) (“It is crucial for

criminals to acknowle d ge their guilt, not only to God, but also to man in order to find release.”),
L. Ron Hubbard (“Lies are told because one is afraid of the cons equences should one tell the truth.

Thus the liar is inevitably a coward, the coward is inevitabl y a liar.”), Thomas Jefferson (“Dissent
is the highest form of patriotism.”), and “Ben Franklin” (“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to
God.”)

. Harris’s Compl aint to trial court at 13d, November 9, 2020.

3 Pa. R.C iv .P

. 240.

4 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e) states, in pertinent part: (Footnote continued on next page...)4

defense is that [Harris] has failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies. St. Clair v. [Bd.] of [Prob.] [& ] Parole , 493 A.2d 146 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1985). The primary purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to
ensure that claims will be heard, as a preliminary matter, by the body having expertise in the ar ea. Id . at 152. In addition, the exhaustion doctrine provides the agency with the opportunity to correct its own

mistakes and to moot judicial controversies. Parisi v. Davidson , 405 U.S. 34 (1972).

After reviewing the entire complaint in the present case, we find that the pleading fails to assert any arguable cause of action. Without expending substantial dictum in arriving at our conclusion in this matter, we simply state that [Harris] has failed to set forth any arguable

basis for a cause of action

. Having found that [Harris] has failed to set forth any arguable basis for a cause of action, we simultaneously dismiss his complaint and deny his request to proceed in forma pauperis

.

Trial C t. Memorandum and Order, 12/15/2020.

In its Februar y 2021 Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion in support of its order,

the trial court stated:

On November 17, 2020, [Harris]

, an inmate at [SCI

- Somerset]

, submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis ( [] “ IFP ”) in a civil action against [] Defendants. In additi on to [Harris’s] request to proceed IFP, [Harris] submitted for filing a pleading ( [] “ Pleading ” ) consisting of approximately [] 205 pages. On December 14, 2020 [,]

this [c] ourt issued an IFP Denial Order and Memorandum that denied [Harris’s] request for IFP status and dismissed [his] Pleading pursuant

(e) Dismissal of litigation.

-- Notwithstanding any filing fee which has been

paid, the court shall dismiss prison conditions litigation a t any time, including prior

to service on the defendant, if the court determines any of the following:

(1) The allegation of indigency is untrue.

(2) The prison conditions litigation is frivolous or malicious or fails to state

a claim upon which relief m ay be granted or the defendant is entitled to assert a

valid affirmative defense, including immunity, which, if asserted, would preclude

the relief.5

to [Pa.] R.C iv .P. 240 (j ) [ 5 ] based on this [c] ourt ’ s determination that it is

a frivolous action. The IFP Denial Order and Memoran dum was filed

with this [c] ourt on December 15, 2020. Thereafter, [Harris] filed his Notice of Appeal on December 30, 2020.

Based on a review of [Harris’s] Pleading it appears that [he] is attempting to generally allege claims that Defendants nearly alwa ys deny inmate grievances and that Defendants have censored or lost [his]

mail. H owever, [Harris’s] Pleading consists of various pages and sections of typed materials from a myriad of sources, along with various

sections of handwritten materials. The Pleading also includes

voluminous exhibits and numerous “ Declarations ” that do not logically coincide with the rest of the Pleading. Additionally, the Pleading appears to contain a separate “ complaint ” within a “ complaint .” Most importantl y, the Pleading does not set forth the material facts on which [Harris’s] cause of action is based in a concise and summary form as required by [ Pa. R.C iv .P. ] 1019(a). Additionally, the Pleading is not divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, and ma ny paragraphs

within the Pleading do not contain as far as practicable only one material allegation as required by [ Pa. R.C iv .P. ] 1022. Based on these shortcomings, this [c] our t believes that it would be impossible for [] Defendants to meaningfully respond to the Pleading and prepare a

defense.

In Bennett v. Beard , 919 A.2d 365, 366

- 367 (Pa. Cm wlth. 2007),

the Commonwealth Court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff s complaint pursuant to a Rule 240 (j ) dismissal where the complaint was

determined to be il legible. The complaint in the Bennett case consisted

of handwritten, single [

- ] spaced information using paper from various sources with printing on both sides of the paper that [ sho wed ] through the page. Id . at 367. Sometimes the complaint was broken into numbered paragraphs, and sometimes not. Id

. The Bennett Court

determined that a complaint does not state a valid cause of action if it cannot be read, and that an illegible complaint denies the defendant

5 Pa. R.C iv .P. 240(j)(1) states:

If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the

taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis , the court prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action,

proceeding or appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the

action , proceeding or appeal is frivolous.6

notice of the material facts which it needs to prepare a defense. Id

. Accordingly, we believe that the Pleading in this case was appropriately

dismissed as a frivolous action pursuant to [ Pa. R.C iv .P. ] 240 (j)

.

Trial Court Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion. The instant appeal followed. 6

On appeal to this Court

, Harris argues that the trial court committed an

error of law by reaching a determination that was against the weight of the evidence

.

In addition, Harris states that, as a pro se liti gant, he is entitled to have his complaint

liberally construed. Harris provides the following “ Statement of the Case: ”

1. As far back as 2017 [,] inmate Harris suspected [] DOC was not delivering a sizeable amount of incoming [] mail. Harris began to

track and documen t this activity and for other inmates [sic]. A consistent censorship was discovered and monitored for full verification and a grievance was filed to the end of [] DOC due process policy of which was denied with no obvious due diligence

.

