Case Title: Ward v. Hennessey, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 352, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JOHN A. WARD,                      
           
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
MELVIN HENNESSEY, MIKE 
DELOY and ROBERT SMITH, 
     
 
 
     
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 352, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for New Castle County  
   C.A. No. 03C-10-264 
                      
 
Submitted: April 1, 2005  
   Decided: May 24, 2005    
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 24th day of May 2005, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, John A. Ward, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s July 19, 2004 order granting the motion for summary judgment of 
defendants-appellees, Melvin Hennessey, Mike Deloy and Robert Smith, all 
officers with the Department of Correction (“DOC”) (collectively, the “DOC 
defendants”).  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In September 2001, Lieutenant Smith and another correctional officer 
conducted a “shakedown” of the Pre-Release Community Room at the Sussex 
 
 
-2-
Correctional Institute, Georgetown, Delaware (“SCI”), where Ward and another 
inmate were working.  The officers confiscated several computer disks, which they 
suspected were being used in an illegal gambling operation.  Ward and the other 
inmate were charged with disciplinary violations and were transferred to the 
Segregated Detention Area of SCI pending an investigation.  At a disciplinary 
hearing in October 2001, Staff Lieutenant Hennessy found that Ward had 
committed the charged violations and imposed a sanction of 10 days in disciplinary 
segregation.  Deputy Warden Deloy affirmed Hennessy’s decision on appeal. 
 
(3) 
On October 30, 2003, Ward filed a civil complaint in the Superior 
Court alleging that the DOC defendants had violated his Eighth and Fourteenth 
Amendment rights by not providing him with a fair disciplinary hearing and by 
imposing a sanction that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.  Along with 
the complaint, Ward also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting the 
Superior Court to compel the DOC to remove the disciplinary reports from Ward’s 
inmate file, a memorandum in support of the petition for a writ of mandamus, and 
an appendix.1  At the time of filing, the Prothonotary separated the civil complaint 
                                                 
1 The front of the appendix contained language stating, “This is the petitioner’s appendix of 
exhibits filed in support of his petition for a writ of mandamus and memorandum submitted 
August, 2003.”  The appendix contained Ward’s affidavit and the affidavit of the other inmate 
involved in the incident. 
 
 
-3-
from the petition for a writ of mandamus, the memorandum and the appendix and 
assigned the two matters to two different Superior Court judges for decision.2   
 
(4) 
 In response to the civil complaint, the DOC defendants filed a motion 
to dismiss, which included the affidavit of Lieutenant Smith.  Ward does not 
dispute that he was properly served with the motion to dismiss.  On June 1, 2004, 
the Superior Court judge directed Ward to respond to the DOC defendants’ motion 
and advised the parties that the motion would be heard on July 19, 2004, in a 
courtroom.  Ward submitted a response to the motion, which was filed on June 14, 
2004.  There were no affidavits attached to the response.   
 
(5) 
On July 19, 2004, a hearing was held in the Superior Court on the 
DOC defendants’ motion to dismiss.  At that time, the judge advised the parties 
that the motion would be treated as a motion for summary judgment because of the 
affidavit attached to the motion.3  After citing the legal standards governing 
motions for summary judgment, the judge ruled that he must accept the factual 
representations contained in the affidavit of Lieutenant Smith as true, given that 
there was no countering affidavit, and granted the motion.   
 
(6) 
In this appeal, Ward claims that the Superior Court judge: a) failed to 
provide him with proper notification that the DOC defendants’ motion would be 
                                                 
2 The petition for a writ of mandamus was dismissed by the Superior Court.  This Court affirmed 
the judgment of the Superior Court by Order dated August 3, 2004. 
3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(c). 
 
 
-4-
treated as a motion for summary judgment; b) failed to consider the affidavits filed 
along with his civil complaint, which had been improperly separated from the civil 
complaint by the Prothonotary; and c) failed to give him an opportunity at the 
hearing to explain what was in the affidavits. 
 
(7) 
The Superior Court was not obligated to give Ward any special 
notification that the motion to dismiss would be treated as a motion for summary 
judgment.  There is no evidence that Ward was not properly served with the DOC 
defendants’ motion, which contained Lieutenant Smith’s affidavit.  As a pro se 
litigant, it was Ward’s obligation to respond to the motion as required under the 
Superior Court Civil Rules.4  If Ward wished to submit affidavits countering the 
affidavit submitted by the DOC defendants, he was required under the rules to do 
so at the time he filed his response to the motion.   
 
(8) 
In addition, Ward may not blame the Prothonotary for his failure to 
file a proper response.  At the time Ward’s papers were filed in the Superior Court, 
the Prothonotary properly assigned the civil complaint to one judge and the 
petition for a writ of mandamus, with its accompanying memorandum and 
appendix, to another.  There also was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of 
                                                 
4 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(c) and 56(c) and (e). 
 
 
-5-
the judge assigned to the civil complaint in reviewing only those materials that had 
been filed in connection with that case.   
 
(9) 
Finally, the transcript of the hearing on the DOC defendants’ motion 
reflects no abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court.  It was proper for 
the judge to limit the arguments of the parties to the papers before him and to rule 
on the motion solely on that basis.5      
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
         
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(e).