Pelletier, R. v. Sickler, K.

Opinions

J-A19017-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

ROSILIS PELLETIER : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : KATHLEEN SICKLER : No. 3092 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered November 6, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s): 002403-CV-2025

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 22, 2026

Appellant, Rosilis Pelletier, appeals pro se from the November 6, 2025

order that sustained the preliminary objections filed by Appellee, Kathleen

Sickler, and dismissed Appellant’s second amended complaint with prejudice.

Upon review, we dismiss this appeal due to the substantial defects in

Appellant’s pro se brief to this Court.

A detailed factual and procedural history is unnecessary to our

disposition. Briefly, the parties—next-door neighbors—are in a dispute over a

missing package. In April 2024, Appellee was expecting a package delivery

from UPS, believed that the package had been mistakenly delivered to

Appellant’s home, and eventually contacted police regarding the matter. The

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A19017-26

Pocono Township Police Department filed criminal charges against Appellant

which the Commonwealth ultimately nolle prossed.

On April 11, 2025, Appellant filed a complaint against Appellee, which

she later amended to allege a single count of defamation (slander per se).

After the trial court sustained in part Appellee’s preliminary objections and

granted leave to amend, Appellant filed a second amended complaint

asserting four causes of action against Appellee. Appellee again filed

preliminary objections which, on November 6, 2025, the trial court sustained,

finding the second amended complaint to be both insufficiently specific and

legally insufficient. The court, thus, dismissed the matter with prejudice

because Appellant already had the opportunity to amend her complaint. This

timely appeal followed.

As stated above, the brief that Appellant has submitted to this Court

fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. It is

axiomatic that 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.

Although this Court liberally construes materials filed by pro se litigants, this

does not entitle a pro se litigant to any advantage based on his lack of legal

training. Satiro v. Maninno, 237 A.3d 1145, 1151 (Pa. Super. 2020). An

appellant’s pro se status does not relieve her of the obligation to follow the

-2- J-A19017-26

Rules of Appellate Procedure. Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213

n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008).

“The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each

question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of

pertinent authority.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 232 A.3d 801, 811 (Pa.

Super. 2020) (citation and bracketed language omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 2111

(listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs) and 2119 (listing argument

requirements for appellate briefs). “When issues are not properly raised and

developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific

issues for review, a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch

Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski, 904 A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(citation omitted). Rule 2119 clearly states 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). As this Court has made clear, we “will not

act as counsel[.]” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super.

2010) (citation omitted). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant,

nor shall we scour the record to find evidence to support an argument;

instead, we will deem [the] issue[s] to be waived.” Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d

1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018).

As an initial matter, Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of

the questions involved as required by Rule 2111(a)(4) and Rule 2116(a),

which results in waiver of any issues Appellant wishes to raise on appeal. See

Pa.R.A.P. 2111 (listing briefing requirements for appellate briefs); Pa.R.A.P.

-3- J-A19017-26

2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement

of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby”).

Moreover, Appellant’s argument is substantially underdeveloped.

Although Appellant has referenced in her brief the names of cases upon which

she purports to rely, she has failed to apply the holdings of those cases to the

facts of this case in a meaningful and coherent manner as required by our

Rules of Appellate Procedure and case law. In addition, Appellant purports to

challenge the trial court’s order sustaining preliminary objections for

insufficient specificity in a pleading pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) and legal

insufficiency of a pleading pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4); however, she

has failed to specify the causes of action she raised in the complaint, the

elements of each cause of action are, and the facts she pleaded in support of

those causes of action. We cannot analyze whether the complaint was

insufficiently specific or legally insufficient without this information. Her

failure to provide any statutory language, context, legal framework, or

authority to develop and support her argument not only violates our briefing

requirements, but more importantly, precludes this Court from effectuating

meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss this

appeal.

Appeal dismissed. The prothonotary is directed to strike this case from

the August 11, 2026 argument list in Philadelphia.

Judge Olson files a Concurring Statement.

-4- J-A19017-26

Date: 7/22/2026

-5-