Court Opinion

ID: 9957433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:12:31.819452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:19.604927
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph LoDuca,                        :
                                      :
                         Appellant    :
                                      :
               v.                     : No. 970 C.D. 2022
                                      : Submitted: May 12, 2023
Warden Cooper, Deputy Warden          :
Frampton, Jerry Russo,                :
and Tucker Arensberg                  :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                         FILED: April 4, 2024

            Joseph LoDuca (Inmate), proceeding pro se, appeals from the order of
the Court of Common Pleas of the 17th Judicial District, Snyder County Branch,
(trial court) dated March 9, 2022, that dismissed Inmate’s civil complaint for
improper service of process. After careful review, we affirm.
            The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. Inmate filed a civil
complaint (Complaint) against Snyder County Prison Warden Shawn Cooper,
Deputy Warden Richard Frampton, Jerry Russo, Esq. (Attorney Russo), and the law
firm of Tucker Arensberg (together, Appellees) with this Court on December 6,
2021. Supplemental Reproduced Record (S.R.R.) at 6b-23b.1 Inmate averred that
his detention and sentencing were illegal because Warden Cooper and Deputy
Warden Frampton caused him to be falsely imprisoned, and that they imposed cruel
and unusual punishment on him. Id. Inmate further averred that Attorney Russo
and the law firm of Tucker Arensberg “maliciously failed” to protect his
constitutional rights. Id. Inmate attached to his Complaint a proof of service
indicating that he mailed the Complaint to each Appellee by United States Postal
Service (USPS) first-class mail. Id. at 12b. Inmate also presented a cash slip from
the Snyder County Prison dated December 6, 2021, which lists the names and
addresses of Appellees as further evidence that he mailed the Complaint to each
Appellee. Original Record (O.R.) at Item No. 3.
               On December 10, 2021, this Court issued an order granting Inmate’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis and, upon determining that it lacked
jurisdiction, transferred this matter to the trial court. S.R.R. at 5b. On January 26,
2022, the trial court issued an order directing Inmate to file proof of service
consistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure within 30 days. O.R. at
Item No. 2. The trial court continued Inmate’s in forma pauperis status, and
explicitly noted that “[i]n the event [Inmate] fails to file satisfactory Proof of Service,
the matter will be dismissed.” Id.
               On February 4, 2022, Inmate filed a motion for default judgment, in
which he claimed that Appellees had been served 20 days earlier and failed to

       1
         Pa.R.A.P. 2173 states: “Except as provided in Rule 2174 (tables of contents and citations),
the pages of . . . any supplemental reproduced record . . . shall be numbered separately in Arabic
figures and not in Roman numerals: thus 1, 2, 3, etc. . . . and followed in any supplemental
reproduced record by a small b, thus 1b, 2b, 3b, etc.” Although the pagination of the Supplemental
Reproduced Record does not conform to the foregoing Rule, we will cite to the relevant pages as
required by the Rule.
                                                 2
respond. O.R. at Item No. 3. However, Inmate did not comply with the trial court’s
order to provide proof of service compliant with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and
on March 9, 2022, the trial court dismissed the Complaint for improper service under
Pa.R.Civ.P. 400.2 S.R.R. at 24b. On March 24, 2022, Inmate filed a second motion
for default judgment, alleging that he had properly served Appellees by first-class
mail, they failed to respond, and the relief sought in his Complaint should be granted.
S.R.R. at 25b-28b. Inmate then timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s
March 9, 2022 order with the Superior Court. S.R.R. at 29b-34b. The trial court
entered a scheduling order directing Inmate to file a Statement of Errors Complained
of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (1925(b) Statement) within 21 days.
O.R. at Item No. 8. The trial court advised that any issue not included in Inmate’s
1925(b) Statement “shall be deemed waived.” Id.
               Inmate timely filed his 1925(b) Statement, in which he included seven
issues, all relating to the merits of the legality of his detention and sentencing, but
he failed to include any mention or discussion of the service of the Complaint.
S.R.R. at 35b-38b. On May 10, 2022, the trial court issued its opinion pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). S.R.R. at 39b-40b. The trial court first summarized the relevant
procedural background. Id. As to Inmate’s 1925(b) Statement, the trial court
explained:

               On May 5, 2022, [Inmate] filed a [1925(b) Statement].
               [Inmate] failed to address the service issue in any of the
               [errors] complained of on appeal.             The [1925(b)]
               Statement [c]ites Criminal Procedural Rules and Criminal
               Statutes but fails to address the issue of service of original
               process in a civil matter.

       2
         Pa.R.Civ.P. 400(a) states in relevant part that, subject to limited exceptions not implicated
in this matter, “original process shall be served within the Commonwealth only by the sheriff.”
Pa.R.Civ.P. 400(a).
                                                  3
Id. at 40b. As to the service issue, the trial court held:

               Pa.R.Civ.P. 400 directs that original process shall be
               served within the Commonwealth only by the Sheriff.
               [Inmate] appears to have attempted service by regular
               mail. This form of service is inappropriate for an original
               civil action. The Court gave [Inmate] an opportunity to
               rectify the lack of service[;] however, [Inmate] failed to
               file any proof of service.
Id.
               Inmate appealed the trial court’s order to the Pennsylvania Superior
Court, but the Superior Court transferred Inmate’s appeal to this Court.3 Inmate filed
a brief and reply brief with this Court, and the Court ruled on various requests for
procedural relief filed by Inmate during the appeal. Appellees Warden Cooper and
Deputy Warden Frampton filed a brief, as did Appellees Attorney Russo and Tucker
Arensberg.
               Initially, before considering the issue of service, we must first
determine whether Inmate preserved the issue for appeal. Inmate argues that he did
not address the issue of service in his 1925(b) Statement because he “was not given
any order as to the reason [the trial court] dismissed [Inmate’s] civil action.”
Appellant’s Brief at 12.            Inmate also argues that his 1925(b) Statement
“encompasses all the reasons the trial court should not [have] dismissed the
[Complaint].” Id. at 11. Appellees respond that pro se litigants are subject to the
waiver requirements in Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellees Attorney Russo and Tucker
Arensburg further respond that Inmate’s argument that he was not aware that his
Complaint had been dismissed and he was not given any reason for the dismissal is
belied by the record, where Inmate conceded in his brief to this Court that he learned

       3
        Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have been violated, or
whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Fraisar v. Gillis, 892
A.2d 74, 76 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
                                                4
of the dismissal no later than April 1, 2022, before he filed the instant notice of
appeal. Appellees Attorney Russo and Tucker Arensberg further note that Inmate
attached the trial court docket to his notice of appeal, which specifically includes the
text of the trial court’s January 26, 2022 and March 9, 2022 orders.
             Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) sets forth the requirements for a 1925(b) statement.
When an appeal is filed, the trial court may enter an order directing the appellant to
file a 1925(b) statement, when it desires “clarification of the errors complained of
on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The trial court must allow the appellant at least 21
days to file his 1925(b) statement. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2). The trial court’s order
must contain several specific directives, including the filing deadline and a statement
that “any issue not properly included in the [1925(b)] Statement timely filed and
served . . . shall be deemed waived.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3). Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4),
entitled “Requirements; waiver,” contains additional requirements for 1925(b)
statements, including the specific notice that “[i]ssues not included in the Statement
and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are
waived.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
             As our Supreme Court explained in Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d
306, 309 (Pa. 1998), “in order to preserve their claims for appellate review,
[a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of
[Errors] Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised
in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” Our Supreme Court further
emphasized that it established a “bright-line rule for waiver” in Lord, such that
“waiver under Rule 1925 is automatic.” Commonwealth v. Butler, 812 A.2d 631,
633 (Pa. 2002). Our Supreme Court further noted that although courts may liberally
construe filings by a pro se litigant, “pro se status confers no special benefit upon a

                                           5
litigant, and a court cannot be expected to become a litigant’s counsel or find more
in a written pro se submission than is fairly conveyed in the pleading.”
Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739, 766 (Pa. 2014).
             Here, the record is clear, and Inmate does not dispute, that he did not
address the issue of service in his 1925(b) Statement. S.R.R. at 35b-38b. In its
January 26, 2022 order, the trial court directed Inmate to file proof of service
consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure and explicitly noted that “[i]n the event
[Inmate] fails to file satisfactory Proof of Service, the matter will be dismissed.”
O.R. at Item No. 2. Inmate does not argue that he was unaware of the trial court’s
January 26, 2022 order. Further, Inmate admitted in his brief to this Court that he
was aware of the trial court’s March 9, 2022 order, after speaking with the trial court
Prothonotary on April 1, 2022. Appellant’s Brief at 12. Inmate admits that his
1925(b) Statement encompassed “all the reasons” why the trial court erred in
dismissing his Complaint. Id. at 11. Further, the trial court docket attached to
Inmate’s notice of appeal includes the text of the January 26, 2022 and March 9,
2022 trial court orders. S.R.R. at 29b-34b.
             Therefore, because Inmate failed to address the issue of service in his
1925(b) Statement, he failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, and we must
deem that it has been waived. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Lord, 719 A.2d at 309;
Butler, 812 A.2d at 633. Inmate’s pro se status does not permit us to “find more” in
his 1925(b) Statement than Inmate included. Blakeney, 108 A.3d at 766. Further,
we are unpersuaded by Inmate’s argument that he was unaware of the trial court’s
dismissal of his Complaint for lack of proper service when Inmate’s admissions
suggest otherwise.

                                          6
             Even if it is assumed that Inmate has not waived this claim by failing
to include it in his 1925(b) Statement, we would find no error by the trial court in
dismissing the Complaint based on Inmate’s failure to properly serve Appellees as
required by Pa.R.Civ.P. 400(a). Inmate argues that his service of the Complaint on
Appellees by first-class mail should be sufficient, and that arranging and paying for
service by the sheriff presents a hardship for incarcerated individuals, such as
himself. Appellant’s Brief at 12. Appellees respond Pa.R.Civ.P. 400(a) and 402(a)
together require that a civil complaint, like the Complaint here, must be personally
served by the sheriff, and service of the Complaint by first-class mail does not satisfy
the Rules.
             Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains
jurisdiction of a defendant, and, therefore, the rules concerning service of process
must be strictly followed. Cintas Corp. v. Lee’s Cleaning Services, Inc., 700 A.2d
915, 917 (Pa. 1997). Further, “[t]he granting of a petition to proceed in forma
pauperis does not exempt a person from following the Rules of Civil Procedure
concerning service of process.” Mooney by Mooney v. Borough of West Mifflin, 578
A.2d 1384, 1386 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). A court “must remain neutral and cannot act
as the attorney for pro se litigants or be responsible for bringing a litigant’s suit into
compliance with the rules of civil procedure.” Fraisar v. Gillis, 892 A.2d 74, 76-77
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The burden to comply with all procedural rules lies with the
plaintiff who chose to initiate the suit, pro se. Id. at 77.
             As this Court held in Fraisar:

             Before a court may determine a legal action, it must
             possess both subject-matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction of
             the person. Slezynger v. Bischak, []307 A.2d 405 (Pa.
             Super. 1973). Jurisdiction of subject matter relates to the
             competency of a court to hear and determine controversies

                                            7
               of the general nature of the matter involved, while
               jurisdiction of the person is ordinarily acquired by service
               upon such person of the court’s process within the
               territorial limits of its authority. McGinley v. Scott, [64
               A.2d 424 (Pa. 1960)]. Proper service is a prerequisite to
               a court acquiring personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
               Cintas Corporation[], [700 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1997)], see
               Sharp v. Valley Forge Medical Center & Heart Hospital,
               Inc., [221 A.2d 185 (Pa. 1966)] (Jurisdiction of the court
               over the person of the defendant is dependent upon proper
               service having been made.).

               The rules governing service of original process to ensure
               notice are set forth at Pa.[]R.C[iv.]P. [] 400-430. Rule 400
               designates who may make service; Rule 401 provides for
               time for service; and Rule 402 provides for the manner of
               service. Rule 400 provides that original process shall be
               served within the Commonwealth only by the sheriff with
               limited exceptions, not applicable here. . . . Rule 402
               requires original process to be hand-delivered.
Fraisar, 892 A.2d at 77 (emphasis added).
               Inmate further argues that Appellees were not prejudiced by first-class
mail service, and that his Complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of
proper service. Appellant’s Brief at 1. Our Supreme Court has held that “whether
a court may disregard a litigant’s defective service of process or violation of its order
is vested within the sound discretion of that court.” Konya v. District Attorney of
Northampton County, 669 A.2d 890, 892 (Pa. 1995). This Court will not overturn a
trial court’s rigid application of procedural rules unless the trial court abused its
discretion. Id.; see also Miller v. Klink, 871 A.2d 331, 337 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005);
Williams v. Russell (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1402 C.D. 2019, filed Apr. 13, 2020), slip op.
at 7.4

         4
           See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b)(1)-(2) (“As used in this rule, ‘non-precedential decision’ refers to
. . . an unreported memorandum opinion of the Commonwealth Court filed after January 15, 2008.
[] Non-precedential decisions . . . may be cited for their persuasive value.”).
                                                 8
             In McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888 A.2d 664, 666 n.1 (Pa. 2005),
our Supreme Court provided for limited flexibility for service of process under
certain specific facts, it did “not address the situation where a plaintiff never
complies with the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to service.” However, as this
Court has summarized:

             [In McCreesh,] the plaintiff attempted service by sending
             the writ to the defendant by certified mail, which
             procedurally was not valid. Proper service, by hand
             delivery, was not effected until after the statute of
             limitations had expired. The Supreme Court determined
             that the plaintiff’s technically deficient service by mail
             constituted a good faith effort at notice where the
             defendant had actual notice of the litigation and was not
             otherwise prejudiced. McCreesh. The Court held that
             dismissal is appropriate only if the plaintiff has
             demonstrated an intent to stall the judicial machinery or
             where failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure
             has prejudiced the defendant. Id. The Court reasoned that
             this approach sufficiently protects defendants from
             defending against stale claims without the draconian
             action of dismissing claims based on technical failings that
             do not prejudice the defendant. Id.
Fraisar, 892 A.2d at 78.
             Here, similar to Fraisar, McCreesh is inapplicable to the circumstances
surrounding the service of Inmate’s Complaint, where the statute of limitations is
not at issue, and Inmate was given ample time and several opportunities to properly
serve Appellees in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, and provide proof
of service, which he did not do. Fraisar, 892 A.2d at 78; see also Williams, slip op.
at 7. As the trial court noted, Pa.R.Civ.P. 400 clearly provides for service only by
the sheriff, and Inmate failed to properly serve Appellees using the sheriff. S.R.R.
at 40b. Because service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains
jurisdiction of a defendant, the rules concerning service of process must be strictly
                                          9
followed. Cintas Corp., 700 A.2d at 917. The granting of a petition to proceed in
forma pauperis, or the pro se status of the litigant, does not exempt the individual
from following the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning service of process. Mooney,
578 A.2d at 1386.5
                Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

                                              MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

      5
          Because of our disposition, we need not reach the other issues raised by Inmate.
                                                10
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph LoDuca,                       :
                                     :
                        Appellant    :
                                     :
              v.                     : No. 970 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Warden Cooper, Deputy Warden         :
Frampton, Jerry Russo,               :
and Tucker Arensberg                 :

                                    ORDER

            AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2024, the Order of the Court of
Common Pleas of the 17th Judicial District, Snyder County Branch, dated March 9,
2022, is AFFIRMED.

                                     MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge