Title: Biggins v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 20, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 4, 2001

1The appellant’s response to the State’s motion to affirm was not requested by the
Court and, therefore, shall be stricken as a nonconforming document. See Supr. Ct. R. 25,
34.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMES A. BIGGINS,
Plaintiff Below-
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants Below-
Appellees.
§
§
§  No. 20, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for Kent County
§  C.A. No. 00C-06-019
§  
§
§
Submitted: April 11, 2001
  Decided:
May 4, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
O R D E R
This 7th day of May 2001, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening
brief and the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm,1 it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The plaintiff-appellant, James A. Biggins, filed this appeal from
the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with the
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Biggins currently is an inmate at the
Delaware Correctional Center. He filed his complaint against numerous state
officials alleging violations of his civil rights. The Superior Court granted
-2-
Biggins in forma pauperis status but directed Biggins, within forty days, to file
an amended complaint in compliance with the Superior Court Civil Rules.
Specifically, the Court directed Biggins to structure his complaint in
sequentially numbered paragraphs containing simple, direct and concise
averments in order to permit the various defendants to file orderly answers to
his complaint. Thereafter, Biggins filed a document, which purportedly was his
amended complaint, consisting of 20 pages of rambling allegations interspersed
with legal argument, along with 96 pages of exhibits. The Superior Court found
that Biggins’ amended complaint still did not comply with the Superior Court
Civil Rules and dismissed Biggins’ complaint after a hearing. Biggins now
appeals that ruling.
(2)
The State has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The State contends that, pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 41(e), the
Superior Court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any rule,
statute  or order of the Court. In this case, the State contends that the Superior
Court’s dismissal of Biggins’ complaint for failure to comply with the trial
court’s earlier order was within the sound discretion of the Court. 
(3)
After a careful review of the record and the parties’ contentions,
we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion, or otherwise
2See Ward v. Indian River School Dist., Del. Supr., No. 205, 1990, Horsey, J. (Jan.
4, 1991) (ORDER).
-3-
commit legal error, in dismissing Biggins’ amended complaint. The record
clearly supports the Superior Court’s finding that the amended complaint failed
to comply with the Superior Court Civil Rules because it failed to allege
Biggins’ entitlement to relief in simple, concise, and direct terms.2
Accordingly, we find it manifest on the face of Biggins’ opening brief that his
appeal is without merit. The issue on appeal is one of judicial discretion and
clearly there was no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice