Court Opinion

ID: 9960553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 16:02:13.386307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:36.620099
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

     SUMMER MURPHY,1            §
                                § No. 242, 2023
         Respondent Below,      §
         Appellant,             § Court Below—Family Court
                                § of the State of Delaware
         v.                     §
                                § File No. 22-01-05TN
     DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES FOR § Petition No. 22-00567
     CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR  §
     FAMILIES,                  §
                                §
         Petitioner Below,      §
         Appellee.              §

                               Submitted: April 12, 2024
                               Decided:   April 15, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

                                            ORDER

         After consideration of the notice to show cause, it appears to the Court that:

         (1)     On July 7, 2023, the appellant, Summer Murphy, filed this appeal from

a Family Court decision, dated June 8, 2023, terminating her parental rights to two

of her children. On October 6, 2023, Murphy filed a motion under Supreme Court

Rule 26.1(d)(iii) to discharge her appointed counsel and to represent herself in this

appeal. The Court remanded this matter for the Family Court to conduct a hearing

1
    The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Murphy’s waiver of

counsel and her request to proceed pro se on appeal.

      (2)    After holding a hearing and determining that Murphy’s waiver of

appointed counsel on appeal was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, the Family

Court returned this matter from remand on November 14, 2023. The Court granted

Murphy’s motion to proceed pro se and permitted her counsel to withdraw. The

Clerk’s Office issued a briefing schedule directing Murphy to file her opening brief

on December 20, 2023.

      (3)     On December 20, 2023, Murphy requested an extension until January

5, 2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee did not oppose the extension request.

The Court granted the extension request.

      (4)    On January 3, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until January 17,

2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee did not oppose the extension request.

The Court granted the extension request.

      (5)    On January 16, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until February

12, 2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee did not oppose the extension request.

The Court granted the extension request.

      (6)    On February 14, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until March 12,

2024 to file her opening brief. The appellee opposed the extension request. The

Court granted Murphy an extension until March 1, 2024 to file her opening brief.

                                           2
      (7)    Murphy did not file her opening brief on March 1, 2024. On March 5,

2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice of brief delinquency to Murphy. The

notice warned that if Murphy did not file her brief within seven days the matter could

be resolved against her.

      (8)    On March 13, 2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing

Murphy to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to file

an opening brief. The notice to show cause was delivered to Murphy, as evidenced

by the certified return receipt filed with the Court, by March 21, 2024. A timely

response to the notice to show cause was due on or before April 1, 2024.

      (9)    On April 9, 2024, Murphy requested an extension until April 10, 2024

to file her opening brief. She stated that she initially had planned to file her brief on

April 9th, but needed one more day. The Court granted Murphy an extension until

April 11, 2024, but also ruled that no further extensions would be granted. Murphy

still has not filed her opening brief.

      (10) Even if Murphy’s latest request for an extension is deemed a response

to the notice to show cause, Murphy has not established good cause for her failure

to file an opening brief. As the appellant, and following her counsel’s withdrawal,

                                           3
it is Murphy’s duty to diligently prosecute the appeal. She has not done so, and this

appeal must therefore be dismissed.2

       NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

                                               BY THE COURT:

                                               /s/ Gary F. Traynor
                                                     Justice

2
  See, e.g., Carnevale v. State, 2023 WL 4760797, at *3 (Del. July 25, 2023) (dismissing appeal
where the appellant had not established good cause for her failure to file an opening brief ); Proctor
v. Ranger Ins. Co., 2002 WL 31883047, at *1 (Del. Dec. 27, 2002) (same).

                                                  4