IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Gerholt, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 375 C.D. 2021

: Submitted: September 3, 2021

John Wetzel, Jamie Soben, : 

Gina Orlando, Chris Steffenino, and :

and David Thomas :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge 

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE LEAVITT1 FILED: January 5, 2022

John Gerholt, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) at 

Phoenix, appeals pro se an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery 

County (trial court) granting a motion to stay discovery filed by John Wetzel, 

Secretary of Corrections and Department of Corrections employees Jamie Soben, 

Gina Orlando, Chris Steffenino and David Thomas (collectively, Department 

Officials). The stay was granted pending a decision on Department Officials’

preliminary objections to Gerholt’s complaint. Asserting that the trial court’s order 

was not a final and appealable order, Department Officials have filed a motion to 

quash Gerholt’s appeal. We agree and quash the appeal.

On October 21, 2020, Gerholt filed a complaint in the trial court against 

Department Officials for damages arising from an injury Gerholt sustained to his left 

hand on January 30, 2020, as he was walking to his housing unit. Gerholt was 

1 This matter was assigned to the panel before January 3, 2022, when President Judge Emerita 

Leavitt became a senior judge on the Court.
2

provided medical treatment, which caused him “unnecessary pain and suffering.” 

Original Record, Complaint ¶14, at 6. The complaint asserted, inter alia, that 

Department Officials violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST. amends. VIII, XIV.

On December 7, 2020, Department Officials filed preliminary 

objections to the complaint and argued, inter alia, that the action was barred by the

doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. On January 22, 2021, Department 

Officials filed a motion to stay discovery pending disposition of the preliminary 

objections. By order of February 1, 2021, the trial court granted the motion to stay 

discovery. 

Gerholt filed an objection to the trial court’s order on February 17, 

2021, and a notice of appeal to this Court on March 23, 2021. In its PA. R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion, the trial court opined that its February 1, 2021, order was neither a 

final appealable order within the meaning of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 341(a) nor an interlocutory order appealable as of right pursuant to Rule 

311. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341, in pertinent part, states 

that “an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a government unit 

or trial court” that “disposes of all claims and of all parties” or “is entered as a final 

order” by a trial court pursuant to Rule 341(c).2 PA. R.A.P. 341(a), (b). The purpose 

2 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(c) states in pertinent part as follows:

(c) Determination of finality.--When more than one claim for relief is presented in 

an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or 

when multiple parties are involved, the trial court or other government unit may 

enter a final order as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims and parties only 

upon an express determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution 

of the entire case. Such an order becomes appealable when entered. In the absence 

of such a determination and entry of a final order, any order or other form of 
3

of limiting appellate review to final orders is to prevent piecemeal determinations 

and the consequent protraction of litigation. In re: First Baptist Church of Spring 

Mill, 22 A.3d 1091, 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (quotations omitted).

Here, the trial court’s order of February 1, 2021, stayed discovery 

pending a decision on Department Officials’ preliminary objections and did not 

dispose of all claims. It was not a final order under Rule 341(c). PA. R.A.P. 341(c). 

As such, the order is interlocutory. 

Further, the trial court’s interlocutory order is neither appealable as of 

right under PA. R.A.P. 311 nor as a collateral order under PA. R.A.P. 313. To 

constitute a collateral order, “[] the order must be separable from, and collateral to, 

the main cause of action; [] the right involved must be too important to be denied 

review; and [] the question presented must be such that if review is postponed until 

after final judgment, the claim will be irreparably lost.” Commonwealth v. Harris, 

32 A.3d 243, 248 (Pa. 2011). All three prongs must be satisfied before an order may 

be subject to a collateral appeal. Id. In his brief, Gerholt asserted that the trial court

entered an order on June 14, 2021, overruling Department Officials’ preliminary 

objections; nevertheless, the trial court “did not relax the stay upon [the] discovery 

order.” Gerholt Brief at 6. What happened after the entry of the stay is irrelevant. 

The only question before this Court is whether the stay pending disposition of the 

preliminary objections is a final order.

decision that adjudicates fewer than all the claims and parties shall not constitute a 

final order.

PA. R.A.P. 341(c).
4

Concluding that the trial court’s February 1, 2021, order was not a final 

order appealable under the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, we quash 

Gerholt’s appeal as interlocutory.3

 _____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

3 Under the prisoner mailbox rule, a pro se appeal by a prisoner is considered filed on the date of 

delivery of the appeal to prison authorities or placement of the appeal in the institution’s mailbox.

Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 683 A.2d 278 (Pa. 1996). Gerholt’s notice 

of appeal was dated February 16, 2021, but it is unclear when the notice of appeal was delivered 

to the prison authorities. On March 2, 2021, the trial court rejected Gerholt’s notice of appeal as 

not filed on the correct form and directed Gerholt to “resend” the paperwork on the forms provided 

by the trial court. The refiling was done March 23, 2021. We need not decide whether Gerholt’s

refiled appeal was timely because the underlying order is interlocutory and not appealable.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Gerholt, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 375 C.D. 2021

:

John Wetzel, Jamie Soben, : 

Gina Orlando, Chris Steffenino, and :

and David Thomas :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2022, John Gerholt’s appeal of the 

order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, dated February 1, 

2021, in the above-captioned matter, is QUASHED. 

 _____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita