IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Isaiah Ransome, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Judge Mark Moore, Common Pleas :

Court of Philadelphia County, : No. 244 M.D. 2023

Respondents : Submitted: July 5, 2024

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM FILED: September 6, 2024

Before the Court are the “Respondents’ Preliminary Objections to the 

Petition for Review” (Preliminary Objections) filed by the Honorable Mark Moore 

and the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (collectively, Respondents) 

in response to the “Petition for Review in the Nature of an Action in Equity, Seeking 

Immediate Injunction, Declaratory Judgement [sic] and Issuance of Writ of 

Prohibition” (Petition for Review) filed by Isaiah Ransome (Petitioner), pro se, and 

Petitioner’s answer thereto.1 Upon review, we sustain the Preliminary Objections 

and dismiss the Petition for Review.

I. Background and Procedural Posture

Petitioner was convicted of murder and multiple counts of aggravated 

assault, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and various firearms offenses in 

2012 (Criminal Case). See Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Docket 

1 Petitioner styled his answer to the Preliminary Objections as “Petitioner’s Rebuttal to the 

Respondent’s [sic] Preliminary Objections to the Petition for Review.”
2

No. CP-51-CR-0005859-2007, Preliminary Objections Exhibit A (Criminal 

Docket).2 In this Court, Petitioner now seeks relief in relation to a “Declaration of 

Trust” wherein Petitioner alleges that the Criminal Case is property owned by 

Petitioner and purports to somehow place the Criminal Case into a trust for 

Petitioner’s benefit, and which Petitioner submitted as part of Post Conviction Relief 

Act (PCRA)3 proceedings in the Criminal Case. See Petition for Review at 1-4; see 

also “Notice Re: CP-51-CR0005859-2007,” Exhibit A to the Petition for Review. 

Specifically, the Petition for Review seeks various forms relief: (a) to have the 

charges in the Criminal Case discharged; (b) to have Petitioner released from 

custody; (c) to receive an accounting of his “trust property”; and (d) to have the 

Criminal Case sealed from the public. See Petition for Review at 3-4. Petitioner 

further seeks declarations that Respondents are violating Petitioner’s rights and 

defrauding him in relation to the Criminal Case, and the issuance of a writ of 

prohibition against Respondents with reference to his “trust declaration/property” 

and transferring the Declaration of Trust to the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. See Petition for Review at 4.

In response to the Petition for Review, Respondents filed the instant 

Preliminary Objections. In the Preliminary Objections, Respondents argue that the 

Petition for Review fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, that 

Petitioner cannot collaterally attack the Criminal Case in this Court, and that the 

2 For the purpose of determining the instant Preliminary Objections, we take judicial notice 

of the Criminal Docket. See Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 131 A.3d 110, 115 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2015) (taking judicial notice of claimant’s criminal docket) (citing Lycoming Cnty. v. Pa. 

Lab. Rels. Bd., 943 A.2d 333, 335 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)).

3

42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-46.
3

Court lacks jurisdiction to enter a writ of prohibition. See Preliminary Objections at 

2-3 (pagination supplied).

II. Discussion

Initially, we note that

[i]n ruling on preliminary objections, we must accept as 

true all well-pleaded material allegations in the petition for 

review, as well as all inferences reasonably deduced 

therefrom. The Court need not accept as true conclusions 

of law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative 

allegations, or expressions of opinion. In order to sustain 

preliminary objections, it must appear with certainty that 

the law will not permit recovery, and any doubt should be 

resolved by a refusal to sustain them.

A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer admits 

every well-pleaded fact in the complaint and all inferences 

reasonably deducible therefrom. It tests the legal 

sufficiency of the challenged pleadings and will be 

sustained only in cases where the pleader has clearly failed 

to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When 

ruling on a demurrer, a court must confine its analysis to 

the complaint.

Torres v. Beard, 997 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

To the extent Petitioner seeks release from imprisonment, he requests 

habeas corpus relief. See Warren v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 616 A.2d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1992). However, regarding this Court’s jurisdiction, Section 761(a)(1)(i) of the 

Judicial Code provides:

The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction 

of all civil actions or proceedings:
4

(1) Against the Commonwealth government, 

including any officer thereof, acting in his official 

capacity, except:

(i) actions or proceedings in the nature of 

applications for a writ of habeas corpus 

or post-conviction relief not ancillary to 

proceedings within the appellate 

jurisdiction of the court[.]

42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)(i) (emphasis added). Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over 

such a claim and cannot grant the relief sought.

Further, as with his habeas corpus claim, with his request for injunctive 

relief and request for declaratory relief, to the extent the Petition for Relief seeks 

some alteration of or otherwise collaterally attacks his criminal conviction in relation 

to his “Declaration of Trust,” this Court likewise lacks jurisdiction over such claims. 

See 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1)(i). Additionally, we observe that the PCRA provides

“the sole means of obtaining collateral relief [from criminal convictions] and 

encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that 

exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9542; see also Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394, 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citing 42 

Pa.C.S. § 9542 and noting that the PCRA is the sole means by which persons 

convicted of crimes they did not commit and persons serving illegal sentences may 

obtain collateral relief). Therefore, any claim that constitutes a collateral attack on 

Petitioner’s criminal convictions must be brought not before this Court, but as a 

PCRA claim before the court of common pleas in which Petitioner was convicted.

4

 

4 We observe that Petitioner’s claims pertaining to his “Declaration of Trust,” to the extent 

such claims are comprehensible, appear to be requests concerning the administration of the 

Criminal Case, and, therefore, are appropriate for a PCRA petition before the Court of Common 
5

Thus, this Court likewise lacks jurisdiction over claims that constitute collateral 

attacks of criminal convictions, and without jurisdiction, the Court cannot grant 

relief. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542; Guarrasi. As such, the Petition for Relief again fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

This Court likewise lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition in 

this matter. Regarding jurisdiction over ancillary matters, Section 761(c) of the 

Judicial Code provides that “[t]he Commonwealth Court shall have original 

jurisdiction in cases of mandamus and prohibition to courts of inferior jurisdiction 

and other government units where such relief is ancillary to matters within its 

appellate jurisdiction[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(c) (emphasis provided). The instant 

matter is not an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. 

Thus, to the extent Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition in relation to his 

“Declaration of Trust,” such request is not raised ancillary to this Court’s appellate 

jurisdiction, and the Court lacks jurisdiction over such a request. See Guarrasi, 25 

A.3d at 407 (noting that the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction does not 

extend to matters of mandamus or prohibition where an appeal from a lower court is 

not pending before the Court; instead, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has 

general supervisory and administrative authority over all lower courts in such 

matters); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 721 (“The Supreme Court shall have original but not 

exclusive jurisdiction of all cases of . . . [m]andamus or prohibition to courts of 

inferior jurisdiction.”). Further, to the extent Petitioner’s writ of prohibition request 

pertains to the administration of a post-conviction claim regarding the Criminal 

Pleas of Philadelphia County rather than to this Court. We further observe that Petitioner has 

prosecuted multiple PCRA claims in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and, in 

fact, currently has an outstanding PCRA claim in that court involving the “Declaration of Trust.” 

See Criminal Docket; see also Petition for Review at 1-2.
6

Case, this Court also lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a claim for the reasons 

discussed supra. Accordingly, the Petition for Review fails to state a claim for a 

writ of prohibition upon which this Court can grant relief.

III. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we sustain the Preliminary Objections and 

dismiss Petition for Review.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Isaiah Ransome, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Judge Mark Moore, Common Pleas :

Court of Philadelphia County, : No. 244 M.D. 2023

Respondents :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of September, 2024, the “Respondents’ 

Preliminary Objections to the Petition for Review” are SUSTAINED and the 

“Petition for Review in the Nature of an Action in Equity, Seeking Immediate 

Injunction, Declaratory Judgement [sic] and Issuance of Writ of Prohibition” filed 

by Isaiah Ransome is DISMISSED.