Title: Dickens v. Staff Lt. Costello
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 377, 2004
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 29, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KEVIN L. DICKENS, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STAFF LT. COSTELLO, et al., 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No.  377, 2004 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 97C-06-063 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 16, 2004 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 29, 2004 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 29th day of September 2004, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On August 30, 2004, the Court received appellant Kevin 
Dickens= notice of appeal from a Superior Court order dated July 20, 2004, 
which denied Dickens’ motion for a new trial.  Pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal from the July 20, 2004 order should have 
been filed on or before August 19, 2004. 
(2) 
The Clerk issued a notice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 
29(b) directing Dickens to show cause why the appeal should not be 
 
 
-2-
dismissed as untimely.1  Dickens filed a response to the notice to show cause 
on September 16, 2004.  Dickens contends that Department of Correction 
policies regarding prisoner mail caused his notice of appeal to be untimely 
and that his untimeliness is not his fault and should be excused.  
(3) 
We disagree.  Time is a jurisdictional requirement.2  A notice of 
appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the 
applicable time period in order to be effective.3  An appellant=s pro se status 
does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional 
requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.4  Unless Dickens can demonstrate 
that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related 
personnel, his appeal cannot be considered.5  Prison officials are not court-
related personnel. 
(4) 
There is nothing in the record to reflect that appellant=s failure 
to file a timely notice of appeal in this case is attributable to court-related 
personnel.  Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the 
                                                 
1Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i). 
2Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829(1989). 
3Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 
4Carr v. State, 554 A.2d at 779. 
5Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 
 
 
-3-
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal.  Thus, the 
Court concludes that the within appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice