Case Title: Damiani v. Gill

Citation: 

Docket Number: 105, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
PABLO A. DAMIANI, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
GEORGE GILL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 105, 2015 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N14C-05-186-ALR 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  May 8, 2015 
 
 
 
 
Decided:     July 14, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 14th day of July 2015, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record on appeal, we find it manifest that the Superior Court’s granting of 
summary judgment in favor of the appellee, George Gill, should be affirmed on the 
basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned opinion dated January 28, 2015.  As to 
the argument of the appellant, Pablo A. Damiani, that he was unable to name or 
serve the guards identified as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 in his complaint 
because the Department of Correction did not respond to his inquiries, there is no 
indication that Damiani ever served any discovery upon Gill or any non-parties to 
obtain this information.  Although pro se litigants are afforded some leniency in 
presenting their cases, “[t]here is no different set of  rules for pro se plaintiffs, and 
2 
 
the trial court should not sacrifice the orderly and efficient administration of justice 
to accommodate the unrepresented plaintiff.”1  The Superior Court did not err in 
dismissing the claims against the John Doe defendants. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Draper v. Med. Ctr., 767 A.2d 796, 799 (Del. 2001).