IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Clay Caldwell, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 26 C.D. 2022 Sec. John Wetzel, et al. : Submitt ed: December 4, 2023

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY , Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE

, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: January 10, 2024

Clay Caldwell (Caldwell) appeals from the Centre County (County)

Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) September 16, 2021 order 1 revoking his i n f orma

p auperis ( IFP ) statu s, 2 and November 29, 2021 order dismissing his Complaint in

Mandamus against Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Secretary John Wetzel

1 The trial court’s September 16, 2021 order was entered on the docket on September 17,

2021.

2 Section 5571(b) of the Judicial Code provides : “[A] n appeal from

. . . a [trial] court to an appellate court must be commenced within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken

, in the case of a[] . . . final order. ” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571 (b)

. “[A]n order denying [IFP] status is a final, appealable order.” Grant v. Blaine , 868 A.2d 400, 403 (Pa. 2005) ; see also Pelzer v. Wolf (Pa. Cmwlth. No

. 472 C.D. 2019 , filed March 9, 2020) , slip op. at 1 n.1 (quoting

Grant , 868 A.2d at 401

- 02 ) (“ In Grant

. . . , our Supreme Court held that an order denying IFP status is a final, appealable order because ‘ [a] litigant who is denied the ability to bring a cause of action due to his true inability to pay the costs is effectively put out of court. ’ ” )

. Unreported decisions of this Court issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited as persuasive authority pursuant to Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures. 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). Because Caldwell did not timely appeal from the trial court’s September 16, 2021 order, it is not properly before this Court . T herefore

, this Court is without jurisdiction to

address it.2

and numerous other individuals (collectively, Defendants ) (Complaint)

. 3 The sole

issue before this Court is whether the trial court properly dismissed the Complaint.

After review, this C ourt affirms.

On April 26, 2021, Caldwell filed his C omplaint in the trial court

alleging therein : (1) D efendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to

the United States (U.S.) C onstitution (Eighth Amendment) arising from conditions

of confinement

, sexual harassment, and denial of medical care; 4 (2) D efendants

violated his rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. C onstitution (First

Amendment) by retaliating against him for filing inmate prison grievances; 5 (3)

D efendants violated the Breach of Personal Information Notification Act; 6 and (4)

D efendants committed various state torts against him . Contemporaneously with the

filing of his Complaint, Caldwell filed an Affidavit of IFP

, which the trial court

granted on May 3, 2021.

3 Caldwell filed the Complaint against Defendants Secretary John Wetzel, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Chief Grievance Coordinator Dorina Varner, Assistant Chief Grievance Coordinator Keri Moore, Chief Hearing Examiner Zachary Moslak, Hearing Examiner Scott Ellenberger, Regional Deputy Secretary Robert Marsh, Superintendent Morris Houser, Corrections Classification Program Manager Jennifer Rossman, Captain Larry Hoffman, Deputy Superintendent Bradley Booher, former Captain Kevin Holmberg, Lieutenant Samuel Jackson, Corrections Officer Shayne Bierly, Corrections Officer Thomas Stoner, form er Sergeant Michael Smithhower, Corrections Officer Joseph Treaster, former Corrections Officer William Frazier, Sergeant Matthew Kissell, Corrections Officer Coty Bonnell, Corrections Officer Gle nn Haines, Unit Manager Melissa Urbanick, Unit Manager Clay Cameron, Co un selor Bradley Snyder, Sergeant John Eckenrode (detached), Corrections Health Care Administrator Jeffrey Boland, Principal Nadine Ramirez, Drug and Alcohol Treatment Specialist Courtney McCoy (Baronner)

, and Dr. Kevin Kollman

.

4 The Eighth Amendment provides : “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. C ONST . amend. VIII

.

5 The First Amendment declares : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance s .” U.S. C ONST . amend. I.

6 Act of December 22

, 2005, P.L. 474, as amended

, 72 P.S. §§ 2301

- 2330.3 On June 2, 2021, D efendants filed preliminary objections to the

Complaint, therein

, inter alia

, requesting that the trial court revoke Caldwell’s IFP

status and dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Section 6602(f) of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (PLRA), 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)

. 7 On September 16, 2021, because the

trial court determined that Caldwell was an abusive litigator, and he was not in

imminent danger of serious bodily injury , the trial court revoked Caldwell’s IFP

status. The trial court further directed Caldwell to pay the $177.25 Complaint filing

fee to the County Prothonotary within 30 days of the date of its o rder , or his

Complaint would be dismissed with prejudice. On October 5, 2021, the trial court

,
i n light of U

. S

. Postal Service delays and their effect on the prison mail system,

granted Caldwell a 30

- day extension to pay the $177.25 filing fee to the C ounty

Prothonotary. The trial court again directed that if Caldwell failed to pay the full

amount of the filing fee within 30 days of the date of its o rder, his Complaint would

7 Section 6602(f) of the PLRA provides:

Abusive litigation.

-- If the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation and:

(1) three or more of these prior civil actions have been dismissed pursuant to subsection (e)(2); or

(2) the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation against a person named as a defendant in the instant action or a person serving in the same official capacity as a named defendant and a court made a finding that the prior action was filed in bad faith or that the prisoner knowingly presented false evidence or testimony at a hearing or trial;

the court may dismiss the action. The court shall not, however, dismiss a request for preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order which makes a credible allegation that the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.

42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)

.4

be dismissed with prejudice , and n o further extensions would be provided. 8 On

November 29, 2021, the trial court dismissed Caldwell’s Complaint pursuant to

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure (Civil Rule) 240(j)(2)

, 9 and dismissed all of

his other pending petitions with prejudice. On December 6, 2021 , Caldwell appealed

to this Court from both orders. 10

Caldwell argues that the trial court erred by revoking his IFP status

. 11

However, Caldwell did not timely appeal from the trial court’s order revoking his

8 O n October 1, 2021 , Caldwell filed a Petition for Leave to File Supplemental Amended Complaint

, a Motion for an Order of Stay

, and a Motion for an Extension of Time of 90 days

, which the trial court denied on October 8, 2021 , pursuant to its previous orders.

9 Civil Rule 240(j)(2) states :
If the petitioner commences the action by writ of summons, the court shall not act on the petition for leave to proceed [IFP] until the complaint is filed. If the complaint has not been filed within [90] days of the filing of the petition, the court may dismiss the action pursuant to subdivision (j)(1).

Pa.R.Civ. P. 240(j)(2)

. It appears that the trial court inadvertently referenced Civ il Rule 240(j)(2)

, rather than Section 6602(f) of the PLRA , as the trial court did not reference Civil Rule 240(j)(2)

in either its September 16, 2021 order revoking Caldwell’s IFP status , or in its opinion

.

10 On February 14, 2022, the trial court issued an order stating that Caldwell was not required to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appe a l pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) because it believe d Caldwell’s notice of appeal ma d e clear

the matters complained of on appeal, and the trial court ha d sufficiently addressed said matters in its September 16, 2021 opinion and order.
“Our review of the trial court ’ s decision is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an
error of law.” Brown v. Beard , 11 A.3d 578, 582 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Further, a trial court has inherent power to enforce its own orders, and an appellate court will not interfere with the

enforcement absent an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Shaffer , 712 A.2d 749 (Pa. 1998). A trial court need not overlook a party ’ s failure to comply with its order or accept payment of costs tendered well beyond the court

- ordered deadline. See Konya v. Dist

. Att ’ y of North ampton Cnty. , 669 A.2d 890 (Pa. 1995)

.

11 Caldwell also argues that the trial court erred by denying his Motion for Summary Relief

and his Motion for L eave to F ile an A mended C omplaint (collectively, Motions) , however,

because the trial court dismiss ed Caldwell’s Complaint , both Motions were deemed moot

. Accordingly, the trial court did not err

.5

IFP status ; rather

, he only timely appealed from the trial court’s order dismissing his

Complaint

. 12

In Lopez v. Haywood , 4 1 A.3d 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), t his Court

explained that while a trial court may revoke a prisoner’s IFP status based on Section

6602(f) of the PLRA, the trial court must provide the prisoner

a reasonable opportunity to “ proceed ” with his already

begun prison conditions litigation by paying his filing fees and costs before dismissing the matter in its entirety. However, if [ the prisoner ] does not pay t he fees [ and ] costs associated with the filed [ complaint ] as directed by the trial court

, the matter should be dismissed

.
Lopez , 41 A.3d at 188

- 89 (emphasis added).

Here, the trial court revoked Caldwell’s IFP status and gave him 30

days to pay the filing fee , and thereafter granted him a 30

- day extension to pay it

. In

his brief to this Court

, Caldwell does not argue that he should have been granted

more t i me or that he paid the fee. The law is well settled that “[w] hen a [prisoner ’ s]

[IFP] status is revoked, a court may dismiss the [prisoner ’ s] complaint if the

[prisoner] thereafter fails to pay the filing fees and costs associated with the

litigation. ” Richardson v. Dep’t of Corr.

, 97 A.3d 430, 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)

, affirmed , 110 A.3d 994 (Pa. 2015) (quoting Brown v. Pa. Dep ’ t of Corr.

, 58 A.3d

118, 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) )

. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed

Caldwell’s C omplaint because he failed to pay the filing fee. 13

12 Notwithstanding, t his Court discerns no error in the trial court’s revocation of Caldwell’s

IFP status based on its determination that Caldwell was an abusive litigator, and he was not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury

. On November 2 0 , 2023, Caldwell filed a Petition to

Inform the Court (Petition)

, “to inform this [] [C]ourt of the recent order s of the [Pennsylvania] Superior Court . . . .” Petition at 1. Because it appears that the orders may be relevant to the trial court’s order revoking Caldwell’s IFP status

, and that order is not properly before this Court, this

Court will not address the P etition

.

13 This Court may affirm a trial court ’ s order based on other grounds

. See Medina v. Harrisburg Sch. Dist. , 273 A.3d 33 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).6 For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

___________________________ ______ ANNE E. COVEY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Clay Caldwell, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 26 C.D. 2022 Sec. John Wetzel, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 10 th day of January , 20 2 4

, the Centre County Common

Pleas Court’s November 29, 2021 order is affirmed.

___________________________ ______ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge