J-S11020-24 

 

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 

KENNETH GOVAN 

 Appellant 

 v. 

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

 PENNSYLVANIA 

 No. 2051 EDA 2023 

Appeal from the Order Entered May 23, 2023 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at 

No(s): 230402910 

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JULY 16, 2024

 Kenneth Govan appeals pro se from the order dismissing his complaint 

against Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”) as frivolous pursuant to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j)(1). We affirm. 

 In April 2023, Govan filed a pro se complaint against Amazon, his former 

employer, along with a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint 

did not contain any counts or numbered paragraphs, but the civil cover sheet 

attached to the complaint indicated that Govan was pursuing a claim for fraud 

under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. To the extent we can discern, we glean the following 

facts from the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto. 

 Govan began working at Amazon as a picker/packer in May 2021. 

Complaint, at Exh. 8A. On June 21, 2021, Amazon determined that Govan had 

____________________________________________ 

*

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-S11020-24 

- 2 - 

46 “false pick skips” during the week of June 13, 2021. Id. at Exh. 1-A. 

Amazon claimed it did a Seek to Understand (“STU”) on June 21, 2021 with 

Govan to determine the cause of these errors. Id. at Exh. 4-B. Govan denies 

meeting with Amazon on June 21, 2021, and states that a STU was not done. 

Id. at 2-3. Amazon issued a Supportive Feedback Document, which was 

signed by both parties on June 27, 2021, stating that Govan’s job performance 

was not meeting behavioral expectations due to the false pick skips. Id. at 

Exh. 1-A. Govan claimed this was a disciplinary write-up, but Amazon denied 

this claim. Id. at 2. 

Govan further alleged that he was entitled to an accommodation due to 

his disability of a musculoskeletal disorder. Id. at 1-2. He claimed that on 

June 27, 2021, he experienced “visual disturbances and swelling in [his] left 

knee from repeatedly working in a chill area [of] 32 degrees or lower” at 

Amazon. Id. at 1. Govan reported this to his manager, who sent him home. 

Id. Govan alleges that his manager failed to file an incident report. Id. at Exh. 

2. On July 5, 2021, Govan filed a discrimination complaint with the 

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) against Amazon, 

alleging that Amazon unlawfully discriminated against him when it disciplined 

him based upon his disability. Id. at Exh. 4-B. The PHRC issued a finding of 

no probable cause of discrimination and concluded that the Supportive 

Feedback Document showing Govan’s 46 false pick skips “was exempted from 

[his] file and was not recorded as a disciplinary action.” Id. 
J-S11020-24 

- 3 - 

On May 18, 2023, the trial court entered an order dismissing Govan’s 

complaint as frivolous pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1) (permitting dismissal 

of a frivolous action prior to ruling on a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis) because it failed to state a claim for fraud. This appeal followed. 

We initially observe there are significant deficiencies in Govan’s 

appellate brief. “When deficiencies in a brief hinder our ability to conduct 

meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find 

certain issues to be waived.” Irwin Union Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. v. 

Famous, 4 A.3d 1099, 1103 (Pa.Super. 2010); see also Commonwealth v. 

Gould, 912 A.2d 869, 873 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating if a deficient brief 

impedes this Court’s ability to address any issue on review, the “issue that is 

not properly briefed in this manner is considered waived”). “[U]ndeveloped 

claims are waived and unreviewable on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Clayton, 

816 A.2d 217, 221 (Pa. 2002) (OAJC). “This Court will not act as counsel and 

will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Irwin Union Nat’l 

Bank and Trust Co., 4 A.3d at 1103. Further, “[a]lthough this Court is willing 

to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers 

no special benefit upon the appellant.” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 

496, 498 (Pa.Super. 2005). 

Here, Govan’s brief violates Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

2111(a) because it lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of the scope 

of review and standard of review, a statement of the questions involved, a 

statement of the case, and a summary of the argument. See Pa.R.A.P. 
J-S11020-24 

- 4 - 

2111(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6). Further, although Govan appears to raise 

four questions throughout his brief,1 he fails to develop or offer any cogent 

argument on these issues in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 2119(a). See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Moreover, there are no references 

to any relevant legal authority, and the brief fails to address the court’s finding 

that the complaint failed to state a claim for fraud. Therefore, to the extent 

we cannot discern Govan’s arguments, they are waived. 

Even if not waived, we agree with the trial court that Govan failed to 

state a claim for which relief could be granted. We review a decision dismissing 

an action pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 240(j) to determine “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 Serv’s., 

979 A.2d 352, 354 (Pa.Super. 2009). 

____________________________________________ 

1

 The questions are as follows: 

1. [C]an Amazon, Inc. provide disinformation to state or 

government officials during an investigation without any, or 

no consequences in Pennsylvania? 

2. [A]re all documents which are presented to state and 

government officials as legal documents, do they need to be 

verified by a person or agency submitting them? 

3. [W]here are the worker activity logs? 

4. [D]oes Amazon, Inc. adhere to “ADA” rules and 

regulations? 

Govan’s Br. at 2, 3, 6, 7. 
J-S11020-24 

- 5 - 

Rule 240 sets forth the “procedure by which a person who is without the 

financial resources to pay the costs of litigation may proceed in forma 

pauperis.” Bell v. Mayview State Hosp., 853 A.2d 1058, 1060 (Pa.Super. 

2004). A litigant seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis has the 

responsibility of presenting a valid cause of action. Conover v. Mikosky, 609 

A.2d 558, 560 (Pa.Super. 1992). Subsection (j) of Rule 240 permits a court 

to dismiss an action that is frivolous where the party also filed a petition for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis: 

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 the allegation of poverty is untrue or 

if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is 

frivolous. 

Pa.R.C.P. 240(j)(1). The note to the Rule explains that “[a] frivolous action or 

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

or in fact.” Id. at Note (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see 

also Bell, 853 A.2d at 1060 (stating an action is frivolous for purposes of Rule 

240(j) if, on its face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action). 

Here, Govan indicated on the civil cover sheet attached to the complaint 

that he was pursuing a claim for fraud against Amazon. A plaintiff asserting a 

claim for fraud must plead and prove the following: 

(1) a representation; (2) which is material to the transaction 

at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or 

recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the 

intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable 
J-S11020-24 

- 6 - 

reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting 

injury was proximately caused by the reliance. 

Marion v. Bryn Mawr Trust Co., 288 A.3d 76, 87 (Pa. 2023) (citation 

omitted). Averments of fraud “shall be averred with particularity.” Pa.R.C.P. 

1019(b). 

We agree with the trial court that the factual averments in Govan’s 

complaint fail to demonstrate any claim of fraud. Govan fails to address any 

of the elements of fraud and the complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a 

claim that Amazon made a material misrepresentation to Govan upon which 

he justifiably relied. Govan also fails to allege a resulting injury. Accordingly, 

the court did not err in dismissing Govan’s complaint as frivolous under Rule 

240(j)(1). 

 Order affirmed. 

Date: 7/16/2024