Title: Biggins v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 436, 2023 
§ 
§ Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  Cr. ID No. 9609015504 (S) 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 13, 2024  
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
February 14, 2024 
 
ORDER 
 
It appears to the Court that, on January 25, 2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk 
issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why his motion to proceed in 
forma pauperis should not be denied and his appeal should not be dismissed based 
on his false certifications that he made a diligent and good faith effort to determine 
what relevant case law controlled the issues he sought to raise on appeal and that he 
had no reason to believe that his claims were foreclosed by controlling law.1  The 
appellant received the notice to show cause on February 2, 2024.  The appellant has 
not paid the filing fee or responded to the notice to show cause within the required 
 
1 In 2011, this Court found that Biggins’s numerous filings constituted “an abuse of the processes 
of the Court” and prohibited him “from filing any further papers in this Court challenging his 
convictions in Cr. ID No. 9609015504 without prior approval of a Justice of this Court.”  Biggins 
v. State, No. 251, 2011, Docket Entry No. 9 (Del. July 11, 2011). 
2 
 
ten-day period.  Denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of 
the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, the motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rules 
3(b)(2) and 29(b). 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
      Chief Justice