IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DETLEF HARTMANN
,
Plaintiff Below
, Appellant,

v.
STATE OF DELAWARE, DOC COMMISSIONER CLAIRE DEMATTEIS, and WARDEN ROBERT MAY
,
Defendant s Below
, Appellee s

. § § No. 203, 2021 § § § Court Below

– Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § § C.A. No. N21C

- 06

- 071 § § § § §

Submitted: January 21, 2022 Decided: March 28 , 2022

Before VALIHURA
, TRAYNOR
, and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES
, Justices

.
O RDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs , the appellant’s motion for
default judgment, 1 and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that:

1 Including this motion for default judgment, t he appellant has filed sixteen motions in connection with his appeal. With the exception of his motion for a page extension, which was granted, and his motion to amend the case caption, which was granted in par t, all the motions were either stricken or denied. See Hartmann v. State , No. 203, 2021, Order (Aug. 5, 2021) (striking Hartmann’s motions for appeal and for appeal grounds and denying Hartmann’s motion to expedite, motion for appointment of counsel, and m otion to stay); Hartmann v. State , No. 203, 2021, Order (Oct. 26, 2021) (granting in part Hartmann’s motion to amend the caption and denying Hartmann’s motion to seal, motion for expert witness fees, and motion for appointment of counsel) ; Hartmann v. State , No. 203, 2021, Order (Nov. 18, 2021) (denying Hartmann’s motions for emergency relief in the form of an injunction or a temporary restraining order). Because we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment, the appellant’s motion for default judgment is de nied as moot.2

(1) The appellant, Detlef Hartmann appeals the Superior Court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint as legally fri volous. We find no merit to the appeal
and affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(2) On June 9, 2021, Hartmann filed a pro se complaint against the State
of Delaware, Department of Correction (“DOC”) Commissioner Claire DeMatteis,
and Warden Robert May (t ogether, the “Defendants”) in the Superior Court. The
complaint allege s that the Defendants violated (i) Hartmann’s constitutional rights

under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth

Amendments of United States Constitution ; (ii) his constitutional rights under

“ Sections 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, [ and ] 16 ” of the Delaware Constitution ; (ii i ) his
“accommodation for disability and indigency rights ; ” (i v ) his “pro se rights ; ” (v) his

“ civil rights ; ” (v i ) his “ public rig hts ; ” (vi i ) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (vii i ) DOC’s policies ;
( ix ) Title 11 of the Delaware Code ; and (x) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”) . In seven pages dedicated to his prayer for relief,

Hartmann s eeks , among other things, a per sonal laptop, internet access, a
professional assistant, appointment of counsel, injunctive relief, forty

- nine million
dollars in damages, “treble damages” under RICO, and, until the case settle s , a
monthly nonrefundable payment of two million dollars.3

(3) As required by the in forma pauperis statute, 10 Del. C. § 8803, the
Superior Court conducted an initial review of Hartmann’s complaint. 2 Finding that
the complaint is l egally frivolous and that it plainly appea rs from the face of the
complaint that Hartmann i s not entitled to the relief he seeks , the Superior Court
dismissed the complaint

. This appeal followed.

(4) On appeal, Hartmann argues that the Superior Court abused its
discretion when it dismissed his comp laint and provides more details concerning his

claims, which center on allegations that DOC is depriving him of his constitutional

liberties, he is housed in inhumane living conditions , and the Defendants are engaged
in human trafficking , racketeering, and other acts of corruption . Hartmann asks this

Court to appoint a “special court” to handle this case because of the systemic

“historical harms and violations” at issue. Hartmann also argues that we should
order his immediate release from custody.

(5) W e review the dismissal of a complaint as legally frivolous under

Section 8803 (b) for abuse of discretion. 3 Dismissal of an indigent plaintiff’s

2 10 Del. C. § 8803(b) (“Upon establishing the amount of fees and costs to be paid, the court shall review the complaint. Upon such review, the complaint shall be dismissed if the court finds the action is factually frivolous, malicious, or, upon a court’s finding that the action is legally frivolous and that even a pro se litigant, acting with due diligence, should have found well settled law disposing of the issue(s) raised. Any order of dismissal shall specifically identify whether the

co mplaint was factually frivolous, legally frivolous and/or malicious. Service of process shall not issue unless and until the court grants leave following its review.”).
3 See Deputy v. Dr. Conlan , 2007 WL 3071424, at *1 (Del. Oct. 22, 2007) (citing Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (construing the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d))).4

complaint as legally f

rivolous is warranted in “those cases in which either it is readily
apparent that the plaintiff’s complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or that the
defendants are clearly entitled to immunity.” 4

(6) We conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when
it dismissed Hartmann’s complaint as legally frivolous because the al legations in
Hartmann’s complaint (i) are overbroad and conclusory in that they contain no
supporting factual allegations and (ii) do not plead the elements of any cognizable
claim under the statutes and constitutional provisions cited

. To the extent that
Hartmann alleges that DOC is not complying with its policies by, for example,
denying him access to the law library or his legal paperwork, the proper vehicle for
seeking re lief is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the Superior Court.

NOW, THERE FORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion for default judgment is denied as MOOT.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice

4 Roman v. Jeffes , 904 F.2d 192, 194 (3d. Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).