J-S12036-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

GLUE WILKINS, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY KRISTIE 

M. FALBO

:

: No. 1013 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order entered June 7, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County,

Civil Division, No(s): 2016 CV 3946

BEFORE: PANELLA, OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2017

Glue Wilkins (“Wilkins”), pro se, appeals from the Order dismissing, 

with prejudice, his pro se civil Complaint (“the Complaint”), filed against 

Kristie M. Falbo, Esquire (“Falbo”), a Dauphin County Deputy District 

Attorney, as being frivolous under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 

240(j).1 We affirm.

 

1 Rule 240(j) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding 

or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, the court[,] prior to acting upon the 

petition[,] may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if ... it is 

satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous.

Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 

(1989) (superseded by statute) (explaining that “a litigant whose filing fees 

and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an 

economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 

lawsuits.”).
J-S12036-17

- 2 -

In December 2014, the Commonwealth charged Wilkins with barratry. 

See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5109 (providing that “[a] person is guilty of a 

misdemeanor of the third degree if he vexes others with unjust and 

vexatious suits.”). On September 25, 2015, Wilkins pled guilty to barratry

(hereinafter referred to as “the criminal case”). The trial court sentenced 

Wilkins to one year of probation, with the condition that he not engage in 

any further vexatious lawsuits.2 Wilkins filed a pro se direct appeal, and this 

Court dismissed the appeal for the failure of Wilkins’s brief to comply with 

several Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Commonwealth v. Wilkins, 

2016 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1957 (Pa. Super. 2016) (judgment order).

On May 20, 2016, Wilkins filed the Complaint. Wilkins then filed a 

Petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Thereafter, Wilkins filed 

various pro se documents that are not relevant to this appeal. 

On June 7, 2016, the trial court entered an Order dismissing the 

Complaint as frivolous under Rule 240(j). Wilkins filed a timely Notice of 

Appeal, in response to which the trial court ordered him to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Wilkins timely

 

2 Wilkins is an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at 

Fayette, serving a term of 12 to 24 years in prison for, inter alia, attempted 

murder. 
J-S12036-17

- 3 -

filed a pro se document entitled “Questions for Review.”3

The Statement of Questions Presented section of Wilkins’s pro se brief 

presents four vague and confusing issues, none of which pertain to the trial 

court’s dismissal of the Complaint. Brief for Appellant at 1. For ease of 

disposition, we incorporate Wilkins’s issues herein by reference. See id.

“Our review of a decision dismissing an action pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 

240(j) is limited to a determination of whether the plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights have been violated and whether the trial court abused its discretion or 

committed an error of law.” Ocasio v. Prison Health Servs., 979 A.2d 

352, 354 (Pa. Super. 2009). For purposes of Rule 240(j), a frivolous action 

or proceeding has been defined as one that “lacks an arguable basis either in 

law or in fact.” Id. (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325). “Under Rule 240(j), 

an action is frivolous if, on its face, it does not set forth a valid cause of 

action.” Ocasio, 979 A.2d at 354 (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Rule 240(j) requires that a trial court review the action to determine frivolity 

prior to addressing the merits of the complaint. Id.

 

3

In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court accurately explains that 

“[t]his document included numerous ‘questions’ that do not pertain to the

instant appeal and are not applicable to th[e] [] dismissal of the action as 

frivolous.” Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/16, at 1 (unnumbered); see also

Ferris v. Harkins, 940 A.2d 388, 397 (Pa. Super. 2007), vacated on other 

grounds, 961 A.2d 56 (Pa. 2008), (observing that “when the appellant 

provides a concise statement which is too vague to allow the trial court an 

opportunity to identify the issues raised on appeal, he/she has provided the 

functional equivalent of no Concise Statement at all.” (citation and quotation 

marks omitted)).
J-S12036-17

- 4 -

In his somewhat incoherent and confusing Argument section, Wilkins 

largely challenges his allegedly unlawfully induced guilty plea and sentence 

imposed in the criminal case. Nowhere, however, does he challenge the 

dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 240(j).4 

In its Opinion, the trial court addressed the dismissal of the Complaint 

as follows:

[The] Complaint is largely unintelligible and includes references 

to numerous statutes that do not appear to relate to any 

purported cause of action. Upon thorough review of the 

Complaint, [the trial c]ourt is at a loss to identify any actual 

claims against [Falbo] or facts that allege that [Falbo] engaged 

in any wrongdoing that caused [Wilkins] harm.[5] [Wilkins] 

seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000; 

punitive damages in the amount of $100,000; and declarative 

damages as deemed appropriate by the [c]ourt.

[Wilkins] does not provide any factual or legal basis in 

support of any claim against [Falbo], and [the trial c]ourt cannot 

decipher what claim [Wilkins] is purporting to bring. [Wilkins] 

has also failed to state how he incurred damages as a result of 

any purported wrongdoing of [Falbo]. Finally, [Wilkins] has not 

set forth any facts or legal authority that would sustain a claim 

for punitive damages against [Falbo].

 

4 Moreover, the only claim that Wilkins levels against Falbo (who, the 

Complaint alleges, was the prosecutor involved in the criminal case) is that 

she (1) ignored a prior plea agreement that Wilkins had entered into with a 

separate District Attorney in the criminal case; and (2) therefore “clearly 

neglected or failed to perform a duty of office[,]” and “cannot continue in 

furtherance of conduct by the Office of [the] Dauphin County District 

Attorney that led to a wrongful conviction.” Brief for Appellant at 4.

5

Indeed, the Complaint barely mentions Falbo, aside from listing her as the 

Defendant, and stating that “[Falbo] notified [Wilkins] that the[] [District 

Attorney’s Office] would not be correcting any errors in the criminal history 

record information.” Complaint, 5/20/16, at 1, 3 (emphasis and quotation 

marks omitted).
J-S12036-17

- 5 -

Based upon [the trial court’s] review of [the] Complaint, 

we were satisfied that the Complaint did not set forth a valid 

cause of action against [Falbo]. [The] Complaint has no basis in 

law or fact that would arguably entitle [Wilkins] to relief. As 

such, prior to acting upon [Wilkins’s] Petition for Leave to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis, [the trial court] dismissed his action 

as frivolous pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 240(j).

Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/16, at 2-3 (unnumbered, footnote added). 

The trial court’s above analysis is supported by the record, and its 

determination that the Complaint is frivolous is sound. We discern no 

violation of Wilkins’s constitutional rights, or abuse of discretion by the trial 

court in dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. See Ocasio, 979 A.2d at 

356 (noting that Rule 240(j) is not unconstitutional, and holding that the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the pro se plaintiff’s 

complaint against the prison medical provider, with prejudice, as it was 

frivolous and could not be amended to bring a cause of action against the 

defendants). Accordingly, none of Wilkins’s issues on appeal entitle him to 

relief, and we affirm the Order dismissing the Complaint.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/13/2017