Case Title: Jones v. Gateway House, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 62, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-12-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
RONALD JONES, 
 
Appellant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
GATEWAY HOUSE, INC., 
 
Appellee Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 62, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N23A-01-001 (N) 
§                     
§                     
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   September 29, 2023 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
December 7, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Ronald Jones, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s 
order dismissing his appeal of the Justice of the Peace Court’s decision awarding 
possession and back rent to the appellee, Gateway House, Inc. For the reasons 
discussed below, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
Beginning in 2013, Jones rented an apartment from Gateway House.  
Gateway House unsuccessfully tried to evict Jones in summary possession 
proceedings in 2016 and 2019.  In July 2021, Jones filed an action against Gateway 
House’s executive director in the Justice of the Peace Court for monetary damages 
2 
 
arising from Gateway House’s allegedly retaliatory acts under 25 Del. C. § 5516 and 
toxic living conditions in his apartment (“Damages Proceeding”).  In September 
2021, Gateway House instituted a summary proceeding for possession and back rent 
against Jones in the Justice of the Peace Court (“Summary Possession Proceeding”).  
(3) 
Trial in the Damages Proceeding took place on December 17, 2021.  
Before the trial began, the Justice of the Peace Court granted the motion to join 
Gateway House as the proper party and to dismiss Gateway House’s executive 
director.  Jones moved to continue the trial, which the Justice of the Peace found was 
pretextual and denied.  After Jones rested his case without presenting any evidence, 
the Justice of the Peace Court found that he had failed to meet his burden of proof 
and dismissed his complaint with prejudice.  Jones did not seek appellate review but 
filed a counterclaim in the Summary Possession Proceeding for monetary damages 
arising from Gateway House’s allegedly retaliatory acts under 25 Del. C. § 5516 and 
toxic carpet in his room.    
(4) 
In the Summary Possession Proceeding, Gateway House moved to 
dismiss Jones’s counterclaim as untimely and barred by res judicata.  The Justice of 
the Peace Court initially dismissed the counterclaim as untimely, but later held that 
Jones could raise retaliation and conditions claims based on acts that occurred after 
December 22, 2021.  Trial took place on August 2, 2022.  Early in the presentation 
of his case, Jones withdrew his counterclaim.  The jury returned a unanimous verdict 
3 
 
in favor of Gateway House for possession and rent owed in the amount of 
$18,039.15.   
(5) 
After the Justice of the Peace Court entered judgment in favor of 
Gateway House, Jones filed an appeal to a three-judge panel in the Justice of the 
Peace Court under 25 Del. C. § 5717(c).  He argued that the Justice of the Peace 
Court erroneously deprived him of the right to present his counterclaim and that the 
doctrine of res judicata did not bar his counterclaim.  Gateway House submitted 
arguments in opposition to Jones’s position.  On December 2, 2022, the three-judge 
panel held that res judicata barred Jones’s counterclaim and affirmed the judgment 
in favor of Gateway House.   
(6) 
On December 16, 2022, Jones filed a notice of appeal in the Court of 
Common Pleas.  On December 20, 2022, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the 
appeal based on its lack of jurisdiction over appeals from a three-judge panel of the 
Justice of the Peace and the Superior Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. 
(7) 
On January 4, 2023, Jones filed a notice of appeal in the Superior 
Court.1  After granting Jones’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Superior 
Court reviewed the appeal as required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(b) and dismissed the 
appeal on the basis that it was legally frivolous and plainly appeared from the face 
 
1 Jones’s appellate paperwork was electronically docketed on January 9, 2023, but the praecipe 
bears a Prothonotary stamp that appears to be dated January 4, 2023.  The January 4, 2023 date 
would be consistent with when Jones said he went to the Superior Court to fill out the paperwork.   
4 
 
of the appeal that Jones was not entitled to relief.  The Superior Court did not provide 
any reasoning for these conclusions.  This appeal followed.   
(8) 
On appeal, Jones argues that the Superior Court erred in dismissing his 
appeal without allowing him to argue the merits of his claims.  Gateway House 
contends that the Superior Court did not err in dismissing Jones’s appeal because the 
Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and Jones was not entitled to relief even if the 
Superior Court had jurisdiction.  Having carefully considered the parties’ positions 
on appeal, the Court concludes that the Superior Court did not err in dismissing 
Jones’s appeal.   
(9) 
  Under § 8803(b), a trial court must review a complaint2 once the 
plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.  If the trial court 
determines that the complaint is factually frivolous, malicious, or legally frivolous 
such that even a pro se litigant should have found well-settled law disposing of the 
issues raised, the complaint must be dismissed.3  It is well-settled law that the 
Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a summary possession 
proceeding in the Justice of the Peace Court.4 
 
2 A complaint is “any civil action or miscellaneous action or any application for an extraordinary 
writ.”  10 Del. C. § 8801(1). 
3 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). 
4 Capano Invs. v. Levenberg, 564 A.2d 1130, 1131 (Del. 1989); Bomba’s Restaurant & Cocktail 
Lounge, Inc. v. Lord De La Warr Hotel, Inc., 389 A.2d 766, 769 (Del. 1978). 
5 
 
(10) As Gateway House recognizes in its answering brief, the Superior Court 
does have jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari to the Justice of the Peace Court in 
summary possession cases.5  Almost all of the papers Jones filed in the Superior 
Court referred to an appeal, but his Civil Information Statement listed the Civil Case 
Code as ACER and the Civil Case Type as Certiorari.  The extraordinary remedy of 
a writ of certiorari “is not a substitute for, or the functional equivalent of, an appeal.”6  
On a writ of certiorari, the reviewing court does not consider the merits of the case, 
but considers only whether the lower court committed an error of law, exceeded its 
jurisdiction, or proceeded irregularly.7  Review is limited to errors apparent on the 
face of the record, which consists only of the complaint initiating the proceeding, 
any written answer or response, and the docket entries.8  Even assuming Jones’s 
Superior Court papers could be construed as a timely petition for a writ of certiorari,9 
he has not shown that the Justice of the Peace Court committed an error of law, 
exceeded its jurisdiction, or proceeded irregularly.   
 
 
 
5 Maddrey v. Justice of Peace Court 13, 956 A.2d 1204, 1213 (Del. 2008). 
6 Id. 
7 Id. at 1213-14. 
8 Id. at 1216. 
9 Absent a showing of exceptional circumstances, a petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed 
within thirty days of the order to be reviewed.  In re Fridge, 1991 WL 247811, at *2 (Del. Nov. 
20, 1991).  A timely petition for a writ of certiorari was due by January 3, 2023, but Jones filed 
his papers in the Superior Court on January 4, 2023. 
6 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Chief Justice