Title: Bartley v. Soll

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
  
ALFRED T. BARTLEY, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
MELVIN E. SOLL, 
 
Defendant Below- 
Appellee. 
 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 47, 2002 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 01C-11-130 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 10, 2002 
  Decided:   July 1, 2002 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 1st day of July 2002, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and 
the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Alfred T. Bartley, filed this appeal from the 
November 21, 2001 order of the Superior Court dismissing his complaint  as 
legally frivolous.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
(2) 
In this appeal, Bartley claims that the Superior Court improperly 
dismissed his legal malpractice complaint as legally frivolous.  He requests this 
Court to issue a declaration that the defendant-appellee, Melvin E. Soll, Esquire, 
 
 
-2- 
violated his rights; order Soll to represent him in pursuing his medical 
malpractice claim or, in the alternative, provide sufficient funds to retain another 
attorney to do so; and award him compensatory damages. 
(3) 
On November 14, 2001, Bartley filed a legal malpractice complaint 
in the Superior Court against Soll.  The record reflects that, from about October 
1999 until about October 2000, Soll had investigated the possibility of filing a 
medical malpractice claim against medical personnel at the Delaware 
Correctional Center (“DCC”) on behalf of Bartley, a DCC inmate.  The record 
further reflects that Soll returned Bartley’s client file to him in October 2000 
and, on April 28, 2001, Bartley, acting pro se, filed a medical malpractice 
complaint in the Superior Court.  The Superior Court’s subsequent dismissal of 
that complaint for failure to pay the filing fee was affirmed by this Court.1   
                                                 
1Bartley v. Covert, Del. Supr., No. 544, 2001, Veasey, C.J. (Mar. 22, 2002). 
 
 
-3- 
(4) 
In his legal malpractice complaint, Bartley claimed that Soll had 
“deliberately failed to perform the legal duty’s (sic) as required in an attorney-
client relationship,” including failing to act with diligence and promptness, 
explain legal matters to the client, reasonably expedite litigation, and keep the 
client informed of the progress of the litigation.  Bartley also claimed that Soll’s 
actions “caused a breach of contract with the client.”  Bartley requested the 
Superior Court to declare that Soll had violated his rights; order Soll to represent 
him in pursuing his medical malpractice claim or, in the alternative, issue 
sufficient funds to retain another attorney to do so; and order compensatory 
damages against Soll.  Also on November 14, 2001, Bartley filed an affidavit in 
support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis.2 
(5) 
By order dated November 21, 2001, the Superior Court dismissed 
Bartley’s complaint as legally frivolous3 because it failed to state: what damage to 
Bartley’s medical malpractice claim was suffered as a result of Soll’s actions; the 
nature of the alleged contract between Bartley and Soll; the applicable standard 
                                                 
2DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 8802(b) (1999). 
3DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 8803(b) (1999).  
 
 
-4- 
of care alleged to have been breached by Soll; and the legal basis for the relief 
sought.4 
                                                 
4The Superior Court granted Bartley’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on 
December 14, 2001.  On January 8, 2002, the Prothonotary sent Bartley a letter informing 
him that, while his application to proceed in forma pauperis had been granted, his complaint 
already had been dismissed as legally frivolous.  
 
 
-5- 
(6) 
In all cases in which an individual has been granted leave to proceed 
in forma pauperis, the Superior Court is required to review such individual’s 
complaint from both a legal and factual perspective to determine whether the 
action should be permitted to proceed.5  We have reviewed Bartley’s complaint 
and the Superior Court’s November 21, 2001 order and conclude that there was 
no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court in dismissing 
Bartley’s complaint as legally frivolous.6       
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
 
                                                 
5Id. 
6Soll’s argument that the Superior Court’s dismissal of Bartley’s complaint constituted 
an interlocutory order is stricken, since we previously ruled against Soll on that identical issue 
in Bartley v. Soll, Del. Supr., No. 47, 2002, Veasey, C.J. (Apr. 26, 2002).  SUPR. CT. R. 34.