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

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

AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2025, the Emergency Application for

Reconsideration is DENIED.

Applicant Gregory Stenstrom is ORDERED to refrain from presenting to this Court

any further filings at or otherwise concerning this Miscellaneous Docket matter. See

Alexander v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, ___ A.3d ___, 2025 WL 1257477, at *2 n.4

(Pa. 2025) (per curiam) (advising applicant that “[f]urther frivolous filings with this Court

may result in filing restrictions or other sanctions”); see also Coulter v. Lindsay, 159 A.3d

947, 956 (Pa. Super. 2017) (per curiam) (“the extraordinary measure of issuing a filing

injunction at the appellate level” is justified when a pro se litigant engages in frivolous or

vexatious conduct); Winpenny v. Winpenny, 643 A.2d 677, 679 (Pa. Super. 1994) (“Abuse

of the court system, whether by seasoned attorneys or by pro se parties, cannot be

tolerated.”). Violations of this Order may result in further action by this Court, including the imposition of sanctions. Cf. Pa.R.A.P. 3305 (in delineating the Prothonotary’s

authority, recognizing this Court’s power to impose sanctions for failure to comply with

the Rules of Appellate Procedure); Pa.R.A.P. 2744 (“an appellate court may award as

further costs damages as may be just . . . if it determines that an appeal is frivolous or

taken solely for delay or that the conduct of the participant against whom costs are to be

imposed is dilatory, obdurate or vexatious”).

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to refuse any further submissions from applicant

at or otherwise concerning this Miscellaneous Docket matter.

[49 MM 2025] - 2