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] hom e 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 y ears.

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 individual s 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 Rals ton"), 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, 1 8 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 Crim inal Conspiracy, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 903(a)(1).

The [trial] c ourt has identified four documents within [Appellant’s] 345 page e xhibit that appear to be responses to at least some of [Appellant’s] complaints by the prosecuting authority . In this regard, the [trial] c ourt 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, 201 6, 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] complaint s 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 Mo ore, 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 Cri minal 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 di vided 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 conci sely 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 a s 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

p ertinent ”)

.

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 meaningf ul appellate review of Appellant’s claims , as we are unable

to discern the issues Appell ant wishes this Court to review

. As such, we

dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“ [b] riefs and reproduced recordsJ

- 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 R ules of the Court ”).

Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/19/2020