Case Title: Bartley v. Cavert, et. al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 425, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ALFRED T. BARTLEY,
     
Plaintiff Below,
     
Appellant,
v.
RICHARD CAVERT, ET AL.,
     
Defendants Below,
     
Appellees.
§
§   No. 425, 2001
§
§  Court Below: Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 01C-07-033
§
§
§
§
Submitted:  September 18, 2001
Decided:     September 20, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 20th day of September 2001, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On September 4, 2001, this Court received a notice of appeal from
appellant, Alfred T. Bartley, from the Superior Court’s decision of August 20,
2001, which denied Bartley’s “Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Rehearing.”
(2)
On September 7, 2001, the Clerk of this Court issued a notice
pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Bartley to show cause why the
appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court
Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.  In his
-2-
response, Bartley contends that his appeal is not interlocutory.  Because he is
indigent and unable to pay the filing fee, Bartley asserts that the denial of his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis ends the litigation in Superior Court.
(3)
Bartley’s argument is without merit.  This Court has held that the
denial of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an interlocutory order for
which appellate review is available only upon compliance with Supreme Court
Rule 42.*  Bartley’s failure to comply with Rule 42 in this case requires
dismissal of this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
   s/Joseph T. Walsh
Justice
                                                 
*  Abdul-Akbar v. Washington-Hall, Del. Supr., 649 A.2d 808, 809 (1994).