J-A25028-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ELIJAH MOORER, JR. 

Appellant

v.

THOMAS E. DANN, STEPHANIE L. 

COOPER, DONALD PAUL, STACY P. 

MILLER, R.W. RALSTON, THOMAS J. 

MOORE, SCOTT MERRILL, KATHLEEN 

KANE, DEIRDRI FISHEL AND 

PATRICK LEONARD

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 144 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Order Entered January 3, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Civil Division at No(s): 

2019-1103

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2020

Appellant, Elijah Moorer, Jr., appeals pro se from the order entered on 

January 3, 2020. We dismiss this appeal.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

[Appellant] was arrested on November 19, 2012, on 

suspicion of being involved in a drug ring in Centre County, 

Pennsylvania. The [trial] court issued a search warrant for 

[Appellant’s] home on November 19, 2012. A search of 

[Appellant’s] home resulted in seizure of incriminating 

evidence, including drugs and weapons. [Appellant] was 

charged with various crimes relating to drug activity. He pled 

guilty and received a sentence of 36 to 72 years.

In April of 2015, it was discovered that Officer Thomas Dann 

of the State College Police Department ("Officer Dann") was 

taking controlled substances from the evidence room. Officer

Dann pled guilty to various drug charges in 2015.
J-A25028-20

- 2 -

In March [] 2016, [Appellant] began filing private criminal 

complaints against various individuals involved in his 

prosecution, including his attorney, the district attorney, the 

attorney general, and law enforcement. [Appellant] seeks to 

have the following individuals criminally prosecuted: Thomas 

J. Moore ("Officer Moore"), Deputy Attorney General Patrick 

Leonard ("Attorney Leonard"), Stephanie L. Cooper 

("Attorney Cooper"), Officer Dann, Donald Paul ("Detective 

Paul"), Stacy Parks Miller, R.W. Ralston ("Officer Ralston"), 

Scott Merrill ("Officer Merrill"), Kathleen Kane, and Deirdri 

Fishel ("Detective Fishel"). [Appellant] seeks to have the

defendants prosecuted for Possession of a Controlled 

Substance with Intent to Deliver, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 780-113(a)(30), Forgery, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4101(a)(1), 

Tampering With Evidence, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910, Perjury, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 4902(a), Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, 18

Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition, 18 

Pa.C.S.A. § 3921(a), False swearing, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 4903(a)(1), and Criminal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 903(a)(1).

The [trial] court has identified four documents within 

[Appellant’s] 345 page exhibit that appear to be responses to 

at least some of [Appellant’s] complaints by the prosecuting 

authority. In this regard, the [trial] court first notes that it 

appears [Appellant’s] complaints were referred by the Office 

of the Centre County District Attorney to the [Office of 

Attorney General (“OAG”)] due to a potential conflict of 

interest. On June 10, 2016, the OAG wrote to [Appellant] 

stating [Appellant’s] private criminal complaints against

Officer Dann were rejected for failure to allege a prima facie

case of criminal conduct and on policy grounds. By 

correspondence dated June 19, 2016, the OAG rejected 

[Appellant’s] private criminal complaints against Officer 

Ralston for failure to allege a prima facie case of criminal

misconduct. The OAG communicated its refusal to prosecute 

[Appellant’s] complaints against Attorney Leonard on July 5, 

2016 on the basis that the complaints failed to state a prima 

facie case of criminal misconduct. Finally, by letter dated 

October 19, 2016, the OAG rejected [Appellant’s] complaints 

against Attorney Leonard, Officer Moore, Officer Merrill, and 

Detective Paul for failure to state a prima facie case of 

criminal misconduct.
J-A25028-20

- 3 -

Trial Court Opinion, 12/31/19, at 1-3 (some capitalization omitted).

On June 3, 2019, Appellant filed a “Petition for Review of Disapproved 

Private Criminal Complaints” in the trial court, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 506(B)(2). The trial court denied Appellant’s petition in 

an order entered on January 3, 2020; Appellant then filed a timely notice of 

appeal. See Notice of Appeal, 1/13/20, at 1.

Appellant has not included a statement of questions involved section in

his brief and Appellant has not divided his argument section “into as many 

parts as there are questions to be argued.” See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“[t]he 

statement of the questions involved must state concisely the issues to be 

resolved. . . . No question will be considered unless it is stated in the 

statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby”); Pa.R.A.P. 

2119(a) (“[t]he argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are 

questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part--in distinctive 

type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point treated therein, 

followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed 

pertinent”). 

Considering the length of Appellant’s brief and the multitude of issues 

Appellant has attempted to include in the brief, Appellant’s failure to comply 

with our Rules of Appellate Procedure substantially impedes our ability to 

conduct meaningful appellate review of Appellant’s claims, as we are unable 

to discern the issues Appellant wishes this Court to review. As such, we 

dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[b]riefs and reproduced records 
J-A25028-20

- 4 -

shall conform in all material respects with the requirements of [our] rules as 

nearly as the circumstances of the particular case will admit, otherwise they 

may be suppressed, and, if the defects are in the brief or reproduced record 

of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other matter may be 

quashed or dismissed.”); see also Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 

1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“[a]lthough this Court is willing to construe 

liberally materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no 

special benefit upon an appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply 

with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court”).

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/19/2020