. . . 2. Since 2017, Harris has requested [] DOC R.T.K.L. reports and records on various issues such as mail grievance rates and overall denial rates based on category and staff issues. The findings were

99

- 100 % dismissals . . . .

3. Harris is now genuinely concerned due to the loss of vital religious, personal, government, and parole incoming mail . . . . My inquiries of over [] 12 sources produced [] 1 received reply.

4. The results of the case do not stand alone. By other inmate tracking, a significant percentage of inmate mai l i s un[]accounted for as well. It is now a positive fact that there is collusion at all levels acting contrary to the public good in a well

- organized, concerted action of organized crimes to be publicized and witnessed and confessed to higher authority.

5. Human accountability must be rendered, the inmate grievance system of no meaningful due process must be exposed and

6 The DOC (on behalf of the named individuals from the DOC as well as the Governor’s
Office), the Attorney General’s Office, and Smart Communications each filed Notices of Non

Participation indicating that they would not be participating in the matter becaus e it had been

dismissed by the trial court as frivolous prior to service and/or simply that they were not parties

because they had never been served when the matter was at the trial court level.7

terminated by judicial administration review, and the mail censorship system must end.

Harris’s Br. at 11

- 12.

Harris’s “Statement of the Facts” reads as follows:

1. The [] DOC operates the inmate grievance system [(IGS)] under the eye of the Attorney General’s legal protections and stand [s] mute to this complaint for its actions.

2. The [Attorney General] has conjured up a merit[]less and

meanin gless [IGS] that has steered away from its legislative intents of due process and actual inmate assistance.

3. These unchallenged facts are so well known inside each facility[] that a trial court needs to take judicial notice of such by presentation

of eviden ce on the fact, by established competent evidence, testimony of witnesses and presentation of evidence to the court.

4. This significant loss by any means is indeed a constitutional (Federal and State) violation to be stopped by last resort, court interventio n, because the [IGS] is a co rrupted dismissal tool of tyranny.

Harris’s Br. at 13.

Harris provides , in pertinent part, the following “ Argument Stating

Legal Position : ”

1. Harris has compiled a massive and surely incomplete amount of

cause of actions for [] Defendants to answer or confess to the complaint and court.

2. Harris has compiled a massive and surely incomplete amount of valid case law/statutes/constitutional violations/tables of authority and legal issues to shock the consciense [sic] of this Court to ponder and fully agree with a remand to trial court for proper review and a

reversal as a frivolous dismissal.

3. Defendants have yet to dispute or challenge or admit guilt to the cause of actions, RTKL reports or account for all mail in

contro versy. 4. As an inmate and indigent, Harris lacks the ability to fully type or utilize law library and court rule books under this Covid

- 19 prison

lockdown restriction . . . .8

5. The Civil and Criminal crimes so factually stated for the trial court

are so thorou ghly/accurately shocking and ongoing[] that they need to be resolved and punished to their equal injury with accountability and remedy, not further denials.

6. Otto Von Bismarch [sic]: “Nothing is ever proven until it is officially dedied [sic].”

7. Loss of mail is still ongoing and well [ ] documented to add to the complaint (amend) as demanded in the original complaint, et al

.

Harris’s Br. at 14

- 15.

Pa. R.C iv .P. 240(j) requires the court to be “satisfied that the action,

proceeding or appeal is frivolous” befor e dismissing it. The Pennsylvania Rules of

Civil Procedure mandate that “[t]he material facts on which a cause of action or

defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form.” Pa. R.C iv .P.

1019(a) (e mphasis added). The purpose of this rule is to require the plaintiff to

disclose the material facts sufficient to enable the adverse party to prepare the case.

Landau v. W. Pa. Nat’l Bank , 282 A.2d 335, 339 ( Pa. 1971)

. “ An action is frivolous

under [ Pa. R.C iv .P. 240(j) ] if, on its face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action

. ”

McGriff v. Vidovich , 699 A.2d 797, 799 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)

.

Harris provides a litany of bald allegations and general assertions and

grievances

. H is claims do not adhere to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules

of Civil Procedure , and it is not clear from the materials provided by Harris that he

exhausted his administrative remedies . Not only does Harris fail to state a cause of

action, he fails to assert sufficient, specific and material facts that would appear to

support a viable cause of action or enable an adverse party to prepare a defense

. As

we noted in MB&R Piping Contractors, Inc. v. Borough of E ast Brady (Pa. Cmwlth.,

No. 78 C.D. 2016, filed January 12, 2017), slip op. at 9, 2017 WL 113960, at *4, our

Supreme Court “ has determined that courts should not, sua sponte , search the9

complaint for a viable cause of action .” As we are unable to discern any viable cause

of action , we are constrain ed to affirm the trial court.

In sum, we c onclude that the trial court ’ s dismissal of the complaint as

frivolous was well founded, giving it the basis to dismiss Harris’s in forma pauperis

petition. For these reasons, the order of the trial court, denying the request of Harris

for leave to file t his civil action in forma pauperi s

, is affirmed.

______________________________ J. ANDREW CROMPTON, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Terrence Andrew Harris, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 1323 C.D. 2020

: PA Attorney General, : Pennsylvania Department of : Corrections, Secretary John E. Wetzel, : Chief Dorina Varner, Cpt. Brownawell, : Jullian Deiley, Kellanie Anderson, :
Lisa Eddy, Grievance Officer Eric W. : Tice, Jim Logan, Smart : Communications, Lt. Leidhecker, : PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro, :
and Office of the Governor :

O R D E R

AND NOW , this 29th day of December 2021

, the Order of the Court

of Common P leas of Somerset County is AFFIRMED

.

______________________________ J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge