NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

MICHAEL F. KISSELL       

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

             

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

 

Appellant 

 

 

v. 

ppellant, Michael F. Kissell, filed an appeal pro se from the May 6, 2022 

  A

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.:  

 

FILED:  March 23, 2023 

EFORE:   STABILE, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* 

order  entered  in  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  Westmoreland  County  that 

sustained preliminary objections of Appellee, Christopher P. Skatell, based on 

improper service of a complaint and in the nature of a demurrer, and dismissed 

Appellant’s complaint with prejudice.  Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss 

the  appeal  pursuant  to  Pa.R.A.P.  1972(a)(5)  for  failure  to  preserve  the 

question below, and pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2101 for failure to comply with the 

rules  of  appellate  procedure  with  regard  to  matters  to  be  included  in  an 

appellant’s  brief,  including  Pa.R.A.P.  2111(a)(1)  (statement  of  jurisdiction); 

Pa.R.A.P.  2111(a)(2)  (order  or  determination  in  question);  Pa.R.A.P. 

HRISTOPHER P. SKATELL 

 No. 567 WDA 2022 

Appeal from the Order Entered May 6, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County  
Civil Division at No:  3940 of 2020 

J-A08005-23  

____________________________________________ 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

   

     

    C

 

 

  B

  

J-A08005-23 

2111(a)(3) (scope and standard of review); Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4) (statement 

of  questions  involved);  Pa.R.A.P.  2111(a)(6)  (summary  of  argument);  and 

Pa.R.A.P.  2111(a)(9)  (conclusion  stating  precise  relief  sought).    Appellee 

further  cites  Appellant’s  failure  to  file  a  reproduced  record  as  required  by 

Pa.R.A.P.  2186(a)(1)  in  support  of  dismissal  pursuant  to  Pa.R.A.P.  2188.  

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, 3/1/23, at ¶¶ 1-9.     

 

Appellant  filed  a  “Response  to  Skatell  Dismissal”  on  the  same  day, 

contending that Appellee “now wants to deceive the Honorable Superior Court 

using the Rules of the Court he has declared.”  Appellant’s Response, 3/1/23, 

at 1.  Appellant did not address, and did not correct, any of the deficiencies 

identified by Appellee.   

“This  Court  may  quash  or  dismiss  an  appeal  if  the  appellant  fails  to 

conform to the requirements set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.”    Commonwealth  v.  Adams,  882  A.23d  496,  497  (Pa.  Super. 

2005) (citing Pa.R.A.P. 2101).  “[T]he omission of a statement of questions 

presented is ‘particularly grievous since the statement . . . defines the specific 

issues  this  court  is  asked  to  review.’”    Smathers  v.  Smathers,  670  A.2d 

1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 1996) (quoting Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 

1014,  1016  (Pa.  Super.  1993)).    “When  the  omission  of  the  statement  of 

questions presented is combined with the lack of any organized and developed 

arguments, it becomes clear that appellant’s brief is insufficient to allow us to 

conduct meaningful judicial review.”  Id.    

- 2 - 

 

As this Court stated in Smithson v. Columbia Gas of PA/NiSource, 

264 A.3d 755 (Pa. Super. 2021):  

“[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).  “[A] pro se litigant must comply 
with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the 
Court.”   Commonwealth v. Freeland,  106  A.3d  768,  776  (Pa. 
Super.  2014)  (quoting  Lyons,  833  A.2d  at  252).   “[A]ny 
layperson  choosing  to  represent  himself  [or  herself]  in  a  legal 
proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that 
his [or her] lack of expertise and legal training will prove his [or 
her] undoing.”  Commonwealth v. Gray, 415 Pa. Super. 77, 608 
A.2d 545, 550 (1992) (citation omitted).    
 

Id.  at  760.    Further,  this  Court  has  clearly  stated  that  we  “will  not  act  as 

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

Moreover, “[w]e 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, as in Smithson, 

to 

Appellant’s disregard for the Rules of Appellate Procedure has left 
this  Court  without 
conduct  effective 
the  ability 
review.   See [Branch  Banking  and  Trust  v.  Gesiorski,  904 
A.2d 939, 942-43 (Pa. Super. 2006)] (declining to consider merits 
due to brief that was “wholly inadequate to present specific issues 
for  review”).    Accordingly,  we  dismiss  this  appeal  without 
consideration  of  the  merits  of  Appellant’s  issues.   See Pa.R.A.P. 
2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief or reproduced record of the 
appellant  and  are  substantial,  the  appeal  or  other  matter  may 
be . . . dismissed.”). 

mithson, 264 A.3d at 761.  

   
 

  S

 

J-A08005-23 

- 3 - 

J-A08005-23 

 

Because the defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial, such that this 

Court is not able to conduct any meaningful review, we shall grant Appellee’s 

Motion to Dismiss.   

Motion to Dismiss granted.  Appeal dismissed. 

- 4 - 

Judgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate:  3/23/2023 

 

 

    J

  D