IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

William Brandon Cummings, :

 Appellant :

 :

 v. : No. 768 C.D. 2023

: Submitted: May 7, 2024

J. Brunst : 

 

 

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: June 7, 2024

William Brandon Cummings (Cummings), pro se, appeals from an order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County (trial court) that (i) denied his in 

forma pauperis petition, (ii) dismissed his pro se complaint (Complaint) seeking 

equitable relief as well as money damages against several Pennsylvania Department 

of Corrections (Department) employees (Department employees),

1

as frivolous, 

under Section 6602(e)(2) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),

2 42 Pa.C.S. 

1 The Department employees named as defendants by the Complaint are as follows: Corrections 

Officer (C.O.) J. Brunst (Brunst), C.O. McKelvie, C.O.2 DiPasquale, C.O. Enden, C.O. Riggin, 

and C.O. Angelo. Complaint at 1, ¶ 2. Cummings was under the Department’s custody at the 

State Correctional Institution (SCI) at Fayette (SCI-Fayette) when he filed the Complaint. Id. 

Cummings is currently incarcerated at SCI-Greene. See Inmate/Parolee Locator, Pa. Dep’t of 

Corr., https://inmatelocator.cor.pa.gov (last visited Apr. 29, 2024).

2

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6601-6608.
2

§ 6602(e)(2), and (iii) directed Fayette County Prothonotary Nina Capuzzi 

Frankhouser (Prothonotary) to reject any pro se filing prospectively submitted by 

Cummings. On appeal, Cummings contends the trial court erroneously prohibited 

him from proceeding in forma pauperis because his pro se Complaint raised 

judiciable retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983).3 For the reasons 

set forth below, we conclude our ability to perform meaningful appellate review of 

the trial court’s order is constrained by the trial court’s failure to file a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (Rule 1925(a))4 opinion; accordingly, we remand to the trial court 

to allow thorough consideration of this matter.

I. Factual and Procedural History

On July 7, 2023, Cummings initiated equitable and civil litigation against six 

Department employees in their individual and official capacities in accordance with

Section 1983. The Complaint alleged the Department employees violated 

3 Section 1983 provides, in relevant part:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or 

usage, of any State . . ., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United 

States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in 

equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4 Rule 1925(a) declares:

(1) General rule. Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, upon receipt of the 

notice of appeal, the judge who entered the order giving rise to the notice of appeal, 

if the reasons for the order do not already appear of record, shall within the period 

set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 1931(a)(1) file of record at least a brief opinion of the reasons 

for the order, or for the rulings or other errors complained of, or shall specify in 

writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(1).
3

Cummings’ federal constitutional rights secured by the First,5 Eighth,6and 

Fourteenth7 Amendments in retaliation for previous complaints he lodged against 

the Department. Complaint at 1, ¶¶ 1-4. Specifically, Cummings claimed the 

Department employees refused to grant him an inmate job, id. at 1-2, ¶¶ 5-9, 

interfered with his religious practices, id. at 2-4, ¶¶ 10-21, and used cold food as 

punishment which results in sickness including “blood coming from his rectum 

constantly,” id. at 4-5, ¶¶ 22-38.

8 Additionally, Cummings asserted an employee of 

the Department, who is not named as a defendant in the Complaint, threatened to 

kill him on a number of occasions. See id. at 5, ¶ 41; Memorandum of Law in 

Support of IFP & Affidavit & Temporary Restraining Order & Preliminary 

Injunction (Memorandum of Law) ¶¶ 1, 3-4. As for remedies, the Complaint sought 

a total of $300,000 in monetary damages, id. at 1, ¶ 2, and requested the trial court 

to enter, among other things, a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining 

order against the Department employees. Order to Show Cause at 1. Cummings 

also petitioned the trial court to grant him in forma pauperis status and to serve the 

Complaint, together with his signed “Affidavits of Truth,” on the Department 

employees. Motion to Effect Service at 1.

By order dated July 10, 2023, the trial court sua sponte ruled the Complaint 

was frivolous and dismissed the matter entirely under Section 6602(e)(2) of the 

PLRA (Order). Order, 07/10/2023, at 1 (George, Jr., J.). The trial court denied 

5 U.S. Const. amend. I.

6 U.S. Const. amend. VIII.

7 U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

8 Effectively, the Complaint is a “prison conditions litigation” action for purposes of Section 

6602(e).
4

Cummings’ application to proceed in forma pauperis and instructed the 

Prothonotary “to not accept any future pro se filings from [Cummings] at this 

number, any other number or any new complaint or other pleading.”9 Id. Cummings 

appealed the trial court’s order to this Court on July 17, 2023. Notice of Appeal at 

1. In response, the trial court directed Cummings to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise 

Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Order, 07/17/2023, at 1 (George, Jr., 

J.), which Cummings filed soon thereafter. See Concise Statement ¶¶ 1-5.

