Case Title: Cunningham v. Horvath

Citation: 

Docket Number: 340, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT D. CUNNINGHAM, JR., 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JEFFREY HORVATH, Chief of 
Police, and M. JANE BRADY, 
Attorney General, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 340, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 03C-08-013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 7, 2004 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: October 18, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of October 2004, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Robert Cunningham, filed this appeal 
from the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a 
claim upon which relief could be grant and the Superior Court’s subsequent 
denial of Cunningham’s motion for reargument.  The appellees have moved 
to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on 
 
2
the face of Cunningham’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We 
agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Cunningham filed a 105-page complaint 
against the appellees alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights 
due to the appellees refusal to pursue criminal complaints that Cunningham 
sought to file.  Cunningham requested the Superior Court to issue an 
injunction compelling the appellees to take action on his complaints. The 
appellees moved to dismiss.  The Superior Court concluded, to the extent 
Cunningham sought mandamus relief compelling the appellees to prosecute 
his criminal complaints, such relief was unavailable to compel the 
performance of a discretionary duty.1  To the extent Cunningham sought 
other injunctive relief, the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such 
relief.2  Moreover, the Superior Court correctly noted that public agencies 
and officers enjoy absolutely immunity from suit for discretionary decisions 
made during the performance of their official duties.3 
(3) 
Having carefully considered the parties’ respective positions on 
appeal, we find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should be 
                                                 
1 Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Educ. Ass’n, 336 A.2d 209, 210 (Del. 
1975). 
2 Kerns v. Dukes, 707 A.2d 363, 368 (Del. 1998) (citing 10 Del. C. § 341). 
3 10 Del. C. § 4001. 
 
3
affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated 
March 31, 2004 and its decision denying reargument dated July 30, 2004.  
The issue on appeal is clearly controlled by settled Delaware law.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice