J. S41030/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

DWAYNE ANDERSON : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

:

JOHN W. PERSON :

: No. 3757 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County 

Civil Division No(s): August Term, 2015 No. 150803144

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 21, 2016

Appellant, Dwayne Anderson, appeals pro se from the September 16, 

2015 Order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 

dismissing his Complaint as frivolous pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 240(j). After 

careful review, we affirm.1

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Appellant has also filed a Motion for Court’s Order seeking an Order to 

compel the Prothonotary of this Court to ensure that this Court’s “decision 

be sent to [Appellant] the proper and traditional way, via U.S. Mail.” Motion 

for Court’s Order, 5/13/16, at 2. In the Motion, Appellant claims that he 

received a letter from this Court on April 19, 2016, notifying him that “the 

Court’s decision in this appeal will be sent to [him] by e-mail only[,]” but 

that as an incarcerated individual, he does not have an e-mail address. Id. 

at 1. In fact, this Court’s letter dated April 13, 2016 notified Appellant that 

if he has an e-mail address on the docket, the Court’s decision in this appeal 

will be sent to him by e-mail only. Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion for 

Court’s Order is denied. 
J.S41030/16

- 2 -

The trial court recounted the facts and procedural history as follows:

On August 25, 2015, [Appellant] commenced this action by 

Complaint. Contemporaneously with the filing of the 

Complaint, [Appellant] filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis.

The Complaint alleges [Appellee] John Person is a Deputy 

Prothonotary for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In April 

2015, [Appellant] filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in 

the Supreme Court, Eastern Division[ ] ; the Petition 

requested the Supreme Court use its mandamus authority 

to order the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to take 

certain actions in the matter of Dwayne Anderson v. 

Aramark Services, Inc., January Term 2015 No. 1750. 

By letter dated June 3, 2015, [Appellee] informed 

[Appellant] that if he wished to continue his Petition for 

Mandamus, he would need to serve it on all parties by no 

later than June 17, 2015, and provide to the Supreme 

Court the following: 1) a copy of [Appellant’s] inmate 

account statement;[ ] 2) a certificate of service for the 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus; and 3) an Amended Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus containing the trial court docket 

number in Anderson v. Aramark. [Appellant] alleges 

that on June 15, 2015, he sent a letter to [Appellee] 

providing a copy of his inmate account statement and 

explaining that he was unable to serve his Petition because 

prison officials denied him the ability to make copies. The 

Complaint alleges that on June 18, 2015, [Appellee] wrote 

[Appellant] a letter “[informing him], without reason(s) 

that his subject Mandamus Petition had been 

discontinued.” Complaint at p. 2 (brackets in original). 

[Appellant’s] Complaint alleges the following causes of 

action: 1) discrimination; 2) violation of [Appellant’s] 

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution; 3) denial of [Appellant’s] right of 

access to the courts; 4) violation of [Appellant’s] First 

Amendment rights; and 5) violation of [Appellant’s] right 

to due process. Central to each of these causes of action 

is [Appellant’s] allegation that [Appellee] treated him 

differently based on [Appellant’s] status as an incarcerated 

individual. See Complaint at p.2 (stating “The described 

actions of [Appellee] constituted discrimination on the 
J.S41030/16

- 3 -

basis of my status as an incarcerated person”) (emphasis 

in original).

By Order docketed September 16, 2015, this [c]ourt 

dismissed [Appellant’s] Complaint pursuant to Rule 240(j).

Trial Ct. Op., 1/8/16, at 1-2.

Appellant timely appealed from the Order dismissing his Complaint. 

The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Concise Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal. 

On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in dismissing the 

underlying action. Appellant’s Brief at 6. In support of this claim, Appellant 

argues that the trial court “made no findings of fact or conclusions of law to 

support his order of dismissal of this action as frivolous and that [his] action 

does not state a claim against [Appellee] under the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Id.

“Appellate review of a decision dismissing an action pursuant to 

Pa.R.C.P. 240(j) is limited to a determination of whether an appellant’s 

constitutional rights have been violated and whether the trial court abused 

its discretion or committed an error of law.” Bell v. Mayview State 

Hospital, 853 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa. Super. 2004).

Rule 240(j)(1) provides:

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 
J.S41030/16

- 4 -

or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is 

frivolous.

Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1). As the note to Rule 240(j)(1) explains, “[a] frivolous 

action or proceeding has been defined as one that ‘lacks an arguable basis 

either in law or in fact.’” Id. at Note (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319 (1989)). Moreover, “an action is frivolous ‘if, on its face, it does 

not set forth a valid cause of action.’” Bell, 853 A.2d at 1060 (quoting 

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

review Appellant’s complaint for validity under Rule 240, we are mindful that 

a pro se complaint should not be dismissed simply because it is not artfully 

drafted.” Id.

The trial court offered the following explanation for dismissing 

Appellant’s Complaint as frivolous:

In this case, the Complaint alleges [Appellee] violated 

numerous of [Appellant’s] constitutional rights and 

otherwise discriminated against [Appellant] based on 

[Appellant’s] status as an incarcerated individual. 

However there are absolutely no facts alleged to 

support this allegation. (emphasis added). The 

Complaint implicitly alleges [Appellant] is an incarcerated 

individual, and that [Appellee] was aware [Appellant] was 

incarcerated; however, it does not allege any facts to show 

that [Appellant’s] status as an incarcerated individual 

played a role in the decision to discontinue the case. 

Indeed, the Complaint explicitly states, [Appellee’s] letter 

of June 18, 2015 informed [Appellant] “without reason(s), 

that [his] subject Mandamus Petition has been 

discontinued.” Complaint at p.2 (brackets and emphasis 

added by trial court). Furthermore, there are no factual 

allegations to support the conclusion that [Appellee] was 

the individual who caused [Appellant’s] Petition to be 

marked discontinued; rather, the Complaint simply states 
J.S41030/16

- 5 -

that [Appellee] was the author of the June 18, 2015 letter. 

In the absence of an allegation that [Appellee] made the 

decision to discontinue [Appellant’s] Petition, [Appellant’s] 

Complaint appears to be nothing more than an attempt to 

shoot the proverbial messenger.

Trial Ct. Op. at 3.

The trial court dismissed Appellant’s Complaint because it was 

frivolous in that it lacked sufficient factual allegations to support a 

discrimination claim. In merely stating baldly that the trial court failed to 

support its decision with adequate findings of fact or conclusions of law, 

Appellant fails to demonstrate how the court’s frivolity determination 

requires reversal. As such, Appellant has not met his burden of convincing 

us that the trial court’s decision was improper. The York Grp., Inc. v. 

Yorktowne Caskets, Inc., 924 A.2d 1234, 1246 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“[T]he 

appealing party bears the burden of establishing that the trial court’s 

decision is erroneous.”). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.

Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/21/2016