The Supreme Courts' precedent set forth in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) dictates that a document is considered filed with the court at the time a prisoner hands it over to prison officials for purpose of mailing. Does the state Supreme Courts' decision to deny Vasquers' petition for Allowance of Appeal "Nunc Pro Tunc" conflict with the high courts' precedent?

Both U.S. and state constitution entitle legally interested parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a fair tribunal. Vasquez was given (30) days to contest Defendant's motion to dismiss. But the trial court immediately dismissed his complaint sua sponte upon review of its former , president judges' incorrect authority. If the "resolved" aspect of the matter can be shown to be legally flawed, should Vasquez be entitled to a remand?

In Pennsylvania, courts shall be opened and its citizens entitled to seek redress for injuries and wrongs done upon them. The trial courts' abuse of discretion dismissed Vasquers' complaint sua sponte, but Vasquez was not barred from litigating his case. As the plaintiff, Vasquez also had a fundamental interest in the proceedings. Did the trial court abridge Vasquers' substantive rights?

Whether the state Supreme Court's decision to deny Vasquez's petition for Allowance of Appeal 'Nunc Pro Tunc' conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedent in Houston v. Lack