Court Opinion

ID: 9387587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 15:06:37.41024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.608191
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dante Jackson,                            :
                          Appellant       :
                                          :
                   v.                     :   No. 1163 C.D. 2021
                                          :   Submitted: March 25, 2022
Superintendent, Barry Smith;              :
Designated Property Officer 1,            :
John Doe I; Designated Property           :
Officer 2, John Doe II                    :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
             HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
             HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER                FILED: April 18, 2023

      Dante Jackson (Jackson), pro se, appeals from a June 1, 2021 Order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County (trial court) denying his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and dismissing his Civil Complaint with prejudice.
The trial court dismissed Jackson’s Civil Complaint after Jackson purportedly did
not comply with an earlier order of the trial court directing Jackson to file an
amended pleading within a certain time period. There is also a question as to
whether Jackson’s Notice of Appeal of the trial court’s Order was timely filed.
Before this Court, Jackson contends both his Amended Complaint and Notice of
Appeal were timely filed under the prisoner mailbox rule.         Upon review, we
conclude the appeal is proper, vacate the trial court’s Order, and remand this matter
so the trial court may consider evidence pertaining to the prisoner mailbox rule.
      On June 15, 2020, Jackson filed a Civil Complaint with the trial court, alleging
that certain personal property and legal mail was not inventoried and was
subsequently lost while he was being transported from one state prison to another.
Jackson simultaneously sought IFP status. Upon receipt of the Civil Complaint, the
trial court issued an order stating the Civil Complaint was defective as it lacked
factual and legal specificity, including failure to identify that Jackson exhausted his
administrative remedies. The trial court directed Jackson to file an amended
pleading within 60 days addressing those deficiencies and warned that failure to
comply will result in the Civil Complaint being dismissed as frivolous, along with
the motion to proceed IFP. (Original Record (O.R.) Item 3.)
      Thereafter, Jackson sought and obtained numerous extensions of time.
Pertinent here was a March 9, 2021 order granting Jackson an extension of time to
file an amended pleading by May 29, 2021. (O.R. Item 10.) On June 1, 2021, when
the trial court had not yet received an amended pleading from Jackson, the trial court
issued the Order denying the motion to proceed IFP and dismissing the Civil
Complaint with prejudice.
      Three days later, the trial court received an Amended Complaint from
Jackson. (O.R. Item 14.) The Amended Complaint is dated May 24, 2021, and the
envelope in which it was contained is postmarked June 2, 2021. (Id.) Upon receipt
of the Amended Complaint, the trial court issued an order dated June 11, 2021, and
filed June 14, 2021, stating it received Jackson’s Amended Complaint on June 4,
2021, after it had already dismissed Jackson’s Civil Complaint for failing to meet
the May 29, 2021 deadline, and directed the Prothonotary to docket the Amended
Complaint and envelope in which it was enclosed for preservation of the record.
(O.R. Item 15.)

                                          2
         Jackson subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court, which
then forwarded it to the trial court. (O.R. Item 17.) The Notice of Appeal was
stamped received by the Superior Court on July 14, 2021, and was contained in an
envelope postmarked July 12, 2021. (Id.) The Notice of Appeal itself is dated June
21, 2021. (Id.) On August 14, 2021, Jackson wrote a letter to the Clearfield County
Prothonotary inquiring into the status of his Notice of Appeal. (O.R. Item 18.) The
letter was stamped received on August 18, 2021, and was not docketed as filed until
August 27, 2021. It appears from the record that Jackson separately sent a Notice of
Appeal directly to the trial court, which was marked received by the Clearfield
County Prothonotary on July 21, 2021, and was marked filed on August 27, 2021.
(O.R. Item 19.) The second Notice of Appeal was in an envelope postmarked July
19, 2021. (Id.) The second Notice of Appeal is identical to the original Notice of
Appeal except it bears a handwritten notation as being “resubmitted” on July 1, 2021.
(Id.)
         In response to the Notice of Appeal, the trial court issued an opinion dated
August 27, 2021, and filed August 31, 2021. Therein, the trial court recounted the
procedural history of this case and concluded Jackson’s appeal of the June 1, 2021
Order should be quashed as the Notice of Appeal was untimely.
         On October 25, 2021, the Superior Court transferred Jackson’s appeal to this
Court.       We subsequently issued an order directing the parties to address the
timeliness of the appeal in their principal brief.1
         On appeal, Jackson argues under the prisoner mailbox rule, both his Notice of
Appeal and the Amended Complaint were timely filed.                    Jackson also makes

         1
        Appellees Superintendent, Barry Smith; Designated Property Officer 1, John Doe I; and
Designated Property Officer 2, John Doe II filed a notice of non-participation as the matter was
dismissed by the trial court prior to service.

