IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DANIEL M. WOODS, §
§
Plaintiff Below, § No. 505, 2017
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
MATT DENN, Attorney General; § C.A. No. N17C-05-197
COLONEL NATHANIEL §
MCQUEEN, JR., Delaware State §
Police; DETECTIVE HARRIS; §
DETECTIVE DEFLAVIIS; DAVID §
PIERCE, Warden, J.T.V.C.C.; GTL §
HUMAN RESROUCES; CORRECT §
CARE SOLUTIONS, §
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellees. §
Submitted: December 13, 2017
Decided: December 20, 2017
Before VAUGHN, SEITZ, and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
This 20th day of December 2017, having considered the notice to show cause
and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On November 30, 2017, the appellant, Daniel M. Woods, filed a notice
of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated June 20, 2017 and docketed on June
26, 2017, that denied his motion for reconsideration.1 Woods sought reconsideration
of a Superior Court order, dated June 7, 2017, denying his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and requiring him to pay the $200 filing fee. On November 9, 2017,
the Prothonotary informed Woods that his complaint would be dismissed unless he
paid the $200 filing fee by December 1, 2017.
(2) On November 30, 2017, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing
Woods to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to
comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in filing an appeal from an interlocutory order.
In his response to the notice to show cause, Woods argues the Superior Court should
not have denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. He does not address his
failure to comply with Rule 42.
(3) “The denial of a petition to proceed in forma pauperis is an
interlocutory order for which appellate review is available only upon compliance
with Supreme Court Rule 42.”2 Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42,
this Court is limited to the review of a trial court’s final judgment.3 An order is
deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order
be the court’s final act in the case.4 The docket of the Superior Court proceedings
1
Based on the Superior Court docket, it appears Woods may not have been informed of the denial
of his motion for reconsideration until November 9, 2017.
2
Abdul-Akbar v. Washington-Hall, 649 A.2d 808, 809 (Del. 1994).
3
Julian v. State, 440 A.2d 990, 991 (Del. 1982).
4
J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. William Matthews, Builder, Inc., 303 A.2d 648, 650 (Del. 1973).
2
does not reflect entry of an order dismissing Woods’ complaint. Woods’ failure to
comply with Rule 42 requires the dismissal of this appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
3