Court Opinion

ID: 9381727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 16:08:10.06249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.228602
License: Public Domain

J-A08005-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    MICHAEL F. KISSELL                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    CHRISTOPHER P. SKATELL                     :   No. 567 WDA 2022

                   Appeal from the Order Entered May 6, 2022
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County
                       Civil Division at No: 3940 of 2020

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.:                       FILED: March 23, 2023

        Appellant, Michael F. Kissell, filed an appeal pro se from the May 6, 2022

order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County that

sustained preliminary objections of Appellee, Christopher P. Skatell, based on

improper service of a complaint and in the nature of a demurrer, and dismissed

Appellant’s complaint with prejudice. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss

the appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1972(a)(5) for failure to preserve the

question below, and pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101 for failure to comply with the

rules of appellate procedure with regard to matters to be included in an

appellant’s brief, including Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1) (statement of jurisdiction);

Pa.R.A.P.    2111(a)(2)     (order    or   determination   in   question);   Pa.R.A.P.

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A08005-23

2111(a)(3) (scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) (statement

of questions involved); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(6) (summary of argument); and

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(9) (conclusion stating precise relief sought).        Appellee

further cites Appellant’s failure to file a reproduced record as required by

Pa.R.A.P. 2186(a)(1) in support of dismissal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2188.

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, 3/1/23, at ¶¶ 1-9.

      Appellant filed a “Response to Skatell Dismissal” on the same day,

contending that Appellee “now wants to deceive the Honorable Superior Court

using the Rules of the Court he has declared.” Appellant’s Response, 3/1/23,

at 1. Appellant did not address, and did not correct, any of the deficiencies

identified by Appellee.

      “This Court may quash or dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to

conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate

Procedure.”   Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.23d 496, 497 (Pa. Super.

2005) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2101). “[T]he omission of a statement of questions

presented is ‘particularly grievous since the statement . . . defines the specific

issues this court is asked to review.’”     Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d

1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996) (quoting Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d

1014, 1016 (Pa. Super. 1993)).       “When the omission of the statement of

questions presented is combined with the lack of any organized and developed

arguments, it becomes clear that appellant’s brief is insufficient to allow us to

conduct meaningful judicial review.” Id.

                                      -2-
J-A08005-23

     As this Court stated in Smithson v. Columbia Gas of PA/NiSource,

264 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. 2021):

     “[A]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed
     by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
     benefit upon an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Lyons, 833 A.2d
     245, 251-52 (Pa. Super. 2003). “[A] pro se litigant must comply
     with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the
     Court.” Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa.
     Super. 2014) (quoting Lyons, 833 A.2d at 252). “[A]ny
     layperson choosing to represent himself [or herself] in a legal
     proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that
     his [or her] lack of expertise and legal training will prove his [or
     her] undoing.” Commonwealth v. Gray, 415 Pa. Super. 77, 608
     A.2d 545, 550 (1992) (citation omitted).

Id. at 760. Further, this Court has clearly stated that we “will not act as

counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007).

Moreover, “[w]e shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor shall we

scour the record to find evidence to support an argument[.]”      Milby v. Pote,

189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).

     Here, as in Smithson,

     Appellant’s disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure has left
     this    Court   without    the    ability   to   conduct   effective
     review. See [Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904
     A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006)] (declining to consider merits
     due to brief that was “wholly inadequate to present specific issues
     for review”).     Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without
     consideration of the merits of Appellant’s issues. 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.”).

Smithson, 264 A.3d at 761.

                                      -3-
J-A08005-23

     Because the defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial, such that this

Court is not able to conduct any meaningful review, we shall grant Appellee’s

Motion to Dismiss.

     Motion to Dismiss granted. Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/23/2023

                                    -4-