On August 3, 2023, pursuant to Rule 1925(a), the trial court issued a Statement 

in Lieu of Opinion regarding its July 10, 2023 order. Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 

08/03/2023, at 1 (George, Jr., J.). The trial court explained: 

Upon review of the record, it is clear to the [c]ourt that [Cummings] has 

previously filed prison conditions litigation, three or more of those have 

been dismissed pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6602[,] and [Cummings] has 

not made a credible allegation that he is in danger of serious bodily 

injury. Therefore, we determined that his [C]omplaint was frivolous 

pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[] § 6602(e)(2) and dismissed the litigation 

accordingly. 

Upon review of his Concise Statement, we find no basis for any further 

analysis. Therefore, no further opinion shall be issued.

With regard to the issue of preventing [Cummings] from attempting to 

file any future frivolous, malicious pleadings, [Cummings] would not 

be precluded from filing any action provided he is represented by 

counsel or pays the appropriate filing fee and cost if he is pro se.

9 We note that “requiring a prisoner to pay the filing fees that are imposed on all litigants in a civil 

case does not, standing alone, violate that prisoner’s right of meaningful access to the courts[] 

[b]ecause there is no fundamental right to proceed in court in forma pauperis . . . .” Jae v. Good, 

946 A.2d 802, 808 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
5

Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 08/03/2023, at 1-2 (George, Jr., J.).10 

II. Discussion

We now consider whether the trial court erred by dismissing the Complaint

and denying Cumming’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. We review the 

trial court’s decision to determine whether constitutional rights have been violated, 

the trial court abused its discretion, or the trial court committed an error of law. 

Bailey v. Wakefield, 933 A.2d 1081, 1083 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

Section 6602(e)(1)-(2), entitled “Dismissal of litigation,” states:

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. 

42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(1)-(2) (emphasis added). A frivolous action is one “which 

lacks any basis in law or fact.” Robinson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 

582 A.2d 857, 860 (Pa. 1990). “Such a high standard is imposed ‘in order to avoid 

discouraging litigants from bringing appeals for fear of being wrongfully 

sanctioned.’” Canal Side Care Manor, LLC v. Pa. Hum. Rels. Comm’n, 

30 A.3d 568, 576 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citation omitted). 

10 This Court mailed a briefing schedule to Brunst and Cummings on August 15, 2023. Notice of 

Receipt of Record & Briefing Schedule at 1. On September 12, 2023, the Department notified the 

Court that the agency would “not participate in this appeal as the matter was dismissed by the [trial 

court] prior to service.” Notice of Non-Participation at 1.
6

Meanwhile, Section 6602(f)(1)-(2) of the PLRA, commonly referred to as the 

“three strikes” rule (three strikes rule), further provides:

If the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation and: 

(1) three or more of these prior civil actions have been dismissed 

pursuant to subsection (e)(2); or 

(2) the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation 

against a person named as a defendant in the instant action or a 

person serving in the same official capacity as a named defendant 

and a court made a finding that the prior action was filed in bad 

faith or that the prisoner knowingly presented false evidence or 

testimony at a hearing or trial; 

the court may dismiss the action. The court shall not, however, dismiss 

a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining 

order which makes a credible allegation that the prisoner is in imminent 

danger of serious bodily injury.

42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)(1)-(2) (emphasis added). This Court has explained the three 

strikes rule does not totally impair an inmate’s ability to pursue prison conditions

litigation; instead, “[i]t only restricts [an inmate’s] ability to pursue such actions in 

forma pauperis” since “[t]here is a legitimate governmental interest in deterring 

frivolous law suits . . . .” Jae, 946 A.2d at 809.

Here, the trial court issued its conclusory Order stating Cummings’ Complaint 

was frivolous under Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA. In its Order, the trial court 

remarked, in a footnote, that Cummings “has filed at least nine (9) other actions . . . 

which were considered by the court and dismissed.” Order, 07/17/2023, at 1 

(George, Jr., J.). Additionally, the trial court did not file an opinion in support of its 

Order pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Instead, it filed a brief Statement in Lieu of Opinion. 
7

Rule 1925(a) “require[s] a trial court, upon notice of appeal from an order 

issued by that court, to file an opinion detailing the reasons for the order or to 

specify in writing the place in the record where such reasons may be found.” Lemon 

v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 763 A.2d 534, 538 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2000) (emphasis added). Thus, Rule 1925(a)’s underlying purpose “is to facilitate 

appellate review of a particular trial court order. Additionally, . . . the rule fulfills 

an important policy consideration by providing . . . the legal basis for a judicial 

decision.” Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 868 A.2d 379, 383 (Pa. 2005). This Court 

cannot conduct meaningful appellate review of a trial court’s order, nor the issues 

raised by the appellant, “[w]ithout an explanation of why [a] complaint is 

frivolous[.]” Brown v. Zaken (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1347 C.D. 2016, filed Sept. 21, 

2017), slip op. at 4.11

We hold the trial court failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 1925(a). 

First, the mandatory language of Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA requires a trial 

court to dismiss prison conditions litigation if the litigation is frivolous. See 42 

Pa.C.S. § 6602(e)(2). While the trial court cited Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA in 

its dismissal order, it failed to offer any explanation for its determination that the 

Complaint was frivolous. “Such lack of explanation does not satisfy the requirement 

of [] Rule 1925(a)(1) that a trial court provide ‘the reasons for the order,’ and does 

not ‘facilitate appellate review of [the] . . . trial court[’s] order.’” Tejada v. Dowd

(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 484 C.D. 2021, filed May 25, 2022), slip op. at 3 (citations 

omitted).

11 Unreported memorandum opinions of this Court issued on or after January 15, 2008, may be 

cited for their persuasive value. See Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 

210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a).
8

Second, it is unclear from the record whether the trial court intended to dismiss 

the Complaint under Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA, which it cited as its basis for 

the dismissal, or, alternatively, under the Section 6602(f)(1) three strikes rule. 

Despite citing Section 6602(e)(2) of the PLRA, in its Order, the trial court references 

the numerous other actions filed by Cummings and dismissed as frivolous. Again,

in its Statement in Lieu of Opinion, it cites Section 6602(e)(2) as its basis for 

dismissal, but references that three or more of Cummings previous filings were 

dismissed as frivolous. These references in the trial court’s Order and Statement in 

Lieu of Opinion cause this Court to question whether the trial court intended to 

dismiss the Complaint under the three strikes rule. However, even if this was the 

trial court’s intent, the trial court has still failed to provide sufficient reasoning to 

dismiss the Complaint under the three strikes rule. While Cummings admits he is 

likely subject to the three strikes rule, this Court is unable to discern, based on the 

record before us, the bases for the previous dismissals and whether Cummings’ 

previous prison conditions actions were dismissed as frivolous. Even if we assume 

Cummings is a three strikes rule litigant, the three strikes rule provides the trial court 

may exercise its discretion to dismiss the action, not that it must. Without any 

explanation from the trial court, this Court is unable to conduct meaningful appellate 

review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion in this matter.

Additionally, the three strikes rule prohibits a trial court from “dismissing a 

request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order” when an 

inmate credibly alleges that he “is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.” 

42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f). Thus, the trial court was required to perform a credibility 

analysis of Cummings’ allegation that one of the Department employees at SCIFayette has repeatedly threatened to kill him. Because the trial court’s Statement in 
9

Lieu of Opinion simply provides “[Cummings] has not made a credible allegation 

that he is in danger of serious bodily injury,” Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 

08/03/2023, at 1 (George, Jr., J.), the trial court failed to satisfy Rule 1925(a)’s 

requirement that it provide the reasons for its order such that this court can conduct 

appellate review.

III. Conclusion

Because the trial court has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 1925(a) by 

filing an opinion detailing the reasons for its Order, and the rationale for its decision 

is not readily apparent from the record, we are unable to conduct meaningful 

appellate review in this matter. See Miller Dev. Corp. v. Union Twp. Mun. Auth., 

666 A.2d 391, 395 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we must

remand and direct the trial court to prepare a supplemental opinion in support of its 

Order that complies with Rule 1925(a) and our foregoing opinion.

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

William Brandon Cummings, :

 Appellant :

 :

 v. : No. 768 C.D. 2023

: 

J. Brunst : 

O R D E R 

 AND NOW, this 7th day of June 2024, this matter is REMANDED to the 

Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County to prepare and forward to this Court, 

within 45 days, an opinion in support of its July 10, 2023 order in compliance with 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). The 

Prothonotary shall send a copy of this Order to the Judge of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Fayette County who issued the July 10, 2023 Order and to the Prothonotary 

of Fayette County. 

Jurisdiction retained.

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge