Case Title: Henry v. CCHS Public Safety Detail, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98-2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

OMAR J. HENRY,
No. 98, 2016
Plaintiff Below,
Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court
of the State of Delaware

C.A. No. NIAC-12-150
CCHS PUBLIC SAFETY DETAIL,
CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH
SERVICE, LT. MIKE DIOSSI, SGT.
BRAIN HEALTH, CPL. WILLIAM
BABBY, CPL. ELUAH
RICHARDSON, CPL. BRENDAN
WHAM, (WPD), CPL. CAVAN
CRAWFORD, CPL. JOHN
COLICCHIO, CPL. GREGORY
PRICE, CPL. CURTIS KNOTT,

Defendants Below,
Appellees.

Submitted: March 28, 2016
Decided: May 27, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.
ORDER
This 27° day of May 2016, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 29, 2016, the appellant, Omar J. Henry, filed a notice of
appeal from a Superior Court order dated January 7, 2016 dismissing his civil
‘complaint for his failure to comply with the court’s discovery deadlines. On its face,

the notice of appeal was untimely filed. Under Supreme Court Rule 6, the appeal
‘was due to be filed within thirty days of docketing of the order, ie., on or before
February 8, 2016.!

(2) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court's appellate
jurisdiction? The jurisdictional defect created by the untimely filing of a notice of
‘appeal cannot be excused unless the appellant can demonstrate that the delay in filing
is attributable to court-related personnel.”

(3) On February 29, 2016, the Clerk issued a notice directing Heary to
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.* In response
to the notice, Henry asks the Court to consider that, after he received the January 7,
2016 order, he sent a letter to the Superior Court and asked that the case remain
open’ Henry also addresses the merit of his Superior Court case and gives reasons
why he was unable to comply with the court's discovery deadlines.

(4) Henry's response to the notice to show does not provide a legitimate

basis upon which to excuse the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. Henry's letter

* See Del. Supr. Ct. R.6(@)i) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within tity days.
after entry upon the docket of a judgment, order or decree in a civil case),

2 Carry, State, $54 A.2d 718, 779 (Del. 1989),
5 Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
“Del. Supr. Ct. R290).

5 In addition to his response to the notice to show cause, Henry filed a letter on April 15, 2016 and
‘a “motion for continuance” on May 17, 2016. Neither the letter nor the motion are permitted
responses to the notice to show cause, and the Court has not considered them.

2
‘to the Superior Court was not a timely-filed motion for reargument.’ Only a timely-

 

filed motion for reargument will toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.”

(5) Henry does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that the delay
in filing the notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently,
this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the
timely filing of a notice of appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

(Randy J. Holland
Just

 

 

See Del. Super. Ct. Civil R.$9(¢) (“A motion for argument shall be served and filed within 5
<ays after the fling ofthe Court's opinion or decision”). In this case, Henrys letter tothe court
‘was filed on January 21, 2016, more than five days ater the January 7, 2016 order

7 US. Bank Nar't Ass'n v. Harms, 2013 WL $656109 (Del. Oct. 15, 2013) (A motion for
reargument isthe proper device for secking reconsideration by the Trial Court of its findings of
fact, conclusions of law, or judgment, aftr a non-jury trial.” (quoting Hessler v. Farrel, 260 A.2d
701, 702 (Del. 1969))..

3