Title: Biggins v. Danberg, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,   
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
  
§ 
No. 231, 2009 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
CARL DANBERG, et al., 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. 08C-08-001 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 2, 2009 
 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 6, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 6th day of July 2009, upon consideration of the Clerk’s notice to 
show cause, the appellant’s response, the State appellees’ memorandum in 
support of dismissal, and the appellant’s reply, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, James Arthur Biggins, is a prisoner in 
custody at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware.  
The defendants-appellees are Delaware Department of Correction officials 
represented by the State (“State appellees”) and employees of Correctional 
Medical Service, Inc. 
 
(2) 
On August 1, 2008, Biggins filed a complaint with leave to 
proceed in forma pauperis in the Superior Court.  By order dated August 13, 
 
2
2008, the Superior Court granted Biggins in forma pauperis status and 
ordered service of process. 
 
 
(3) 
On March 12, 2009, the defendants filed motions to revoke 
Biggins’ in forma pauperis status.  After a hearing on April 1, 2009, the 
Superior Court revoked Biggins’ in forma pauperis status and ordered him 
to pay treble filing fees within thirty days.  Thereafter, by order dated April 
16, 2009, the Superior Court denied Biggins’ motion for reargument.  This 
appeal followed. 
 
(4) 
On April 28, 2009, the State appellees filed a Motion to Compel 
Immediate Payment of Full Filing Fees and for Related Relief in this Court.  
The State appellees sought an order denying Biggins’ motion to proceed in 
forma pauperis in this Court. 
 
 
(5) 
On April 29, 2009, the Clerk issued a notice pursuant to 
Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing that Biggins show cause why the appeal 
should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 
42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory order.  In response 
to the notice to show cause, Biggins contends that the appeal is from a final 
order. 
 
(6) 
It is well-established that a trial court’s denial of in forma 
pauperis status is an interlocutory ruling that is subject to the requirements 
 
3
of Supreme Court Rule 42.1  This Court requires strict compliance with Rule 
42 whenever a party seeks review of an interlocutory ruling in a civil case.2  
Biggins has made no attempt to comply with Rule 42 in this case.  
Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal is appropriate.3 
 
NOW, THERFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the within appeal is 
DISMISSED pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 29(b) and 42.  The Motion to 
Compel Immediate Payment of Full Filing Fees and for Related Relief is 
moot. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                          
 
1 Abdul-Akbar v. Washington-Hall, 649 A.2d 808, 809 (Del. 1994).  
2 Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).  
3 See, e.g., Brown v. Carroll, 2005 WL 2179389 (Del. Supr.) (dismissing as interlocutory 
appeal from order revoking in forma pauperis status).