Ralph Roman v. John E. Wetzel, Tabb Bickell, Michael Wenerowicz, Trevor Wingard, Michael D. Overmyer, and the Department of Corrections

Roman · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · October 26, 2022 · No. No. 1883 C.D. 2019

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court’s denial of Ralph Roman’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The court held that the denial was based on an insufficient number of qualifying prior dismissals, deemed Roman’s appeal timely under the prisoner mailbox rule, and returned the matter to the trial court for consideration of the underlying civil complaint.

Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Ellen Ceisler; Anne E. Covey; Lori A. Dumas
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Decision date
October 26, 2022
Docket number
No. 1883 C.D. 2019
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of the Thirty-Seventh Judicial District, Forest County Branch, denying a prisoner's petition to proceed in forma pauperis under the Pennsylvania Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Ralph Roman v. John E. Wetzel, Tabb Bickell, Michael Wenerowicz, Trevor Wingard, Michael D. Overmyer, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

appellate procedureprisoners rightscivil procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate procedureprisoner litigationcivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court properly denied Roman's petition to proceed in forma pauperis under the PLRA's three-strikes rule.
  2. Whether Roman's notice of appeal was timely under the prisoner mailbox rule despite being sent directly to the Commonwealth Court rather than the trial court clerk.
  3. Whether the matter should be returned to the trial court for adjudication of the underlying complaint.

Holdings

  1. The trial court erred in denying Roman's petition under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f)(1) because the record identified fewer than the three qualifying prior dismissals required by the PLRA.
  2. Roman's notice of appeal was timely because it was mailed from prison on November 25, 2019, exactly 30 days after the docket entry of the trial court's order.
  3. The matter was returned to the trial court to address the merits of the civil complaint, and Roman's separate motion for remand was dismissed as moot.

Key quotations

In ordinary circumstances, we would require Appellant to show proof of the date of mailing in order to consider the filing timely. (at 4)
The notice of appeal is therefore deemed filed on that date, which is exactly 30 days following the entry of the Trial Court’s order on the docket. (at 5)

Factual background

Roman was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale when the Department of Corrections announced that inmates could no longer retain Timberland or Rocky boots after May 11, 2018. Roman had purchased two pairs of the boots through the prison commissary and did not arrange to send them elsewhere by the deadline, so prison staff confiscated them. He later filed a civil complaint alleging constitutional, state-law, and Department-policy violations and seeking compensation and other damages.

Procedural history

Roman filed a civil complaint concerning the confiscation of two pairs of boots and simultaneously petitioned to proceed in forma pauperis. The trial court denied the petition under the PLRA's three-strikes provision, later acknowledging that the denial was erroneous and alternatively asserting that the complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a claim. Roman appealed, and the Commonwealth Court held that the appeal was timely under the prisoner mailbox rule. The court reversed the denial of in forma pauperis status, dismissed the remand motion as moot, and returned the matter to the trial court to address the merits of the complaint.

Remand instructions

The matter is returned to the Court of Common Pleas of the Thirty-Seventh Judicial District, Forest County Branch, to address the merits of Roman's civil complaint. The separate motion for remand is dismissed as moot, and appellate jurisdiction is relinquished.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…