Title: Getz v. Taylor, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 100, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 8, 2009

1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES R. GETZ, JR.,  
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
STANLEY TAYLOR, et al.,  
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 100, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 06C-07-189 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 30, 2009 
 
 
 
 
Decided:    December 8, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 8th day of December 2009, upon consideration of the briefs on 
appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The plaintiff-appellant, Charles R. Getz, Jr., filed an appeal 
from the Superior Court’s February 17, 2009 order granting the motion for 
summary judgment of the defendants-appellees, Stanley Taylor, et al., 
denying his five motions, and dismissing his two additional complaints.  We 
find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
Getz is an inmate currently incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn 
Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, formerly the Delaware 
Correctional Center (“DCC”). Getz is serving a life sentence for the rape of 
 
2 
his then-11 year-old daughter.  Getz’s conviction, following his third 
Superior Court trial, was affirmed by this Court.1  In 2001, Getz filed a 
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware 
against the Warden of the DCC on the ground that his constitutional rights 
were being violated.  He sought injunctive relief against prison officials for 
requiring him to attend counseling groups for sex offenders and for 
withholding housing, job, and other privileges from him as punishment for 
his refusal to attend such groups.  Finding no constitutional violation, the 
District Court denied Getz’ request for relief.2        
 
(3) 
In July 2006, Getz filed a complaint in the Superior Court 
against Stanley Taylor et al. (“State Defendants”) alleging that the State 
Defendants had violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to 
participate in mental health and behavior modification programs and by 
denying him certain privileges as punishment for his refusal to do so.  Getz 
requested injunctive and monetary relief.  On January 31, 2008, after the 
close of discovery, the State Defendants filed a motion for summary 
judgment requesting that the Superior Court enter judgment in their favor on 
all claims made by Getz.   
                                                 
1 Getz v. State, Del. Supr., No. 364, 1989, Walsh, J. (Sept. 13, 1990). 
2 Getz v. Carroll, D. Del., No. 01-744, Robinson, J. (Dec. 7, 2001). 
 
3 
 
(4) 
The State Defendants argued four grounds in their motion: a) 
Getz is barred from advancing his claims under the doctrine of res judicata; 
b) the Department of Correction has the statutory authority to require Getz to 
participate in programs geared toward treatment and rehabilitation; c) the 
restrictions imposed for Getz’ failure to participate in such programs do not 
violate his constitutional rights; and d) the State Defendants are immune 
from liability.  On May 29, 2008, the Superior Court held a hearing on the 
State Defendants’ motion.  After supplemental briefing, the Superior Court 
issued its decision granting the motion on the ground that Getz’ claims were 
barred under the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a party from 
bringing a second lawsuit on the same issue involving the same parties or 
their privies after a final judgment has been entered.3      
 
(5) 
Specifically, the Superior Court determined that Getz’ current 
claims arose from the same or equivalent transactions that gave rise to the 
claims he previously made in the District Court.  Moreover, the Superior 
Court determined that, while Getz did not expressly raise his state law 
claims in the District Court, he, nevertheless, could have raised those claims, 
thereby invoking the District Court’s pendent jurisdiction.  Because Getz did 
                                                 
3 Wilson v. Danberg, Del. Supr., No. 342, 2008, Jacobs, J. (Sept. 19, 2008) (citing Betts v. 
Townsends, Inc., 765 A.2d 531, 534 (Del. 2000)). 
 
 
4 
not carry his burden of demonstrating that the District Court would have 
refused to assert jurisdiction over his state law claims, the Superior Court 
determined that those claims were barred.4  Having determined that there 
was no dispute of material fact and that the State Defendants were entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law, the Superior Court also denied, as moot, Getz’ 
motions to compel, for declaratory judgment, to proceed with trial, for a 
response to a question of law, and to strike and, finally, dismissed his 
additional complaints for harassment and criminal acts.   
 
(6) 
In his appeal from the Superior Court’s judgment, Getz asserts 
several claims that may fairly be summarized as follows: a) the Superior 
Court should not have granted summary judgment to the State Defendants 
because there were material facts in dispute and the State Defendants were 
not entitled to judgment as a matter of law; b) the Superior Court utilized an 
erroneous summary judgment standard; and c) the Superior Court erred 
when it determined that his claims were res judicata. 
 
(7) 
This Court reviews de novo the Superior Court’s grant of 
summary judgment, utilizing the same standard as the Superior Court.5  
Specifically, we determine whether the record shows that there is no dispute 
of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 
                                                 
4 Maldonado v. Flynn, 417 A.2d at 378, 383-84 (Del. Ch. 1980). 
5 Berns v. Doan, 961 A.2d 506, 510 (Del. 2008). 
 
5 
of law.6  Having reviewed de novo the Superior Court’s grant of summary 
judgment in this case and having determined that there is no dispute of 
material fact and that the State Defendants are entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law, we conclude that the judgment of the Superior Court should 
be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned memorandum 
opinion dated February 17, 2009.        
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Jack B. Jacobs  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        Justice  
                                                 
6 Id. at 510.