Title: Biggins v. Igwe

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES BIGGINS, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
EMEKA IGWE, ESQUIRE, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 320, 2022 
§ 
§  Court Below: Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N21C-09-058 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: September 23, 2022 
Decided: 
September 26, 2022 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
 
ORDER 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
On September 6, 2022, the appellant, James Biggins, filed a notice of 
appeal from a Superior Court order dated August 8, 2022, which denied his motion 
for reargument of the court’s June 16, 2022 order granting the defendant’s motion 
to dismiss.  Biggins also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  The Senior 
Court Clerk issued a notice directing Biggins to show cause why this appeal should 
not be dismissed because Biggins failed to pay the required filing fee and—as set 
forth in this Court’s order dated September 11, 2014, in Appeal No. 310, 2014—he 
 
2 
has brought three or more frivolous complaints in forma pauperis and is therefore 
prohibited by 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) from filing “a complaint or appeal of a judgment 
arising from a complaint brought in forma pauperis . . . unless [he] is under imminent 
danger of serious physical injury at the time that the complaint is filed.” 
(2) 
On September 23, 2022, Biggins filed a document entitled “Motion for 
the Expansion of the Record,” which appears to be a response to the notice to show 
cause.  Biggins states that the Court has “asked the appellant to establish proof of 
the filing status in the instant case” and appears to seek an opportunity to provide 
the Court with copies of the records in previous cases.  Although the purpose of the 
requested relief is not entirely clear, it appears that Biggins desires to show that he 
has not brought three or more frivolous complaints in forma pauperis. 
(3) 
The request to expand the record is denied and the appeal is dismissed.  
This Court has already determined that Biggins “has brought three or more frivolous 
complaints in forma pauperis” and “is prohibited from filing any further complaint 
unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the 
complaint is filed.”1  Biggins does not allege any danger of physical injury; he does 
not contend that this is a case to which 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) does not apply; and the 
underlying case does not involve allegations of any danger of physical injury. 
 
1 Biggins v. Danberg, No. 310, 2014, Docket Entry No. 15 (Del. Sept. 11, 2014) (citing 10 Del. C. 
§ 8804(f)). 
 
3 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 
and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.  
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice