Title: Desmond v. Bullock
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 574, 2018
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: February 12, 2019

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHRISTOPHER R. DESMOND, 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
JEFFREY BULLOCK, 
 
Defendant Below, 
Appellee. 
§ 
§   
§  No. 574, 2018 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. N18M-18-028 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: January 9, 2019 
Decided: 
February 8, 2019 
Corrected: February 12, 2019 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, 
it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On November 14, 2018, the appellant, Christopher R. Desmond, filed 
a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion to compel the 
Secretary of State to accept his petition for review of his convictions by the Board 
of Pardons.  Based on his filing of a number of unsuccessful motions and petitions 
challenging his 1992 convictions, this Court previously directed the Clerk of the 
Court to refuse any filings from Desmond unless the filing was accompanied by the 
required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn 
 
2 
affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that 
motion was granted by the Court.1  Desmond filed an incomplete and un-notarized 
motion to proceed in forma pauperis with his notice of appeal.   
(2) 
The Senior Court Clerk directed Desmond to provide a completed and 
notarized motion by November 29, 2018.  Desmond failed to do so.  On December 
31, 2018, the Senior Court Clerk directed Desmond to show cause why this appeal 
should not be dismissed for his failure to file a completed and notarized motion to 
proceed in forma pauperis as directed.  On January 9, 2019, Desmond filed his 
response to the notice to show cause.   
(3) 
Although it is not entirely clear, Desmond seems to argue that members 
of the Court have been found to be appointed unconstitutionally.  Desmond does not 
address his failure to file a completed and notarized motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis as directed by the Court.  Nor has he paid the filing fee.  Under these 
circumstances, this appeal must be dismissed. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice  
 
                                                 
1 Desmond v. Biden, 2015 WL 631582, at *3 (Del. Feb. 11, 2015).