IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown

, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: P rothonotary Joy Schury Ranko : of the Twenty

- Seventh Judicial : District of Pennsylvania, : No. 277 M.D. 2018

Respondent : Submitted: August 12 , 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER , President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS , Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: December 1, 2022

Before the Court is Alton D. Brown’s (Petitioner) Application for

Special Relief seeking peremptory judgment pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of

Appellate Procedure (Rule) 1532 (Application)

. After review, this Court denies the

Application.

On Oct ober 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a Complaint against Washington

Health Systems and a Petition to Proceed In Forma P auperis (IFP Petition) with the

Washington County Common Pleas Court Prothonotary Phyllis Rank Matheny

(Respondent). 1 Having received no response therefrom, by November 5, 2017 letter

1 In her Answer and New Matter to the Petition for Review , Respondent declared:

Petitioner names as Respondent “Prothonotary Phyllis Rank Matheny of the [27 th ] Judicial District of Pennsylvania [.] ” The correct spelling of Ms. Matheny ’ s name is Phyllis Ranko Matheny

and she has not served as Prothonotary since 2015. Joy Schury

Ranko has served as Prothonotary of Washington County after being duly elected in the general election of November 2015 [,] and taking2

addressed to Respondent

, Petitioner request ed case information. 2 By November 29,

2017 letter, Re spondent replied “it is in the J udge’s office for review.” Petition for

Review (Petition) ¶ 5. By December 4, 2017 letter, Petitioner s ubmitted a Praecipe

to Reinstate Complaint , and requested that Respondent assign a case number and

forward same to Petit ioner with a copy of the docket sheet and the assigned judge’s

name. Because Petitioner did not receive a response, on February 1, 2018, he again

contacted Respondent requesting a copy of the court docket and case information.

Petitioner still did not receive a response.

On April 17, 2018, Petitioner filed the Petition in this Court’s original

jurisdiction, alleging therein that Respondent violated his constitutional right to

access the courts

, and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief

, plus damag es. On

May 22, 2018, Respondent sent a “ MEMORANDUM ” to Petitioner stating:

I AM RESPONDING TO YOUR [ PETITION ] THAT WAS

FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR FILING. WE SPOKE TO

THE JUDGE [’] S OFFICE ABOUT YOUR [INITIAL] FILINGS

THAT WAS [SIC] SENT TO US ON OCTOBER 2, 2017 [,] AND

FORWARDED TO THE JUDGE [’] S OFFICE FOR APPROVAL:

UNFORTUNATELY [,] THE FILINGS THAT WE FORWARDED

TO THE JUDGE [’] S OFFICE HAS [SIC] BEEN MISPLACED BY

THEM [SIC] AND CANNOT BE LOCATED. THEREFORE, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU RESUBMIT YOUR

PAPERWORK TO THE PROTHONOTARY ’ S OFFICE SO

THAT IT CAN AGAIN BE TAKEN TO THE JUDGE [’] S OFFICE

FOR APPROVAL OF YOUR IN [ ] FORMA PAUPERIS REQUEST.

Answer and New Matter at Ex. 2

.

the oath of office January 4, 2016 [,] and therefore should be substituted as the Respondent of record in this matter.

Answer and New Matter ¶ 3. This Court grants the request to substitute Joy Schury Ranko for Phyllis Ranko Matheny as the Respondent Prothonotary. The caption has been changed to reflect

the substitution.

2 On October 27, 2017, the two

- year statute of limitations expired on Petitioner’s action.

See Petition ¶ 10.3 On July 24, 2018, Responden t filed her Answer and New Matter

.
Therein , Respondent declared, among other things, that no docket exists because

Petitioner’s C omplaint and IFP P etition were mistakenly not docketed before being

forwarded to President Judge Katherine B. Emery ’ s (Preside nt Judge) chambers

, where they were subsequently lost by the President Judge ’s staff. See Answer and

New Matter ¶ 11. Respondent further averr ed

, inter alia : (1) Petitioner fail ed to set

forth a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (2) Petitioner failed to file his

Petition within the six

- month statute of limitations set forth in Section 5522 of the

Judicial Code

. 3 See Answer and New Matter ¶ 24

- 25.

On August 20, 2021, this Court filed a Rule to Show Cause why the

Petition should not be dismissed for want of prosecution (Rule to Show Cause)

against Petitioner . On September 23, 2021, Petitioner filed an A nswer to the Rule

to Show Cause

, there in explaining that serious health issues caus ed hi s delay ;

however, he inten d ed to file dispositive motions. By September 28, 2021 O rder, this

Court discharged its Rule to Show Cause.

On November 1, 2021, Petitioner filed the Application

, alleging that hi s
right to relief is clear and no material issues of fact are in dispute . By November 5,

2021 Order, this Court directed that Petitioner serve the Application on

Respondent’s counsel. By February 1, 2022 Order, this C ourt directed that the

Application b e submitted on briefs. Both parties filed briefs. The A pplication is

now ripe for review.

Initially,

[t] o obtain peremptory judgment, in addition to showing the elements for mandamus relief, the moving party must show that on the facts of record, and those facts that may be developed at trial, the right to judgment is clear.

3 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522

.4 Further, this Court must examine the existing and potential record in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party.

Scarnati v. Dep ’ t of Env ’ t Prot.

, 220 A.3d 723, 730 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019)

, aff’d

, 240 A.3d 536 (Pa. 2020) (citation omitted)

.

An application for summary relief filed under [Rule] 1532(b) is generally the same as a motion for peremptory judgment filed in a mandamus action in the common pleas

court. The application will be granted where the right to such relief is clear, but will be denied where there are material issues of fact in dispute or if it is not clear the applicant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Dep ’ t of Health v. Hanes

, 78 A.3d 676, 677 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) ( citation omitted;

emphasis added)

.

Here, Petition er frames his Petition as a mandamus action asking this

Court to prevent Respondent “from withholding crucial case information from the

Petitioner needed for prosecution of the Washington case[,]” and to prevent “any

future misbehavior by Respondent.” Petition Ad Damnum Clause. In his

Application, Petitioner requests incidental damages for the injuries he incurred

, namely

, his case being time

- barred

.

Petitioner argues that the facts of this case clearly reflect that “the

documents were not actually lost , but instead with h eld in hopes that [] Petitioner

[would] simply go[ ]away.” Appli cation at 4. Petitioner further contends that

“[Respondent], as a public official, is liable for the negligent loss due to the

negligence of her subordinate , where [Respondent] directed the negligent act to be

done.” Application at 6. Petitioner asserts that

, “[i]n this matter, [] Respondent’s

staff acted pursuant to its unlawful practice/policy, and does not [sic] constitute

negligence

. However, if the Court does rule that negligence was involved,

R espondent still would be liable for any injury Petitioner suffered as a result.”

Application at 6

- 7.5 Respondent rejoins that Petitioner is not entitled to s ummary relief

because there are material facts in dispute. First , Respondent maintains that whet her

Respondent file d the Complaint in a timely manner is a material issue of fact in

dispute

. Respondent asserts that because t he D eputy P rothonotary, an actor and

agent of Respondent, delivered the C omplaint to the President Judge ’s law clerk,

who was an actor and agent of the President Judge , and Respondent ’ s actions were,

as per previous practice/policy , the correct way to begin a filing

, any subsequent loss

of the C omplaint was not due to Respondent’s failure to act in a specific amount of

time. Respondent further disputes the material fact s alleged by Petitioner that the

change of the Prothonotary policy was an admission that the documents were

handled incorrectly , and that Respondent is at fault based on an admitted

responsibility.

In his First Set of Interrogatories and Request for P roduction of

D ocuments (Interrogatories) , Petitioner inquired: “Please state you[r] normal

practice after a civil complaint and [IFP Petition] is received in your office.”

Interrogatories ¶ 1.

In her Answer to Interrogatories, Respondent explained:

[I]n October 2017 [,] (the month in which the Petitioner’s [C]omplaint and [IFP Petition] were received), the practice was that upon the receipt of a complaint and a [n IFP P] etition in the [Uni t ed States (]U. S.[)] [m]ail delivered to the Prothonotary’s Office that came from an incarcerated plaintiff who could not physically present the [IFP P] etition in person before the judge of the term in motions court, that complaint and [IFP P]e tition would be forwarded t o the chamber of the judge of the term for a decision on the [IFP P] etition. Upon a ruling on the [IFP P] etition, the complaint and the [IFP P] etition were returned to the Prothonotary’s O ffice for docketing or alternatively, someone from the staff of the Prothonotary’s Office would be asked to retrieve the complaint and the [IFP P] etition from the judge’s chamber for return of them6 to the P rothonotary’s Office for docketing. If the [IFP P] etition was granted, the complaint would be docket ed without payme nt of any filing fee. If the [IFP P] etition was denied, the compla i nt would not be docketed and the incarcerated plaintiff would be informed via U.S. [m]ail of the denial of the [IFP P] etition and directed to provide the appropriate filing fee in ord er to have his complaint docketed. This was an established procedure that was in place prior to the current [P] rothon o tary . . . taking office.

Answer to Interrogatories ¶ 1.

Petitioner further requested: “Identify all court staff, their functions and

duties , who came into contact with Petitioner’s [C]omplaint and related documents,

including but not limited to[,] the person who was directly responsible for ensuring

that the [C]omplaint and related documents were processed in accordance with court

rules .” Interrogatories ¶

6.

Respondent stated:

After [the Deputy P rothonotary] delivered the Petitioner’s Complaint and [IFP] Petition to [the President Judge’s] law clerk,

. . . it is unknown who on the court staff came in contact with the [C]omp l aint and re lated documents, or what any such person’s functions and duties were. The court staff in the [ President] Judge’s chamber are not employees of the P rothonotary’s [O] ffice. Any inquiries regarding the actions of court staff [are] best directed to [the P res ident] Judge [] and her staff.

Answer to Interrogatories ¶ 6.

B ecause it is unclear who wa s responsibl e for mak ing sure Petitioner’s

documents were filed in a timely manner, whether the documents were handled

correctly, and whether Respondent was at fault, material issues of fact remain in

dispute

. Based on this Court’s “examin[ation of] the existing and potential record

in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party,” S carnati

, 220 A.3d at 730 n.10

,
this Court concludes that “ there are material issues of fact in dispute [and] it is not7

clear the [Petitioner] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

. ” Dep’t of Health

, 78

A.3d at 677 n.1

. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to deny Petitioner’s

Application.

For all of the above reasons, the Application is denied.

___________________________ ______ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision in this case.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Prothonotary Joy Schury Ranko : of the Twenty

- Seventh Judicial : District of Pennsylvania, : No. 277 M.D. 2018

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1 st day of December , 20 2 2

, Alton D. Brown’s

Application for Special Relief is DENIED

. Th is Court’s Prothonotary is directed to

change the caption on the docket in accordance with the above

.

___________________________ ______ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge