Gabel, M. v. Johnson, P.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 1, 2023
• Docket: 850 MDA 2022
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A04021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MELISSA GABEL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : PAUL JOHNSON : : Appellant : No. 850 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered April 20, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Civil Division at No(s): FC-2017-21461-AB

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: FEBRUARY 1, 2023

Appellant, Paul Johnson, appeals from the April 20, 2022 order entered

in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas amending and extending a

protection from abuse order. Upon review, we dismiss this appeal.

A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our

disposition. Appellant’s pro se Brief fails to comply with the briefing

requirements set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 2111-2140 and we are, therefore, unable

to conduct meaningful appellate review.

Appellate briefs must materially conform to the requirements of the

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, and this Court may quash or

dismiss an appeal if the defect in the brief is substantial. Commonwealth v.

Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005); Pa.R.A.P. 2101. In

particular, “[w]hen the omission of the statement of questions [involved] is

combined with the lack of any organized and developed arguments, it J-A04021-23

becomes clear that appellant’s brief is insufficient to allow us to conduct

meaningful judicial review.” Smathers v. Smathers, 670 A.2d 1159, 1160

(Pa. Super. 1996). “[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). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent

himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his

lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Adams, 882 A.2d at

498.

It is axiomatic that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be

developed with citation to the record and relevant authority. Pa.R.A.P

2119(a)-(c). This Court will address only those issues properly presented and

developed in an appellant’s brief as required by our rules of appellate

procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. As this Court has made clear, we “will not act as

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

“We 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, in his five-page brief, Appellant fails to include a statement of

jurisdiction, the text of the order or other determination in question, a

statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions

involved, a statement of the case, and a summary of the argument. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1)-(6). Appellant has also failed to append a copy of his

-2- J-A04021-23

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement to the brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(d). The

omission of a statement of questions involved is “particularly grievous since

the statement of questions involved defines the specific issues this Court is

asked to review.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa.

Super. 1993).

Instead, Appellant has divided his Brief into four numbered sections in

each of which he responds to one of four points addressed by the trial court

in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, and in those sections, Appellant cites once to

undated notes of testimony and to one United States Supreme Court case for

the proposition that courts must liberally construe pro se filings. See

Appellant’s Brief at 4; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119 (a) (requiring discussion and

citation of authorities that are deemed pertinent to an appellant’s argument).

These substantial omissions preclude meaningful appellate review.

Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

Appeal dismissed. Case stricken from argument list.1

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 02/01/2023

____________________________________________

1In light of our disposition, we deny as moot the request of Appellee, Melissa Gabel, to be excused from argument.

-3- J-A04021-23

-4-