COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KATHALEEN ST

. JUDE MCCORMICK V ICE C HANCELLOR L EONARD L. W ILLIAMS J USTICE C ENTER 500 N. K ING S TREET , S UITE 11400 W ILMINGTON , D ELAWARE 19801

- 3734 January 13 , 20 2 1 Mr. Fred Huffman SBI No. 00175294 James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna , DE 19977
Re: Huffman , et al. v. DeMat teis, et al., C .A. No. 2020

- 0742

- PWG
Dear Mr. Huffman : This letter addresses the exceptions you t o o k to an Order dated September 1,
2020

. 1 I will begin by briefly recounting the procedural history of this matter, Civil
Action Number 2020

- 0742

- PWG , which I will refer to as the “Second Action,” and the prior matter you filed, Civil Action Number 2020

- 0530

- PWG , which I will refer
to as the “First Action.” 2 You commenced the First Action by le tter dated June 9, 2020, which sought
a writ of mandamus and asked this court to issue an injunction concerning the

1 C.A. No. 2020

- 0742

- PWG ( “ Second Action ” ), Docket (“Dkt.”) 1, Order Granting, in Part, Denying in Part Appls. to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Action, and Denying Mot. for Reconsideration of Dismissal (“Order”).
2 C.A. No. 2020

- 0530

- PWG ( “ First Action ” ), Dkt. 4 , Order on in Forma Pauperis (“Final Report”).C.A. No. 2020

- 0742

- KSJM January 13, 2021 Page 2 of 5 conditions of the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ruing the COVID

- 19 pandemic. The First Action was assigned to Master Griffin. In he r Final Report dated June 30, 2020, Master Griffin granted your application to proceed in forma pauperis
in this matter. 3 Master Griffin then evaluated whether the legal theories you raised

are within this court’s jurisdiction

. 4 As she explained, a court has an independent obligation to ensure the proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. She found that your writ of mandamus fell outside the scop e of this court’s jurisdiction and
dismissed the First Action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. She dismissed the
First Action without prejudice to permit you the opportunity to reassert your claims
in the proper venue, the Superior Court of Delaware. 5
You then filed the Second Action in the Court of Chancery on July 15, 2020. 6 Your initial filing c omprised a letter seeking reconsideration of Master Griffin’s dismissal of the First Action, a proposed class action pleading, applications to

3 Id. at 2.
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id. at 3

– 4.
6 Second Actio n Dkt. 18, Class Action Compl. Regarding Inj. Relief and Punitive Damages.C.A. No. 2020

- 0742

- KSJM January 13, 2021 Page 3 of 5 proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of yourself and the other proposed petition er s, and a motion for the appointm ent of counsel. The Second Action was assigned to Master Molina. By an O rder dated September 1, 2020 , Master Molina granted nine of the ten motion s to proceed in forma pauperis and denied reconsideration of the Final Report in the First Action.
She then dismissed the Second Action. As the Master explained, in esse nce, the Second Action complained of conditions of confinement, and Title 10,
Section 8804(g) of the Delaware Code requires a prisoner to exhaust all
administrative remedies available throu gh the institutional grievance process before filing a complaint relating to a condition of confinement. 7 After canvasing the record
of both the First and Second Action s , she found no information concerning any
efforts to exhaust administrative remedies. She dismissed the Second Action without prejudice to your ability to refile with support showing that all available
administrative remedies have been exhausted. Because she dismissed the Second Action, the Master did not rule on your motion for the appoi ntment of counsel.

7 Order ¶ 5.C.A. No. 2020

- 0742

- KSJM January 13, 2021 Page 4 of 5 You took exceptions to Master Mo lina’s September 1, 2020 Order ( al though you refer red to it as Master Griffin’s Final R eport )

. 8 This matter was assigne d to me solely for the purpose of hearing the exception s to the Order

. 9 After taking exceptions, y ou wrote three additional letters dated September 24 , September 30 , and October 12, 2020. The last letter was docketed on October 19, 2020. Each letter attached exhibit s concerning your efforts to exhaust
administrative remedies. Typically, this court review s exceptions “on the record before the Master, unless the Court determines otherwise for good cause shown.” 10 In this case, however, Master Molina issued the Order based on a record that did not include any evidence of your attempts to exh aust the administrative remedies available to you. Given your status as a pro se litigant, and the development of the records following the Master’s issuance of the Order, i t is appropriate to give the Master an opportunity to evaluate your three most recent submissions and revisit her findings in light of
that information

. 11

8 Second Action Dk t. 20, Letter Addressed to the C ourt f rom Fred Huffman to the C ourt Regarding Exceptions (ta king exception to the “Order D ated Sept. 01, 2020”).
9 Sec ond Action Dkt. 22, Case Reassignment Letter.
10 Ct. Ch. R. 144(e).
11 See, e.g., DiGiacobbe v. Sestak , 743 A2d 180, 184

– 85 (Del. 1999) (finding that a remand to the trial court was appropriate where the reviewing court was “unable to review theC.A. No. 2020

- 0742

- KSJM January 13, 2021 Page 5 of 5
This matter is therefore remanded to the Master s in Chancery , who may review the new evidence you have presented and determine if revisiting the findings in the Final Report or th e Order is appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely , /s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Vice Chancellor

decision of the Court of Chancery” which, “likewise, was unable to review the decision of the master” due to limitations in the available record ).