Title: Biggins v. Dept. of Correction

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMES A.  BIGGINS,
§
§
No.  365, 2004
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below–Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware,
v.
§
in and for Sussex County in
§
C.A. No.  00M-02-0160.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION §
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Respondent Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.
Submitted: February 18, 2005
Decided:
April 22, 2005
O R D E R
This 22  day of April 2005, upon consideration of the briefs submitted
nd
by the parties and the Superior Court record, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The appellant, James A.  Biggins, is an inmate incarcerated at the
Delaware Correctional Center.  In 2000, Biggins filed two petitions for writ of
mandamus.  The first petition was filed in the Superior Court in Sussex County;
the second petition was filed in the Superior Court in Kent County.  By order
dated February 21, 2001, the Superior Court in Sussex County consolidated the
two cases.
Biggins v.  Dep’t of Correction, 2001 WL 1628315 (Del.  Super.).
1
Biggins v.  State, 2002 WL 87726 (Del.  Supr.).
2
Although Biggins labeled his motion as filed under Superior Court Civil Rule
3
60(b)(6), the Superior Court determined that the motion sought reargument under Superior
Court Civil Rule 59(e).  Ultimately, the Superior Court concluded that the motion did not
meet the threshold procedural requirements of either rule and was untimely.
2
(2)
By memorandum opinion dated September 26, 2001, the Superior
Court dismissed Biggins’ mandamus petitions.   In dismissing the petitions, the
1
Superior Court found that the Kent County petition was frivolous and malicious
because Biggins filed it knowing that the same claim that was under review in
the Sussex County petition.  As a consequence for the unnecessary burden that
Biggins imposed on the system, the Superior Court ordered the forfeiture of a
portion of Biggins’ good time credits.  Moreover, the Superior Court warned
Biggins that if he repeated the claim, or if he  filed with the Superior Court
another proceeding that was later deemed to be frivolous or malicious, the
Court would again order the forfeiture of his good time credits.  On appeal, this
Court affirmed the Superior Court’s September 26, 2001 decision.   
2
(3)
Notwithstanding the Superior Court’s admonition, on June 21,
2004, Biggins filed a motion requesting “de novo review” of the mandamus
petitions.   By decision dated August 9, 2004, the Superior Court dismissed
3
Biggins’ motion as frivolous.  Moreover, because the motion was filed in
See Del. Code Ann.  tit.  10, § 8805 (permitting order forfeiting portion of good time
4
credits upon finding that prisoner has filed a frivolous or malicious action).
3
violation of the September 26, 2001 decision, the Superior Court ordered the
forfeiture of five days of Biggins’ good time credit.  This appeal followed.
(4)
We find it manifest that the judgment of the Superior Court should
be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision dated
August 9, 2004.  The Superior Court did not err when it concluded that
Biggins’ motion was frivolous.  Moreover, we find no abuse of discretion in the
Superior Court’s order to forfeit five days of Biggins’ good time credits.  
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Carolyn Berger
Justice