Temple, D. v. Johnson, S. ( 2019 )

J-S18014-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DION TEMPLE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
SHADEEN JOHNSON : No. 2075 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Dated November 15, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Civil Division at No(s):
2018-FC-002120-23
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: APRIL 30, 2019
Dion Temple appeals pro se from the November 15, 2018 order
transferring this action contesting paternity to Philadelphia County. We
dismiss the appeal.
We gather from the trial court’s opinion and order of November 15,
2018, that Mr. Temple filed the instant action in York County seeking to
contest his paternity as to a child born in 2002 and for which a support order
was litigated in Philadelphia County in which Mr. Temple executed an
acknowledgment of paternity in 2007. The court determined that Philadelphia
County was thus the proper venue for the action.
Mr. Temple filed a notice of appeal to the Commonwealth Court, which
transferred the case to this Court. Mr. Temple’s brief in support of his appeal
is as follows in its entirety, verbatim:
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S18014-19
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, of
Pennsylvania dismissal of Plaintiff Dion Temple wrongful
transfer/Jurisdiction to Philadelphia, PA. Petitioner is a resident of
York County for 2 years. November 2, 2018, the Court of Common
Pleas Stipulated of no contest to petitioner's Informa Pauperis
Petition. Opinion and order transferring case to Improper Venue
is true and correct. Under the caption Improper Venue is in big
bold lettering and can’t be denied or over looked. Order October
19, 2019 does not cite any law or statues nor was there a hearing,
nor did Judge Michael W. Flanney give petitioner notice of right to
appeal. Petitioner took it upon himself to check the status of
petition by calling the Court of Common Pleas and put on notice
that petition was denied. There are NO transcripts of such
hearing.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Most of the facts regarding the history of Petitioners issues are
undisputed, and significant.
Mr. Temple’s brief at 1.1
“[A]lthough 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 the Pennsylvania Rules of the
Court.” Commonwealth v. Freeland, 106 A.3d 768, 776 (Pa.Super. 2014)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Any layperson choosing to represent
himself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the
____________________________________________
1 Appellee Shadeen Jones has not filed a brief. It is unclear whether she is
aware of this appeal, as all correspondence mailed to her at the address
provided by Mr. Temple in his proof of service was returned as undeliverable,
and this Court’s prothonotary was unable to discover a valid address for her.
-2-
J-S18014-19
risk that his lack of expertise and legal training will prove his undoing.”
Commonwealth v. Gray, 608 A.2d 534, 550 (Pa.Super. 1992) (cleaned up).
Mr. Temple’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented
as required by Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4). His brief also is in violation of Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(1) (requiring a statement of jurisdiction); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3)
(requiring a statement of the scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P.
2111(a)(6) (requiring a summary of argument); and Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(8)
(requiring an argument section). The brief further is devoid of citations to the
record or to any legal authority as are required by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c) and (b),
respectively.
Mr. Temple’s complete disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure
has left this Court unable to conduct meaningful review. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Sanford, 445 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa.Super. 1982) (declining
to address merits of appeal because the brief was “so defective as to preclude
effective, appellate review”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without
considering its merits. See Pa.R.A.P. 1911(d) (“If the appellant fails to take
the action required by these rules and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial
Administration for the preparation of the transcript, the appellate court may
take such action as it deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the
appeal.”); 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.”).
-3-
J-S18014-19
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date:4/30/2019
-4-