Court Refers To Required Liberal Construction of Rules in Relieving Pro Se Plaintiff From a Judgment Non Pros

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Morrison v. Pennsylvania State Police, No. 182 C.D. 2024 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 9, 2025 Covey, J., Fizzano Cannon, J., and Wallis, J.) (Op. by Covey, J.) (Op. not reported), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that a trial court’s failure to send a Notice of Judgment Non Pros to Plaintiff’s correct address warranted a liberal application of the Rules of Procedure to allow the Plaintiff to amend his Motion to Strike the Judgment of Non Pros in order to allow the Plaintiff to comply with the rules’ requirements.

Based upon this ruling, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s Order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This matter involved a pro se prisoner Plaintiff.

In so ruling, the appellate court also referred to the liberal construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure that is required by Pa.R.C.P. 126.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Dec. 23, 2025).

Pro Se Plaintiff Allowed Right To Amend Claims

In the case of Raynor v. Comcast Corp., No. 24-1842 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2024 Kearney, J.), the court addressed jurisdictional issues in a case filed by a pro se Virginia citizen who recently came to believe that he is God.

The Plaintiff swore that the 1998 film The Price of Egypt was the story of his life and that movie producers made the film without his permission. The Plaintiff sued Comcast Corporation and a movie studio under civil rights, copyright infringement and right to privacy claims.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint was deficient in many respects but allowed the Plaintiff leave of court to attempt an Amended Complaint to pled a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that, if the Plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim under civil rights law, more facts were required.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Walt McClatchy of the Philadelphia law firm of McClatchy Law for bringing this case to my attention.

Third Circuit Rules that Federal Tort Claims Act Does Not Incorporate Certificate of Merit Requirements

In the case of Wilson v. U.S., No. 22-1940 (3d Cir. Aug. 21 2023 Chagares, C.J., Bibas, J., and Matey, J.) (Op. by Chagares, C.J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court erred in granting summary judgment to the government based upon the failure of a pro se prisoner to produce an expert report in a medical malpractice action.

The court ruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not incorporate the Certificate of Merit requirement found under Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3.

The appellate court also noted that the pro se prisoner Plaintiff did not otherwise have an adequate opportunity to seek out an expert or to conduct discovery due to his circumstances as an inmate during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 21, 2023).