Title: Shearin v. Lacy

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
K. KAY SHEARIN, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
PATTI LACY, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 586, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 02A-07-006 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 7, 2003 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:   March 28, 2003 
 
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 28th day of March 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, K. Kay Shearin, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s September 20, 2002 order dismissing her complaint.  
We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
 
(2) 
In May 2002, Shearin a complaint in the Justice of the Peace 
Court alleging that defendant-appellee Patti Lacy had sold her a defective 
glass bowl through E-Bay.  The Justice of the Peace Court dismissed the 
complaint on jurisdictional grounds.  In June 2002, Shearin filed an appeal 
in the Court of Common Pleas and moved to proceed in forma pauperis.  
 
2
The Court of Common Pleas denied Shearin’s motion and dismissed her 
complaint.   
 
(3) 
In July 2002, Shearin filed an appeal in the Superior Court and 
again moved to proceed in forma pauperis.  In the affidavit supporting her 
motion, Shearin stated that she was self-employed and earned a monthly 
income.  On July 29, 2002, the Superior Court denied Shearin’s motion on 
the ground that she had failed to demonstrate that she was unable to bring in 
sufficient monthly income to pay the filing fee of $175.00.  The Superior 
Court further ordered that, if the filing fee were not paid within 15 calendar 
days of the date of notice, Shearin’s complaint would be dismissed.  
Subsequently, the Prothonotary’s Office notified Shearin that, if the filing 
fee were not received by August 21, 2002, her complaint would be 
dismissed.  Shearin did not pay the filing fee and, on September 20, 2002, 
the Superior Court dismissed her complaint. 
 
(4) 
The decision to grant or deny a civil litigant the right to file an 
action without prepaying the necessary court filing fee is within the sound 
discretion of the Superior Court.1  We have reviewed the Superior Court’s 
order dismissing Shearin’s complaint and the record in this case, including 
                                                          
 
1SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 112; Coleman v. State, Del. Supr., No. 401, 1998, Walsh, J. (Dec. 8, 
1998). 
 
3
Shearin’s affidavit, and find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the 
Superior Court in denying Shearin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice