Court Opinion

ID: 9944490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 17:10:10.650234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:02:48.488039
License: Public Domain

J-A08004-24

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 STEPHANIE HESTER-ALLEN                   :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :         PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant             :
                                          :
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 HUMAN GOOD AND LINDLEY APT, LP           :    No. 626 EDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 13, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 221201605

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                         FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2024

      Stephanie Hester-Allen appeals pro se from the order that dismissed her

complaint filed against Human Good and Lindley Apartments, LP (collectively

“Appellees”). We dismiss this appeal.

      We glean the following background from the trial court’s opinion.

Appellant filed a complaint alleging wrongdoing in relation to a landlord-tenant

action litigated in Philadelphia Municipal Court. More specifically:

      The complaint ma[de] allegations, written in bold type, of lies,
      harassment, and false evidence, as well as alleging that certain
      neighbors were “ear mugging” or ea[ves]dropping on her
      conversations. [Appellant] attached allegations in the form of
      paragraphs alleging wrongdoing against individuals not named as
      defendants. [Appellant] did not set forth what these neighbors
      allegedly overheard or what if anything happened as a result. Nor
      d[id she] set forth what exact statement of lies and false evidence
      that were set forth. [Appellant] further allege[d] that she was
      illegally evicted from the property.
J-A08004-24

Trial Court Opinion, 11/27/23, at 2. Along with the complaint, Appellant filed

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Upon review of the complaint

and Appellant’s IFP petition, the trial court concluded that the complaint was

frivolous. Accordingly, it entered an order on February 13, 2023, dismissing

Appellant’s complaint pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 240.1          This timely appeal

followed.

       Appellant filed a brief in this Court that Appellees describe as “a

hodgepodge of ramblings that make little sense, and give no clear argument

as to what or how the trial court erred.”        Appellees’ brief at 2.   Indeed,

Appellees urge us to dismiss the appeal based upon the deficiencies in

Appellant’s brief rather than adjudicate its merits. Id.

       Upon our examination of Appellant’s writing, we find that her failure to

abide by the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure or develop her issues

precludes us from conducting effective review.          While Appellant’s filing

includes headings identifying various Rules generally applicable to an

appellant’s brief, each section is either left blank or filled with inapt

____________________________________________

1 That rule provides in pertinent part as follows:

       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.Civ.P. 240(j)(1).

                                           -2-
J-A08004-24

information.   In particular, the brief offers no substantial compliance with

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (statement of jurisdiction), Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)

(statement of the scope and standard of review), Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4)

statement of questions involved), or Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) (summary of

argument).

      Additionally, rather than offer a statement of the case as required by

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(5), Appellant references her underlying complaint.           See

Appellant’s brief at unnumbered 4. Such is prohibited. See, e.g., Franciscus

v. Sevdik, 135 A.3d 1092, 1097 n.6 (Pa.Super. 2016) (“We do not permit

parties to incorporate by reference arguments made in other briefs or

pleadings.”). Finally, Appellant does not attempt to develop any argument in

support of any raised claims supported by citations to the record and pertinent

legal authority as is required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b) and (c). Rather, her entire

argument is the following, which we reproduce verbatim:                 “Appellant

Argument is that none of these Complaint made by tenant’s of 1300 Lindley

Apartment LP tlnvent and Create to make up for purpose of deception to

construct from diverse and usually standardized part[.]” Appellant’s brief at

unnumbered 4.

      It is well-settled that, “although this Court is willing to construe liberally

materials filed by a pro se litigant, a pro se appellant enjoys no special

benefit.”   Commonwealth v. Tchirkow, 160 A.3d 798, 804 (Pa.Super.

2017). “A pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules set forth in

                                       -3-
J-A08004-24

the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.”            Smithson v. Columbia Gas of

PA/NiSource, 264 A.3d 755, 760 (Pa.Super. 2021) (cleaned up).

       Appellant’s noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure has left

this Court unable to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g., Commonwealth

v. Gilliam, 249 A.3d 257, 271 (Pa.Super. 2021) (“It is not the role of this

Court to develop Appellant’s argument.”); Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944

(Pa.Super. 2000) (“When issues are not properly raised and developed in

briefs, when briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review,

a court will not consider the merits thereof.” (cleaned up)); Smathers v.

Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159 (Pa.Super. 1996) (disposing of appeal without

reaching its merits where the appellant “failed to clearly identify, let alone

develop, her issues for appeal”). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal without

considering its merits. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief

or reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other

matter may be . . . dismissed”).

       Appeal dismissed.       Oral argument scheduled for March 26, 2024, is

cancelled.2

____________________________________________

2Accordingly, Appellees’ February 22, 2024 Application for Continuance of
Oral Argument is denied as moot.

                                           -4-
J-A08004-24

Date: 2/26/2024

                  -5-