IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

RONALD JONES, 

Appellant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

GATEWAY HOUSE, INC., 

Appellee Below, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ No. 62, 2023 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ C.A. No. N23A-01-001 (N) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

 Submitted: September 29, 2023 

 Decided: December 7, 2023 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 

 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, it appears to 

the Court that: 

(1) The appellant, Ronald Jones, filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s 

order dismissing his appeal of the Justice of the Peace Court’s decision awarding 

possession and back rent to the appellee, Gateway House, Inc. For the reasons 

discussed below, we affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 

(2) Beginning in 2013, Jones rented an apartment from Gateway House. 

Gateway House unsuccessfully tried to evict Jones in summary possession 

proceedings in 2016 and 2019. In July 2021, Jones filed an action against Gateway 

House’s executive director in the Justice of the Peace Court for monetary damages 
2

arising from Gateway House’s allegedly retaliatory acts under 25 Del. C. § 5516 and 

toxic living conditions in his apartment (“Damages Proceeding”). In September 

2021, Gateway House instituted a summary proceeding for possession and back rent 

against Jones in the Justice of the Peace Court (“Summary Possession Proceeding”). 

(3) Trial in the Damages Proceeding took place on December 17, 2021. 

Before the trial began, the Justice of the Peace Court granted the motion to join 

Gateway House as the proper party and to dismiss Gateway House’s executive 

director. Jones moved to continue the trial, which the Justice of the Peace found was 

pretextual and denied. After Jones rested his case without presenting any evidence, 

the Justice of the Peace Court found that he had failed to meet his burden of proof 

and dismissed his complaint with prejudice. Jones did not seek appellate review but 

filed a counterclaim in the Summary Possession Proceeding for monetary damages 

arising from Gateway House’s allegedly retaliatory acts under 25 Del. C. § 5516 and 

toxic carpet in his room. 

(4) In the Summary Possession Proceeding, Gateway House moved to 

dismiss Jones’s counterclaim as untimely and barred by res judicata. The Justice of 

the Peace Court initially dismissed the counterclaim as untimely, but later held that 

Jones could raise retaliation and conditions claims based on acts that occurred after 

December 22, 2021. Trial took place on August 2, 2022. Early in the presentation 

of his case, Jones withdrew his counterclaim. The jury returned a unanimous verdict 
3

in favor of Gateway House for possession and rent owed in the amount of 

$18,039.15. 

(5) After the Justice of the Peace Court entered judgment in favor of 

Gateway House, Jones filed an appeal to a three-judge panel in the Justice of the 

Peace Court under 25 Del. C. § 5717(c). He argued that the Justice of the Peace 

Court erroneously deprived him of the right to present his counterclaim and that the 

doctrine of res judicata did not bar his counterclaim. Gateway House submitted 

arguments in opposition to Jones’s position. On December 2, 2022, the three-judge 

panel held that res judicata barred Jones’s counterclaim and affirmed the judgment 

in favor of Gateway House. 

(6) On December 16, 2022, Jones filed a notice of appeal in the Court of 

Common Pleas. On December 20, 2022, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the 

appeal based on its lack of jurisdiction over appeals from a three-judge panel of the 

Justice of the Peace and the Superior Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. 

(7) On January 4, 2023, Jones filed a notice of appeal in the Superior 

Court.1 After granting Jones’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Superior 

Court reviewed the appeal as required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(b) and dismissed the 

appeal on the basis that it was legally frivolous and plainly appeared from the face 

1

 Jones’s appellate paperwork was electronically docketed on January 9, 2023, but the praecipe 

bears a Prothonotary stamp that appears to be dated January 4, 2023. The January 4, 2023 date 

would be consistent with when Jones said he went to the Superior Court to fill out the paperwork. 
4

of the appeal that Jones was not entitled to relief. The Superior Court did not provide 

any reasoning for these conclusions. This appeal followed. 

(8) On appeal, Jones argues that the Superior Court erred in dismissing his 

appeal without allowing him to argue the merits of his claims. Gateway House 

contends that the Superior Court did not err in dismissing Jones’s appeal because the 

Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and Jones was not entitled to relief even if the 

Superior Court had jurisdiction. Having carefully considered the parties’ positions 

on appeal, the Court concludes that the Superior Court did not err in dismissing 

Jones’s appeal. 

(9) Under § 8803(b), a trial court must review a complaint2 once the 

plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. If the trial court 

determines that the complaint is factually frivolous, malicious, or legally frivolous 

such that even a pro se litigant should have found well-settled law disposing of the 

issues raised, the complaint must be dismissed.3 It is well-settled law that the 

Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a summary possession 

proceeding in the Justice of the Peace Court.4

2

 A complaint is “any civil action or miscellaneous action or any application for an extraordinary 

writ.” 10 Del. C. § 8801(1). 

3

 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). 

4 Capano Invs. v. Levenberg, 564 A.2d 1130, 1131 (Del. 1989); Bomba’s Restaurant & Cocktail 

Lounge, Inc. v. Lord De La Warr Hotel, Inc., 389 A.2d 766, 769 (Del. 1978). 
5

(10) As Gateway House recognizes in its answering brief, the Superior Court 

does have jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari to the Justice of the Peace Court in 

summary possession cases.5 Almost all of the papers Jones filed in the Superior 

Court referred to an appeal, but his Civil Information Statement listed the Civil Case 

Code as ACER and the Civil Case Type as Certiorari. The extraordinary remedy of 

a writ of certiorari “is not a substitute for, or the functional equivalent of, an appeal.”6 

On a writ of certiorari, the reviewing court does not consider the merits of the case, 

but considers only whether the lower court committed an error of law, exceeded its 

jurisdiction, or proceeded irregularly.7 Review is limited to errors apparent on the 

face of the record, which consists only of the complaint initiating the proceeding, 

any written answer or response, and the docket entries.8 Even assuming Jones’s 

Superior Court papers could be construed as a timely petition for a writ of certiorari,9

he has not shown that the Justice of the Peace Court committed an error of law, 

exceeded its jurisdiction, or proceeded irregularly. 

 

5 Maddrey v. Justice of Peace Court 13, 956 A.2d 1204, 1213 (Del. 2008). 

6

Id.

7

Id. at 1213-14. 

8

Id. at 1216. 

9

 Absent a showing of exceptional circumstances, a petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed 

within thirty days of the order to be reviewed. In re Fridge, 1991 WL 247811, at *2 (Del. Nov. 

20, 1991). A timely petition for a writ of certiorari was due by January 3, 2023, but Jones filed 

his papers in the Superior Court on January 4, 2023. 
6

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice