Alexander, C. v. Delaware Cnty Bd of Elect.

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 49 MM 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: CHARLES ALEXANDER, PRO SE, : No. 49 MM 2025 AND CARRIS KOCHER, PRO SE, : GREGORY STENSTROM, PRO SE, AND : JOHN PROCTOR CHILD, : : Petitioners : : : v. : : : DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF : ELECTIONS, ET AL., : : Respondents :

ORDER

PER CURIAM FILED: May 1, 2025

Pro se applicant Gregory Stenstrom challenges this Court’s earlier per curiam

order in which we summarily denied the emergency petition for relief in an election matter

filed by applicant and three co-petitioners. See Order, 49 MM 2025, 4/22/25. He argues

our order is invalid and ultra vires because it was neither signed by a Justice of this Court

nor accompanied by an explanation or opinion. Applicant presumes this means the

Prothonotary’s Office, which stamped and signed our order to certify it as “a true copy,”

improperly delegated to itself the authority to deny the petition on our behalf. This

regularly recurring argument is frivolous, and we take this opportunity to explain why this

is so, for the benefit of the bench, bar, and, perhaps most importantly, pro se litigants who

raise the claim most often. The heart of the problem is applicant’s basic misunderstanding of the nature and

effect of a per curiam ruling. “Per curiam” is a Latin phrase that literally translates to “by

the court.” A per curiam decision is unsigned because, as its translation suggests, it is

intended to be institutional rather than individual — it is attributable to the court as an

entity, not any single jurist. In short, when an appellate court in this Commonwealth rules

per curiam, whether in the form of an order or an opinion, that necessarily means it is

“attributed to the entire panel of judges who” considered the matter, even though it is “not

signed by any particular judge on the panel.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024)

(“per curiam”). 1

The ability to issue a ruling per curiam is a critical tool for any appellate court and

serves many ends, not least of which is judicial efficiency. But the critical point is that a

per curiam decision, though unsigned, still represents the collective judgment of the whole

appellate body. Consider our own publicly codified Internal Operating Procedures (IOPs).

See 210 Pa. Code §§63.1-63.13. They explain that to act on a petition like the one we

previously denied in this matter, “[a] vote of the majority [of the participating Justices] is

required to implement the proposed disposition.” 210 Pa. Code §63.7(B). This confirms

that, unless otherwise indicated, 2 every Justice on this Court carefully considers and

1 Of course, individual jurists may concur with and/or dissent from per curiam decisions

to the same extent as signed decisions. See, e.g., infra note 2. 2 See, e.g., 210 Pa. Code §63.5(B) (“All orders resolving a non-capital direct appeal shall

indicate if a Justice did not participate in the consideration or decision of the matter.”; “A Justice may request that the order record that he or she voted for a different disposition.”); id. at §63.7(B) (“Orders disposing of motions, petitions and applications shall indicate if a Justice did not participate in the consideration or decision of the matter.”; “A Justice may request that the order record that he or she voted for a different disposition.”); cf. id. at §63.7(D) (a single Justice under his or her own signature “may entertain and may grant or deny any request for relief which may under Pa.R.A.P. 123 or 3315 properly be sought by motion, except that a single Justice may not dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or other proceeding”).

[49 MM 2025] - 2 passes upon every matter resolved by way of per curiam order issued by this Court. 3 See

Tilghman, 673 A.2d at 904 (“a per curiam order . . . signifies this Court’s” decision)

(emphasis added). Indeed, that is exactly what occurred here.

This leads to our second clarification, relating to the Office of the Prothonotary.

Rule of Appellate Procedure 3112 establishes an “Office of the Prothonotary” for each of

this Commonwealth’s appellate courts. Pa.R.A.P. 3112. By rule, each appellate court

shall appoint a clerk of the court, known as the “Prothonotary,” who “shall serve at the

pleasure of the court.” Pa.R.A.P. 3111. These appellate Prothonotaries, as well as their

deputies and other duly authorized personnel and agents, are authorized to “exercise the

power and perform the duties by law vested in and imposed upon” them and their offices,

see Pa.R.A.P. 3112, including those established by this Court’s rules and IOPs. For

example, this Court’s Prothonotary is empowered by rule to “dispose of motions relating

to the preparation, printing and filing of appendix and briefs and those motions generally

relating to calendar control, along with the authority to recommend the appropriate

sanction for the violation of any applicable rule or order.” Pa.R.A.P. 3305. Our IOPs

similarly provide that “[p]rocedural motions (e.g., first requests for extension of time for

not more than thirty days, requests to exceed page limits, and requests to proceed in

forma pauperis) may be resolved by the Prothonotary without further action of the Court.”

210 Pa. Code §63.7(A).

Most relevant here, where applicant challenges the validity of our prior per curiam

denial of the emergency petition for relief filed on our miscellaneous docket, is Section 7

of this Court’s IOPs. See 210 Pa. Code §63.7. That IOP sets forth the Prothonotary’s

3 For a fuller discussion on the use by appellate courts of per curiam orders and opinions

to dispose of appeals (as opposed to motions, petitions, applications, and the like), including per curiam affirmances, reversals, and dismissals as improvidently granted, see Commonwealth v. Tilghman, 673 A.2d 898 (Pa. 1996).

[49 MM 2025] - 3 duties with respect to docketing and assigning motions, miscellaneous petitions, and

applications for relief. As the IOP details, after docketing such a filing, the Prothonotary’s

role is limited to assigning the matter within the Court. See id. at §63.7(B). The IOP

makes clear, however, that it is this Court, and this Court alone, that ultimately acts on

any such filing. Again, it takes “[a] vote of the majority” of the participating Justices “to

implement the proposed disposition.” Id. The Prothonotary and its employees take no

part in those decisions, and they are not the authors of this Court’s per curiam orders.

When an employee of the Prothonotary’s Office stamps or signs an order issued by this

Court as “a true copy,” it is not intended to convey that the Office or employee unilaterally

decided the matter in the Court’s stead. On the contrary, it is a verification that the order

is, indeed, a true copy of this Court’s decision. Such certifications are not substantive

or related to the merits of the filing in any way; they are merely a byproduct of the

Prothonotary’s ministerial duties to maintain adequate records. See, e.g., Pa.R.A.P. 3113

(“The prothonotary shall keep, in conformity with law, a docket of matters pending and

decided in the court, and such other records as may be required by law or necessary for

the operation of the court.”).

Because it is clear applicant’s challenge to our prior per curiam order is entirely

frivolous, we DENY the Emergency Application for Relief to Strike Unlawful Per Curiam

Denial. The Emergency Application for Reconsideration and Clarification of Per Curiam

Denial is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 4

4 Further frivolous filings with this Court may result in filing restrictions or other sanctions.

[49 MM 2025] - 4