Case Title: Hubbard v. Commissioner Carl Danberg, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 365, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ABDULLAH G. HUBBARD, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
COMMISSIONER CARL 
DANBERG, et al., 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 365, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 09M-02-070 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 10, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided:  July 16, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of July 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On June 23, 2009, the Court received Abdullah Hubbard’s 
notice of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated April 27, 2009, which 
denied Hubbard’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in that court.  The 
Senior Court Clerk issued a notice to Hubbard to show cause why his appeal 
should not be dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed in a timely 
manner and because Hubbard failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 
when appealing from an apparent interlocutory. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
Hubbard filed a response to the notice to show cause on July 6 
and also filed additional documents to attach to his response on July 10.  
Hubbard’s response reflects that he filed a motion for reconsideration of the 
Superior Court’s denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  The 
Superior Court denied his motion for reconsideration on June 5, 2009.  
Hubbard asserts that his appeal should be deemed timely because it was filed 
within thirty days of the June 5, 2009 order.  His response to the rule to 
show cause requests additional time to address the interlocutory nature of his 
appeal.   
(3) 
After careful consideration, the Court finds no basis to grant 
Hubbard additional time to address his failure to comply with Supreme 
Court Rule 42 when appealing from an interlocutory order.  It is clear that 
the order denying Hubbard’s motion to file his complaint in forma pauperis 
is an interlocutory order.1  The Superior Court noted that, if Hubbard did not 
pay the necessary filing fee by June 24, then his appeal would be dismissed.  
Hubbard, however, filed this appeal on June 23, thus divesting the Superior 
Court of jurisdiction to take further action in his case by filing the order of 
dismissal.  Until the Superior Court enters an order dismissing Hubbard’s 
complaint with prejudice, the order denying in forma pauperis status is an 
                                                 
1 Abdul-Akbar v. Washington-Hall, 649 A.2d 808, 809 (Del. 1994). 
 
 
-3- 
interlocutory order and an appeal therefrom must be filed in compliance with 
Rule 42.  Hubbard has made no attempt to comply with the requirements of 
Rule 42.  Accordingly, his appeal must be dismissed.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice