Case Title: Benner v. Correctional Medical Services

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
LAWRENCE BENNER,  
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 89, 2009 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court   
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for Sussex County  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL  
§ 
SERVICES,  
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Defendant Below,  
 
§ 
C.A. No. S08C-06-024  
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 20, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
May 22, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 22nd day of May 2009, upon consideration of the Clerk’s notice 
to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed, the 
appellant’s response to the notice to show cause, and the State’s 
memorandum in support of dismissal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
On February 23, 2009, the appellant, Lawrence Benner, filed a 
notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s January 21, 2009 dismissal of his 
civil complaint.  On its face, Benner’s notice of appeal appeared to be 
 
2
untimely.1  A notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s January 21, 2009 
dismissal should have been filed on or before February 20, 2009.2 
 
(2) 
On February 24, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice directing that 
Benner show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely.3  In 
his response to the notice to show cause, Benner states that he filed his 
notice of appeal with the Superior Court in early February 2009, well within 
the thirty-day appeal period.   
 
(3) 
“Time is a jurisdictional requirement.”4  The Clerk of this 
Court, or a Deputy Clerk in any county, must receive a notice of appeal 
within the applicable time period.5  Filing a notice of appeal with the 
Superior Court within the applicable time period does not constitute 
compliance with the jurisdictional requirement governing this Court.6 
 
(4) 
Under Delaware law, the jurisdictional defect that was created 
by the untimely notice of appeal cannot be excused unless Benner can 
demonstrate that the delay in filing was attributable to court-related 
                                          
 
1 See Del. Sup. Ct. R. 6(a)(i) (providing that a notice of appeal in a civil case must be 
filed within thirty days of the entry upon the docket of the order from which the appeal is 
taken). 
2 Id. 
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 
4 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 
5 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a), 10(a). 
6 E.g., Smith v. State, 2002 WL 31109924 (Del. Supr.). (dismissing untimely notice of 
appeal that appellant initially filed in error with the Superior Court). 
 
3
personnel.7  It does not appear that Benner’s case falls within the exception 
to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  
Benner has not demonstrated, and the record does not suggest, that court-
related personnel are responsible for the untimely filing of his notice of 
appeal. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rules 6 and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                          
 
7 See Riggs v. Riggs, 539 A.2d 163, 164 (Del. 1988) (excusing untimely notice of appeal 
that appellant mistakenly filed with Family Court when actions of Family Court 
personnel in response to notice of appeal suggested to appellant that appeal was properly 
filed).