                                               3
numerous other arguments alleging retaliation by prison officials, which has
interfered with his mail and access to the courts, and that as a pro se litigant, he
should not be held to the same strict standards as a litigant with counsel. To his
brief, Jackson attaches various exhibits including cash slips purporting to show he
timely filed his appeal and Amended Complaint.
      As a threshold matter, we must address the timeliness of Jackson’s appeal.
Under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903(a), a “notice of appeal . . .
shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is
taken.”   Pa.R.A.P. 903(a).    The timeliness of an appeal goes to the Court’s
jurisdiction. Brown v. Greene Cnty. Off. of Dist. Att’y, 255 A.3d 673, 675 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021).
      Because inmates cannot “personally travel to the courthouse” to file
pleadings, the courts have adopted a prisoner mailbox rule. Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob.
& Parole, 683 A.2d 278, 281 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). “Under the prisoner
mailbox rule, a legal document is deemed ‘filed’ on the date it is delivered to the
proper prison authority or deposited in the prison mailbox.” Kittrell v. Watson, 88
A.3d 1091, 1097 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). The prisoner mailbox rule is memorialized in
Rule 121(f) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides:

      A pro se filing submitted by a person incarcerated in a correctional
      facility is deemed filed as of the date of the prison postmark or the date
      the filing was delivered to the prison authorities for purposes of mailing
      as documented by a properly executed prisoner cash slip or other
      reasonably verifiable evidence.

Pa.R.A.P. 121(f).
      The Order from which Jackson seeks to appeal was filed on June 1, 2021.
Therefore, to be timely, Jackson’s appeal had to have been filed by July 1, 2021.
The trial court reasoned Jackson’s appeal was untimely as it was not mailed to the

                                          4
Superior Court until July 12, 2021. Jackson argues he timely filed the Notice of
Appeal and, in support of this argument, attaches a cash slip dated June 21, 2021,
requesting prison officials charge his account for postage and an envelope to mail to
“Prothonotary-Clerk of Court, 310 Grant Street, Ste. 600, The Grant Bldg., Pitt, PA
15219.” (Jackson’s Br. Appendix (App.) E.) This address matches the address on
the envelope contained in the Original Record in which Jackson’s Notice of Appeal
to the Superior Court was contained. (O.R. Item 17.) Under Supreme Court
precedent, a cash slip is one example of what may constitute sufficient evidence to
satisfy an inmate’s burden to invoke the prisoner mailbox rule.2 Commonwealth v.
Jones, 700 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1997). The Court notes the cash slip bears a “HOU
Mailroom” stamp with the date July 12, 2021, (Jackson’s Br. App. E), and there is
no explanation offered as to the delay in processing, except Jackson’s allegations
that he is being subject to retaliation. However, with the cash slip, Jackson includes
an “Inmate’s Request to Staff Member” form dated June 20, 2021, asking that the
cash slip be approved and stressing its time sensitive nature. (Id.) The form includes
a response dated June 22, 2021, stating “This will be processed by the mailroom
today.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
       The Supreme Court explained it is “inclined to accept any reasonably
verifiable evidence of the date that the prisoner deposits the appeal with the prison
authorities.” Jones, 700 A.2d at 426. Notwithstanding the stamp on the cash slip,
this Court is satisfied that Jackson has presented sufficient evidence to meet his
burden. The cash slip and the accompanying request, with a June 22, 2021 response

       2
         Other examples include a Certificate of Mailing from the United States Postal Service, an
affidavit attesting to the date of deposit, and even “evidence of internal operating procedures
regarding mail delivery in both the prison and the Commonwealth Court, and the delivery route of
the mail, to decide the last possible date on which the appellant could have mailed an appeal based
on the date that the prothonotary received it.” Jones, 700 A.2d at 426.

                                                5
indicating it would be processed “today,” constitutes “reasonably verifiable
evidence” that Jackson deposited his appeal with prison authorities in a timely
manner. Id. Although timeliness is a factual issue for which the Court may remand
for an evidentiary hearing, here a remand is not necessary as Appellees, who have
filed a notice of non-participation, are not challenging the timeliness of the appeal
and Jackson’s assertion of timeliness is plausible. See id. at 426 n.3.
       Turning to the merits of Jackson’s appeal, the prisoner mailbox rule is again
implicated. On June 1, 2021, the trial court dismissed Jackson’s Civil Complaint as
frivolous because Jackson had not filed an amended pleading by May 29, 2021, as
directed. Jackson contends he did, and again presents cash slips to support his
argument. Appended to his brief to this Court is a cash slip dated May 24, 2021,
requesting postage for mail to the Clearfield County Prothonotary. (Jackson’s Br.
App. C.) There is a handwritten notation at the bottom of the cash slip stating
“5/27/21 – Not Indigent.” (Id.) The cash slip is accompanied with an “Inmate’s
Request to Staff Member” form dated May 24, 2021, in which Jackson requests
indigent status to mail an “extreme[ly] time[-]sensitiv[e]” item. (Id.) The response,
dated May 27, 2021, at the bottom of the request form stated Jackson was “not
eligible for [i]ndigent status until at least 6/7/21.” (Id.)
       Jackson then attaches another cash slip, dated May 27, 2021, requesting
postage once again for the Clearfield County Prothonotary. (Jackson’s Br. App. D.)
That cash slip indicates $3.00 was deducted for postage on June 1, 2021. (Id.) This
cash slip, similar to the others, is accompanied by an “Inmate’s Request to Staff
Member” form, this one dated May 27, 2021. (Id.) Therein, Jackson indicates he
has sufficient funds in his account and asks that his request be immediately approved
as it involved legal mail and “any delay in the processing of such mail will result in

                                            6
[him] losing the right to proceed.” (Id.) He also indicates “it will be the last day for
filing.” (Id.) The response, dated June 1, 2021, indicates “The cost to mail the
envelope was $3.00 and was deducted for postage.” (Id.) It is noteworthy the
envelope in which Jackson’s Amended Complaint was received bears postage in the
amount of $3.00. (O.R. Item 14.) This evidence raises serious questions as to
whether Jackson’s Amended Complaint was untimely.
      Moreover, in determining the timeliness of Jackson’s Amended Complaint,
the trial court focused on May 29, 2021, as the date his amended pleading was due.
Importantly, May 29, 2021, was a Saturday. Under Rule 106(b) of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs computation of time in civil matters,
“[w]henever the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, or on
any day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United
States, such day shall be omitted from the computation.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 106(b).
Monday, May 31, 2021, was Memorial Day, a legal holiday. Therefore, Jackson’s
Amended Pleading would have been due June 1, 2021. The trial court prematurely
issued an order dismissing Jackson’s appeal on this date, without considering that
Jackson, under the prisoner mailbox rule, had until this date to deposit his Amended
Complaint with prison officials. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s Order.
      As Jackson did not have the opportunity to present any evidence to the trial
court as to the timeliness of his Amended Complaint, we remand for the trial court
to accept evidence and consider the potential applicability of the prisoner mailbox
rule. On remand, when considering evidence of Jackson’s filing of the Amended
Complaint, the trial court should determine whether Jackson presented “reasonably
verifiable evidence” that he deposited the Amended Complaint with the prison
authorities by June 1, 2021. Jones, 700 A.2d at 426 (emphasis added).

                                           7
      In summary, Jackson presented “reasonably verifiable evidence” that satisfies
his burden of showing his appeal of the trial court order was timely under the
prisoner mailbox rule. Jones, 700 A.2d at 426. He also presented evidence which,
if accepted by the trial court as credible, could trigger application of the prisoner
mailbox rule to the filing of his Amended Complaint. For the foregoing reasons, we
vacate the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to resolve factual issues
relevant to the prisoner mailbox rule.

                                         __________________________________________
                                         RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

                                           8
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dante Jackson,                          :
                         Appellant      :
                                        :
                   v.                   :   No. 1163 C.D. 2021
                                        :
Superintendent, Barry Smith;            :
Designated Property Officer 1,          :
John Doe I; Designated Property         :
Officer 2, John Doe II                  :

                                     ORDER

      NOW, April 18, 2023, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield
County (trial court), dated June 1, 2021, is VACATED, and the matter is
REMANDED for the trial court to accept evidence as to the applicability of the
prisoner mailbox rule to the filing of Appellant Dante Jackson’s Amended
Complaint.
      Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                      __________________________________________
                                      RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge