Title: Deputy v. Donophan, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KENNETH T. DEPUTY, 
 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
GREG A. DONOPHAN, et al., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 325, 2015 
§ 
§  Court Below:  Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§   
§  C.A. No. K15C-06-011  
§ 
§   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 16, 2015 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: December 16, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 16th day of December 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ 
briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Kenneth Deputy, was convicted in 1997 of 
Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree, and 
Possession of a Deadly Weapon during the Commission of a Felony.  He 
was sentenced to serve a total period of twenty-two years in prison followed 
by decreasing levels of supervision.1 Since that time, Deputy has filed 
numerous unsuccessful petitions seeking to challenge the validity of his 
                                                 
1 See Deputy v. State, 1998 WL 700168 (Del. Aug. 10, 1998) (affirming Deputy’s 
convictions and sentence on direct appeal). 
 
2 
convictions and sentence.2  Deputy’s latest attempt seeking to challenge his 
convictions and sentence was the filing of a civil complaint against various 
State actors, including police officers, lawyers and judges, who were 
involved in his criminal case through the years.  On June 9, 2015, the 
Superior Court dismissed Deputy’s civil complaint as legally frivolous.  This 
appeal followed. 
 
(2) 
After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs on appeal, we 
find it manifest that the judgment below must be affirmed.  To the extent 
that Deputy’s civil complaint sought to overturn his criminal convictions and 
request his early release from incarceration, his complaint is frivolous 
because the exclusive remedy for such relief is available only through 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61.3  His attempt to avoid the procedural bars 
of Rule 61 by filing a civil complaint is unavailing.  Moreover, to the extent 
Deputy’s complaint sought damages for the State’s alleged wrongful 
                                                 
2 Deputy v. State, 2014 WL 3511720 (Del. July 14, 2014) (affirming the denial of 
Deputy’s fifth motion for postconviction relief); Deputy v. State, 2010 WL 3003075 (Del. 
Aug. 2, 2010) (affirming the denial Deputy’s fourth motion for postconviction relief); 
Deputy v. State, 2009 WL 2448235 (Aug. 11, 2009) (affirming the denial of Deputy’s 
third motion for postconviction relief); Deputy v. State, 2008 WL 725058 (Del. Mar. 18, 
2008) (affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief); Deputy v. State, 2003 WL 1890011 
(Del. Apr. 17, 2003) (affirming the denial of Deputy’s second motion for postconviction 
relief); Deputy v. State, 2000 WL 313437 (Del. Mar. 9, 2000) (affirming the denial of 
Deputy’s first motion for postconviction relief). 
3 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(a)(2) (2015). 
 
3 
criminal prosecution of him, his complaint is frivolous because the legality 
of his convictions has been established.4   
 
(3) 
Deputy has unsuccessfully pursued postconviction relief under 
Rule 61 five different times.  He refuses to accept the court’s rulings on his 
motions.  We conclude that Deputy’s untimely, repetitive, and frivolous 
filings constitute an abuse of the judicial process.  Thus, the Clerk of this 
Court is directed to refuse any future filing from Deputy related to these 
criminal convictions and sentences unless the filing is accompanied by the 
required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with 
a sworn affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 
8803(e)5 and that motion is first granted by the Court. 
                                                 
4 See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 (1994) (holding that one element that “must 
be alleged and proved in a malicious prosecution action is termination of the prior 
criminal proceeding in favor of the accused.”). 
5 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) provides: 
 
When a court finds that a litigant has abused the judicial process by filing 
frivolous or malicious litigation, the court may enjoin that litigant from filing future 
claims without leave of court.  When so enjoined, any future requests to file claims must 
be accompanied by an affidavit certifying that: 
(1)  The claims sought to be litigated have never been raised or disposed of before 
in any court; 
(2)  The facts alleged are true and correct; 
(3)  The affiant has made a diligent and good faith effort to determine what relevant 
case law controls the legal issues raised; 
(4)  The affiant has no reason to believe the claims are foreclosed by controlled law; 
and  
(5)  The affiant understands that the affidavit is made under penalty of perjury. 
 
4 
  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice