IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION S OF THOMAS E. § No. 631 , 201 4 NOBLE FOR WRIT S OF § PROHIBITION AND § CERTIORARI §

Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: February 9 , 2015

Before STRINE
, Chief Justi ce ; HOLLAND and VALIHURA
, Justices.

O R D E R

This 9th day of February 2015
, upon consideration of the petition for
a writ of prohibition filed by Thomas E. Noble, the answer and motion to
dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, and Noble’s petition for a writ of
certiorari, it appears to the Court that:
(1) In January 2014, Thomas E. Noble was in dicted on twenty

- five

counts of Dealing in Child Pornography

. 1 In February 2014, t he Superior
Court granted Noble leave to proceed pro se and appointed standby counsel
to represent him. In August 2014, the Superior Court ordered that Noble
undergo a psychiatric and psychological evaluation to determine his
competency to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the offense. 2

1 State v. Noble , Del. Super., Cr. ID No. 1311014361.

2 The Superior Court docket reflects that the report on Noble’s evaluation was filed on December 5, 2014
, and referred to a Comm issioner. On January 26, 2015, based on the2

( 2 ) On November 14, 2014
, Noble filed a petition for a writ of
prohibition asking this Court to remove and discipline the Judge , court staff,

and prosecutors assigned to his criminal case , and the Judge and court staff
assigned to three related civil actions that he filed in October 201 4
, including
a habeas corpus petition. On December 1 6 , 2014, Noble filed a petition for a

writ of certiorari ask ing the Court to review the Superior Court’s dismissal

of his habeas corpus petition on October 9, 2014. A previous mandamus
petition filed by Noble was rejected by the Supreme Court on November 6,

2014. 3 In June 2014, this Court also rejected Noble’s petitions for writs of
habeas corpus 4 and mandamus 5 after Noble failed to respond to the notices

to show cause issued in both cases in June 2014.
( 3 ) This Court has original jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition
to prevent the Superior Court from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction

and “to restrain an individual judge from proceeding in a case in which the
judge is clearly disqualified by reason of personal interest, bias or

evaluation and the position of counsel, the Commissioner ordered that Noble be confined and treated at the Delaware Psychiatric Center until he is capable of standing trial. Id. Docket at 62, 6 3 and 65.

3 In re Noble
, 2014 WL 5823030 (Del. Nov. 6, 2014).

4 In re Noble
, 2014 WL 2565699 (Del. June 4, 2014).

5 In re Noble
, 2014 WL 2803510 (Del. June 18, 2014).3

prejudice.” 6 In this case, Noble ’s petition for a writ of prohibition offers no
basis upon which to question the Superior Court’s jurisdiction or to conclude
that the Judge assigned to his criminal and civil cases is disqualified

. 7 We

therefore conclude that Noble has not met the threshold requirements for the
issuance of a writ of prohibition.
( 4 ) This Court has original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari

to review a final order of a trial court where the right of appeal is denied, a
grave question of public policy is involved, and no other basis for review is

available. 8 In this case, Noble had a right to appeal the dismissal of his
habeas corpus petition . Noble’s petition for a writ of certiorari does n ot
demonstrate that his right of appeal was denied or that a grave question of
public policy is involved. We therefore conclude that Noble has not met the
threshold requirements for the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
(5) Noble was described by the U

. S

. District Court for the District of

Delaware as “ an habitual litigant ” in its rejection of his 27th claim before

6 In re McLeod , 2014 WL 2927411, at *1 (Del. June 25, 2014) (quoting In re Wittrock
, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994)).

7 By order dated July 21, 2014, a copy of which is attached to the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, the Judge denied Noble’s motion to recuse, which was based on claims that the Judge was biased and had a conflict of interest.

8 Sho emaker v. State , 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del. 1977).4

that Court. 9 The Court noted that “When reviewing Noble ’ s complaint
history, a pattern becomes clear. After the dismissal of his claims, rat her
than file an appeal as required by the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate
Procedure, Noble simply files new lawsuits and demands further review.” 10

We advise Noble, who has already been barred by the U.S. District Courts

for the Eastern District of P ennsylvania 11 and the District of Delaware 12
from filing additional law suits, to be mindful of Supreme Court Rule 20(f). 13

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED , that the motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. The petitions for w rit s of prohibition and certiorari are

DISMISS ED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice

9 See Noble v. Becker
, 2004 WL 96744 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2004).

10 Id

. at *2; s ee also Noble v. Cooper
, 2010 WL 3769080 , at *2 (E.D.Pa, Sept. 28, 2010) (quoting the same).

11 See In Re Guyer , 1990 WL 162131 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 1990). Noble legally changed his name from Thomas D. Guyer to Thomas E. Noble in 2002. He also used the name Walter M. Guyer in his earlier court filings. Noble v. Becker
, 2004 WL 96744 , at *1 n.1.

12 Noble v. Becker
, 2004 WL 96744 , at *5 (d irecting the Clerk of the Court to “ refuse to file any complaint or other paper from Thomas E. Noble until this Court has ruled further on this matter ”)

. 13 Sup. Ct. R. 20(f) (“The Court may in any case involving a frivolous appeal, enter a special order as sessing costs in addition to those provided for by paragraph (d) as justice may require. Such additional costs may, in the discretion of the Court, include the costs incurred in the preparation and transmission of the record, the cost of the transcript an d the reasonable expenses of any appellee.”).