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 Shapiro, :

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 

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

cause of action. The trial court simultaneously dismissed Harris’s complaint and 
2

denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, 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 of the Governor of Pennsylvania (collectively, Defendants) and, 

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

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

[] mail censorship campaign” by the Department 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 “publishers 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 full 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 

denials upon all [Pennsylvania] facilities.

14. [Harris] asserts a collusional conspiracy to squash nearly 

100% of all yearly inmate grievances.

15. [Harris] has exhausted all administrative remedies and pleads

with [] DOC to provide a lawful relief.

16. [Harris] 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 15b, 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 each 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

status, 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. Cmwlth. 

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][(emphasis added)]. One such affirmative 

2

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

criminals to acknowledge 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 consequences should one tell the truth. 

Thus the liar is inevitably a coward, the coward is inevitably a liar.”), Thomas Jefferson (“Dissent 

is the highest form of patriotism.”), and “Ben Franklin” (“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to 

God.”). Harris’s Complaint to trial court at 13d, November 9, 2020.

3 Pa. R.Civ.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 area. 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 Ct. Memorandum and Order, 12/15/2020. 

In its February 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 addition 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 at 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 may 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.Civ.P. 240(j)

[5] based on this [c]ourt’s determination that it is 

a frivolous action. The IFP Denial Order and Memorandum 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 always 

deny inmate grievances and that Defendants have censored or lost [his] 

mail. However, [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

importantly, 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.Civ.P.] 1019(a). Additionally, the Pleading is not 

divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively, and many paragraphs 

within the Pleading do not contain as far as practicable only one 

material allegation as required by [Pa. R.Civ.P.] 1022. Based on these 

shortcomings, this [c]ourt 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. Cmwlth. 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 illegible. 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 [showed] 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.Civ.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.Civ.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 litigant, 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 document 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 mail is 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 NonParticipation indicating that they would not be participating in the matter because 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 

meaningless [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 evidence 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 intervention, 

because the [IGS] is a corrupted 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 

controversy.

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 thoroughly/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.Civ.P. 240(j) requires the court to be “satisfied that the action, 

proceeding or appeal is frivolous” before 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.Civ.P. 

1019(a) (emphasis 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.Civ.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. His 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 East 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 the 
9

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

of action, we are constrained to affirm the trial court.

 In sum, we conclude 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 this civil action in forma pauperis, is affirmed.

______________________________

J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge
IN 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 Pleas of Somerset County is AFFIRMED.

______________________________

J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge