Case Title: Day v. 21st Century North American Insurance, Co. et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 428, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-06-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROY A. DAY, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
21st CENTURY NORTH AMERICAN 
INSURANCE CO., et al., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 428, 2017  
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N17C-09-066 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: June 4, 2018 
  Decided: June 19, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
Upon consideration of the rule to show cause and the appellant’s 
response, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Roy A. Day, filed this appeal on October 13, 2017 
from the Superior Court’s order, dated October 4, 2017, dismissing his 
complaint. The original brief schedule set a deadline of December 12, 2017 
for Day to file his opening brief.  After two extensions, Day was given until 
April 30, 2018 to file his opening brief.  On April 20, 2018, the Court denied 
Day’s request to stay the appeal.  On May 7, 2018, the Court denied his second 
motion to stay.   
2 
 
(2) 
On May 8, 2018, the Clerk of the Court issued a brief 
delinquency letter for Day’s failure to file his opening brief by the April 30th 
due date, giving Day another week to file his opening brief or else risk having 
the case resolved against him.  Day responded by filing a third motion to stay 
the appeal, which was stricken.  On May 21, 2018, the Clerk issued a notice 
to Day to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure 
to prosecute.  On May 28, 2018, Day filed a document purporting to respond 
to the notice to show cause with a letter enclosing a document titled, “Quasi-
Pauper-Evidential-Opposed-Brief-for-Federal-Court.”   
(3) 
To the extent that the enclosure is intended to serve as Day’s 
opening brief on appeal, the document is stricken as nonconforming under 
Supreme Court Rule 34.  Despite appropriate headings, the document contains 
no statement of facts, no argument or issues presented, and no citation of legal 
authority.  Although this Court affords pro se litigants leeway in satisfying the 
briefing requirements on appeal, Day’s document contains no arguments 
capable of the Court’s review.1  Under the circumstances, we dismiss the 
appeal for Day’s failure to prosecute.   
                                                 
1 Chewning v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2016 WL 595291 (Feb. 11, 2016) (holding that, at 
the very least, an opening brief must set forth some argument that is capable of review). 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is 
DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice