Lewis v. Coupe ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EDWARD LEWIS, §
§
Plaintiff Below, § No. 381, 2016
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
ROBERT COUPE, § C.A. No. K16M-03-006
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT §
OF CORRECTION and DAVID §
PIERCE, WARDEN, JAMES T. §
VAUGHN CORRECTIONAL §
CENTER, §
§
Defendants Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: August 15, 2016
Decided: October 17, 2016
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 17th day of October 2016, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On July 25, 2016, the appellant, Edward Lewis, filed a notice of
appeal from a July 5, 2016 letter from the Prothonotary’s office returning his Letter
to Honorable Judge Witham and Motion to Vacate Judgment and for Judgment of
Pleadings Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 58. Lewis filed an opening brief
with the notice of appeal. The Chief Deputy Clerk informed Lewis that the letter
from the Prothonotary’s office was not a court order, but acknowledged that the
notice of appeal included a May 25, 2016 Superior Court order dismissing Lewis’
petition for a writ of mandamus. The Chief Deputy Clerk told Lewis that if he
wished to appeal the May 25, 2016 order he needed to file an amended notice of
appeal by August 8, 2016.
(2) Lewis filed an amended notice of appeal of the May 25, 2016 order,
along with a letter, on August 4, 2016. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(i), a timely
appeal of the May 25, 2016 order should have been filed on or before June 24,
2016. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Lewis to show cause why
this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6.
In his response to the notice to show cause, Lewis stated that he explained the
reason for his untimely appeal in his August 4, 2016 letter. In the August 4, 2016
letter, Lewis argued that his appeal should be deemed timely because the
Prothonotary’s office refused to accept his motion for reargument pursuant to
Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e) of the May 25, 2016 Superior Court order.
(3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.1 A notice of appeal must be
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period
in order to be effective.2 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6.3
1
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
2
Supr. Ct. R. 10 (a); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 483 (Del. 2012).
3
Smith, 47 A.3d at 486-87.
2
Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be
considered.4
(4) To the extent Lewis seeks to appeal the Prothonotary’s July 5, 2016
letter, “this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from actions taken by trial
court clerical staff.”5 To the extent Lewis claims he filed a motion for reargument
that tolled the time for the filing of a notice of appeal of the May 25, 2016 Superior
Court order, the documents submitted by Lewis in this appeal do not support this
claim. First, the letters from the Prothonotary’s office and the certificate of service
to the motion reflect that Lewis filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and for
Judgment of Pleadings Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 58,6 not a motion for
reargument under Superior Court Civil Rule 59(e).
(5) Second, even if Lewis had actually filed a motion for reargument,
only a timely motion for reargument tolls the time to file a notice of appeal.7 A
timely motion for reargument of the May 25, 2016 Superior Court order was due
on or before June 2, 2016.8 The certificate of service for the document Lewis
4
Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
5
Denston v. State, 2008 WL 400197, at *1 (Del. Feb. 15, 2008) (citing Redden v. McGill, 549
A.2d 695, 697-98 (Del. 1988)).
6
The Prothonotary should have docketed the motion to vacate and not returned it without
docketing.
7
Tomasetti v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc., FSB, 672 A.2d 61, 64 (Del. 1996).
8
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) (providing that a motion for reargument must be served and filed
within five days after the filing of the opinion or decision); Super. Ct. Civ. R. 6(a) (providing
3
claims was his motion for reargument was dated June 10, 2016, which means that
the motion for reargument was untimely at the time it was mailed to the Superior
Court. The Superior Court would have lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely
motion for reargument9 and the time to file a notice of appeal of the May 25, 2016
order would not have been tolled.10
(6) The record does not reflect that Lewis’ failure to file a timely notice
of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel. Consequently, this case does
not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a
notice of appeal. This appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
that when period of time is less than eleven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and other
legal holidays are excluded from computation of due date).
9
Boyer v. State, 2007 WL 452300, at *1 (Del. Feb. 13, 2007) (citing Preform Building
Components, Inc. v. Edwards, 280 A.2d 697, 698 (Del.1971)).
10
See supra note 7.
4