Title: Brooks v. Guy

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
ALAN T. BROOKS, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
SAMUEL L. GUY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 207, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 95C-07-232 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: November 12, 2002 
  Decided:   November 20, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 20th day of November 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Alan T. Brooks, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s March 15, 2002 order dismissing his civil complaint against 
defendant-appellant, Samuel L. Guy.  On September 23, 2002, we remanded this 
matter to the Superior Court for clarification of its orders dated March 15, 2002 
and March 25, 2002.  The orders appeared to be inconsistent with an earlier 
Superior Court order dated May 13, 1988 and created uncertainty as to whether 
the dismissal was with or without prejudice.  We also asked the Superior Court 
 
 
-2- 
to review Brooks’ previous requests for sanctions against Guy for failing to abide 
by orders of the Superior Court.  
(2) 
On October 22, 2002, the Superior Court issued its report 
following remand.  The report reflects that Guy appeared in the Superior Court 
on October 22, 2002 pursuant to a rule to show cause and offered no 
explanation as to why he had failed to abide by orders of the Superior Court.  
Noting that Brooks continued to be incarcerated in Pennsylvania and was unable 
to appear personally to prosecute his case, the Superior Court ordered Guy to 
pay $400 for failing to comply with its previous orders, vacated its orders 
dismissing Brooks’ complaint and ordered Brooks to contact the Superior Court 
upon his release from incarceration in Pennsylvania so that he might appear in 
Delaware to prosecute his complaint.    
(3) 
The Superior Court’s October 22, 2002 order satisfies this Court’s 
requests and, therefore, the Superior Court’s judgment must be affirmed. 
 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
-3- 
BY THE COURT: 
   s/Joseph T. Walsh 
       Justice