Title: Alston v. Christiana Hospital
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 158, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 30, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
THOMAS D. ALSTON, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHRISTIANA HOSPITAL, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 158, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N16C-03-028 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 5, 2016 
   Decided: September 30, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 30th day of September 2016, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that:   
(1) 
The appellant, Thomas D. Alston, appeals the Superior Court’s order 
dismissing his complaint.  We find no merit to Alston’s appeal and affirm the 
Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on January 4, 2016, Alston filed a complaint 
against Christiana Care Health Services, Inc. (“CCHS”), incorrectly identified as 
Christiana Hospital in the complaint, in the Superior Court.  The complaint was 
titled “Personal Injury Complaint,” alleged that Alston was arrested for Attempted 
Rape in the Second Degree on January 7, 2014, and alleged that Alston was 
 
2 
pursuing negligence against CCHS and a faulty video system.  In the Civil Case 
Information Statement, Alston identified the case type as defamation. 
(3) 
On initial review of the complaint under 10 Del. C. § 8803(b),1 the 
Superior Court dismissed the complaint.  The Superior Court found the complaint 
factually frivolous, legally frivolous, did not entitle Alston to relief, and raised 
issues that should have been raised in Alston’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea 
or motion for postconviction relief in his criminal case, Criminal ID No. 
1401002421.  This appeal followed. 
(4) 
On appeal, Alston provides more details concerning his claims, which 
appear to involve a sexual assault at a hospital, and argues that the Superior Court 
should not have dismissed the complaint because he would not have been 
convicted of sexual assault if CCHS had clear video of the incident at the hospital.  
CCHS argues that Alston failed to state a claim for negligence or defamation.  
Having carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal, we conclude that the 
Superior Court did not err in dismissing the complaint. 
(5) 
To the extent Alston sued CCHS for negligence, the complaint utterly 
failed to plead the elements of a negligence claim (duty, breach of duty, causation, 
                                                 
1 Section 8803(b) permits the reviewing court, after granting a motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis, to summarily dismiss an indigent plaintiff's complaint if the claims are factually or 
legally frivolous or malicious. 
 
3 
and injury).2  To the extent Alston sued CCHS for defamation, the complaint 
utterly failed to plead the elements of a defamation claim (a defamatory 
communication referring to the plaintiff, publication, the third party’s 
understanding of the communication’s defamatory character, and injury).3  As the 
Superior Court found, Alston asserts claims regarding the existence of an 
exculpatory video that belonged in a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 32(d) or a motion for postconviction relief under 
Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 in his criminal case, not a negligence case against 
CCHS.  The Superior Court did not err in finding the complaint factually frivolous, 
legally frivolous, and not entitling Alston to relief.    
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior  
Court is AFFIRMED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
2 Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162, 166 (Del. 2011). 
3 Bloss v. Kershner, 2000 WL 303342, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2000) aff’d, 2001 WL 
1692160 (Del. Dec. 21, 2001).