Damiani v. Gill ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PABLO A. DAMIANI, §
§
Plaintiff Below, § No. 105, 2015
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware,
GEORGE GILL, § in and for New Castle County
§ C.A. No. N14C-05-186-ALR
Defendant Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: May 8, 2015
Decided: July 14, 2015
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 14th day of July 2015, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs
and the record on appeal, we find it manifest that the Superior Court’s granting of
summary judgment in favor of the appellee, George Gill, should be affirmed on the
basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned opinion dated January 28, 2015. As to
the argument of the appellant, Pablo A. Damiani, that he was unable to name or
serve the guards identified as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 in his complaint
because the Department of Correction did not respond to his inquiries, there is no
indication that Damiani ever served any discovery upon Gill or any non-parties to
obtain this information. Although pro se litigants are afforded some leniency in
presenting their cases, “[t]here is no different set of rules for pro se plaintiffs, and
the trial court should not sacrifice the orderly and efficient administration of justice
to accommodate the unrepresented plaintiff.”1 The Superior Court did not err in
dismissing the claims against the John Doe defendants.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
1
Draper v. Med. Ctr., 767 A.2d 796, 799 (Del. 2001).
2