J-S70030-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF 

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THOMAS A. BIGGINS

Appellant No. 2990 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order July 21, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Civil Division at No(s): 2015-134-08

BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

Thomas A. Biggins appeals from the order entered on July 21, 2015,1

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, granting him in forma 

pauperis (IFP) status regarding filing fees only.2In this timely appeal, 

Biggins argues the trial court improperly limited the scope of his IFP status 

and that the order is appealable as it effectively denies him access to the 

courts. After a thorough review of the Appellant’s brief,3 Appellant’s 

statement of why the appeal should not be quashed as interlocutory, 

____________________________________________

1

The order was dated July 17, 2015, but was not entered until July 21, 

2015.

2

Pa.R.C.P. 240(c)(3) provides the court may deny an IFP petition in whole 

or in part.

3 The appellee opted not to file a brief in this matter.
J-S70030-16

- 2 -

relevant law, and the certified record, we agree with the trial court that the 

order is interlocutory and quash the appeal.

Although the resolution of this matter is straightforward, a recitation of 

the facts and procedural history taken from the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion will be helpful to provide the context for our decision.

The question presented by this appeal is whether this Court 

erred by granting Thomas Biggins’ Petition and Affidavit for 

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with respect to filing fees 

only.

The case underlying the instant appeal arises from a landlord 

tenant dispute. On June 3, 2015, the Honorable Margaret A. 

Hunsicker granted the Mental Health Association of Southeastern 

Pennsylvania possession of the property located at 538 Dekalb 

Street, Apartment 1-B, Norristown, Pennsylvania. On June 15, 

2015 [Biggins] filed a Motion to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro 

Tunc with this Court, alleging that the Magisterial District Court 

[MDC] identified the date of disposition as June 2, 2015, rather 

than June 3, 2015, and that the Prothonotary of Montgomery 

County rejected the appeal as untimely when [Biggins] 

attempted to file it on Monday, June 15, 2015. Also on June 15, 

2015, [Biggins] filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. 

This Court granted that petition with respect to filing fees only. 

On June 25, 2015, this Court granted Biggins’ Motion to File 

Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc. 

On July 15, 2015, the Mental Health Association of Southeastern 

Pennsylvania filed a Motion to Strike Appeal for Failure to Timely 

File Notice of Appeal as [Biggins] had not filed an appeal since 

this Court granted [Biggins] permission to do so nunc pro tunc. 

On July 16, 2015, [Biggins] filed a Second Motion to File Notice 

of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc.

[4]

 Simultaneously, [Biggins] filed the 

____________________________________________

4 The Mental Health Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania withdrew its 

motion to strike and did not oppose Biggins’ second motion for leave to file 

appeal nunc pro tunc.

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S70030-16

- 3 -

Petition and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis at 

issue in this appeal. As with the first petition to proceed in forma 

pauperis, this Court granted the IFP Petition with respect to filing 

fees only by an Order dated July 17, 2015. On July 24, 2015 

Biggins filed a motion to amend the July 17, 2015 Order to 

include the statement specified in 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b),[5] which 

this Court denied by its August 7, 2015 Order. [Biggins] now 

appeals this Court’s Order of July 17, 2015.[6]

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion at 1-2.

A final order disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable as 

of right. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). As a general rule, interlocutory appeals are 

not from final orders and are not appealable. There are certain exceptions 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________

5 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b) states, in toto:

(b) Interlocutory appeals by permission.-- When a court or 

other government unit, in making an interlocutory order in a 

matter in which its final order would be within the jurisdiction of 

an appellate court, shall be of the opinion that such order 

involves a controlling question of law as to which there is 

substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an 

immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the 

ultimate termination of the matter, it shall so state in such 

order. The appellate court may thereupon, in its discretion, 

permit an appeal to be taken from such interlocutory order.

42 Pa.C.S. 702(b).

6 The trial court further stated:

This Court granted [Biggins’] Second Motion to File Notice of 

Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc by an Order dated October 16, 2015. On 

October 26, 2015, [Biggins] filed an appeal of the Magisterial 

District Court’s June 3, 2015 judgment in the Montgomery 

County Court of Common Pleas.

Trial Court Opinion at 2.
J-S70030-16

- 4 -

to that general rule. See Pa.R.A.P. 311, regarding interlocutory appeals as 

of right. Orders regarding IFP status are not listed among the Rule 311 

exceptions. See Goldstein v. Haband Co., Inc., 814 A.2d 1214, 1219 n.2 

(Pa. Super. 2002) (Where an order denying an IFP application does not put 

the litigant out of court, the order is interlocutory and not immediately 

appealable as of right.). Biggins sought to have the order declared 

appealable by seeking to have the trial court declare it so pursuant to 42 

Pa.C.S. § 702(b); however, the trial court declined. Here, the order granting 

IFP status does not, facially, dispose of the claims or parties at issue in the 

underlying matter. Accordingly, by traditional standards, the order is not 

appealable.

However, when an IFP order has the practical consequence of putting 

a party out of court, it becomes an appealable order. See Grant v. Blaine, 

868 A.2d 400 (Pa. 2005). Biggins claims the instant IFP order put him out 

of court as a practical matter in two ways. First, the order only provided him 

relief from paying the initial filing fee, so he must still pay all other 

applicable fees. Second, the order does not apply to costs, thereby 

preventing him from ordering the notes of testimony from the June 25, 2015 

hearing, which he claims he requires to prosecute his appeal. We disagree.

It is undisputed the order in question granted Biggins IFP status as to 

filing fees only. Clearly, he was able to file his appeal from the magisterial 

district court (MDC) decision in favor of Mental Health Associates of 

Southeastern Pennsylvania. In fact, Biggins has done so. There is no 
J-S70030-16

- 5 -

indication that Biggins has attempted to file any other documents with the 

prothonotary, but has been unable to do so pursuant to the IFP order. 

Nonetheless, although Biggins appears to believe the IFP order applied only 

to the initial filing fee, the trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion states 

Biggins’ IFP status applies with respect to “filing fees”, which suggests 

ongoing IFP status as to filing documents with the prothonotary.7 

Accordingly, we see nothing in the order or trial court opinion that so limits 

Biggins’ IFP status. Therefore, Biggins has not been put out of court by this 

aspect of the IFP order.

Additionally, Biggins claims he is out of court because the trial court’s 

order has made it impossible for him to obtain the notes of testimony from 

the June 25, 2015 hearing regarding his application for leave to file his 

appeal from the MDC decision nunc pro tunc. Biggins argues he requires 

these notes of testimony to continue his appeal At the June 25, 2015 

hearing, the trial judge informed Biggins his motion for leave to file nunc pro 

tunc was unopposed and an order would be issued allowing him to file his 

appeal. Subsequently, the trial judge not only granted Biggins leave to file 

his appeal nunc pro tunc, but also granted him the same IFP status that had 

originally been granted. Biggins prevailed at the June 25, 2015 hearing, 

____________________________________________

7

IFP status is subject to ongoing certification of entitlement to said status. 

See Pa.R.C.P. 240(e).
J-S70030-16

- 6 -

obtaining permission to file his appeal from the MDC decision nunc pro tunc. 

Accordingly, this argument is irrelevant.

Our review of the record confirms that Biggins has not been put out of 

court, either actually or practically. The trial court has declined to certify the 

interlocutory order as one ripe for immediate appeal. In light of this, Biggins 

has improperly appealed from an interlocutory order and the appeal is 

therefore quashed.

Appeal Quashed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2016