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 : 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 October 2, 2017, Petitioner filed a Complaint against Washington 

Health Systems and a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (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 [27th] 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 taking 
2

addressed to Respondent, Petitioner requested case information.2 By November 29, 

2017 letter, Respondent replied “it is in the Judge’s office for review.” Petition for 

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

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

forward same to Petitioner 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 damages. 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, Respondent filed her Answer and New Matter. 

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

Petitioner’s Complaint and IFP Petition were mistakenly not docketed before being 

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

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

New Matter ¶11. Respondent further averred, inter alia: (1) Petitioner failed 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 Answer to the Rule 

to Show Cause, therein explaining that serious health issues caused his delay;

however, he intended to file dispositive motions. By September 28, 2021 Order, this 

Court discharged its Rule to Show Cause. 

On November 1, 2021, Petitioner filed the Application, alleging that his 

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 Court directed that the 

Application be submitted on briefs. Both parties filed briefs. The Application 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, Petitioner 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 withheld in hopes that [] Petitioner 

[would] simply go[ ]away.” Application 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, 

Respondent 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 summary relief 

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

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

dispute. Respondent asserts that because the Deputy Prothonotary, an actor and 

agent of Respondent, delivered the Complaint 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 Complaint was not due to Respondent’s failure to act in a specific amount of 

time. Respondent further disputes the material facts 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 Production of 

Documents (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 [United 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]etition would be 

forwarded to 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 Office 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 them 
6

to the Prothonotary’s Office for docketing. If the [IFP 

P]etition was granted, the complaint would be docketed

without payment of any filing fee. If the [IFP P]etition 

was denied, the complaint 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 order to have his complaint 

docketed. This was an established procedure that was in 

place prior to the current [P]rothonotary . . . 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 Prothonotary] 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]omplaint and related 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 Prothonotary’s [O]ffice. Any inquiries 

regarding the actions of court staff [are] best directed to 

[the President] Judge [] and her staff. 

Answer to Interrogatories ¶6.

Because it is unclear who was responsible for making 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,” Scarnati, 220 A.3d at 730 n.10, 

this Court concludes that “there are material issues of fact in dispute [and] it is not 
7

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, 2022, Alton D. Brown’s 

Application for Special Relief is DENIED. This Court’s Prothonotary is directed to 

change the caption on the docket in accordance with the above. 

_________________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge