Case Title: Phillips v. Conley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 87, 2004

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
GREGORY S. PHILLIPS,                      
           
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
DAWN CONLEY and DANIELLE 
WHITLEY, 
     
 
 
     
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 87, 2004 
 
   Court Below---Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Sussex County  
   C.A. No. 04C-01-023 
                      
 
Submitted: July 30, 2004 
Decided:  September 29, 2004 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of September 2004, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Gregory S. Phillips, a prison inmate, filed an 
appeal from the Superior Court’s March 2, 2004 order dismissing his civil 
complaint.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In January 2004, Phillips filed a civil complaint against the 
defendants-appellees, Dawn Conley and Danielle Whitley, alleging breach of 
contract, defamation, and a violation of his due process rights resulting from his 
removal from the Key South Program at the Sussex Correctional Institute, 
 
 
-2-
Georgetown, Delaware.1  Phillips requested reinstatement in the Key South 
Program.  The Superior Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the 
defendants were entitled to immunity, there was no contract between Phillips and 
the defendants, Phillips had failed to state a claim for a violation of his due process 
rights and defamation, and the equitable remedy of reinstatement in the Key South 
Program was not within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.2   
   
(3) 
In this appeal, Phillips claims that his complaint should not have been 
dismissed because: a) the defendants are not entitled to immunity because they are 
not employees of the State of Delaware; b) his signed “consent to treatment” form 
constituted a contract between him and the defendants; and c) the Superior Court 
has the authority to grant the equitable relief he seeks.3 
 
(4) 
Phillips’ complaint fails to state a claim against the defendants for 
breach of contract,4 whether they are entitled to governmental immunity as State 
employees or not.5  Moreover, the Superior Court correctly ruled that it did not 
                                                 
1 The Key South Program is a substance abuse program for inmates.  The record reflects that, at 
all times relevant, Conley was a supervisor and Whitley was a counselor with the Key South 
Program and that they were employees of Civigenics, Inc. 
2 Del. Code Ann., tit. 10, § 8803(b) (1999); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b) (6). 
3 Phillips does not address whether he failed to state claims of a due process violation and 
defamation.  As such, Phillips has waived his right to pursue those issues in this appeal.  Murphy 
v. State, 632 A.2d 1150, 1152 (Del. 1993). 
4 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 16. 
5 Del. Code Ann., tit. 10, § 4001 (1999); Vick v. Haller, 512 A.2d 249, 252 (Del. Super.), aff’d. 
514 A.2d 782 (Del. 1986). 
 
 
-3-
have the authority to grant Phillips the equitable relief he requested.6  Phillips has, 
thus, failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted7 and the Superior 
Court properly dismissed his complaint on that basis. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
                                                 
6 Monroe Park v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 457 A.2d 734, 738 (Del. 1983). 
7 Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978).