Charles R. Getz, Jr. v. Board of Parole State of Delaware ( 2016 )

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
KIM E. AYVAZIAN CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
MASTER IN CHANCERY 34 The Circle
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
AND
LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19980-3734
October 24, 2016
Charles R. Getz, Jr.
SBI 00164255
JTVCC
1181 Paddock Road,
Smyrna, DE 19977
RE: In Forma Pauperis and Complaint/ Motion for Declaration of Rights/Motion
for Injunctive Relief
Dear Mr. Getz:
Before me is your motion filed on August 12, 2016, seeking reargument of
the Court’s Final Order dated August 2, 2016, which approved and adopted the
findings of facts in the Master’s Final Report recommending dismissal of your
complaint and related motions as legally frivolous within the meaning of 10 Del.
C. § 8803(b). Specifically, you object to: (a) Court of Chancery Rule 144(d)(1),
that allows only eleven (11) days for filing a notice of exception to a master’s draft
report; (b) not receiving the Master’s Draft Report dated July 21, 2016 until July
24, 2016; (c) the fact that, despite your diligence in preparing the exceptions, they
were not deposited in the U.S. mail at the prison until July 28, 2016; (d) your
Page 1 of 5
incarceration prohibiting any other form of access to the Court; (e) being held
responsible for the inefficiencies in the prison mail system and the United States
mail despite your lack of control over them; and (f) the inclusion of four non-
working days between July 21st and August 1st which limited your ability to meet
the filing deadline. For the reasons that follow, I recommend denial of the motion
for reargument.
Under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f), a motion for reargument may be served
and filed within five days “after the filing of the Court’s opinion or the receipt of
the Court’s decision.”1 Rule 6(a) governs the computation of time and provides, in
relevant part, that when the time prescribed is less than eleven days, “intermediate
Saturdays, Sundays and other legal holidays shall be excluded in the
computation.”2 In your motion, you allege that you were served on August 6 th with
the Court’s Final Order, dated August 2nd, and my letter dated August 4th,
informing you that the exceptions you had filed to the Master’s Draft Report were
untimely. August 6th was a Saturday, so under Rule 6(a), your motion for
reargument had to be filed no later than August 12th. Your motion was timely
filed.
On July 21, 2016, I issued a draft report after reviewing your application to
proceed in forma pauperis to file a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive
1
Ct.Ch.R. 59(f).
Page 2 of 5
relief pertaining to the Delaware Board of Parole’s denial of your application for
parole in August 2015. In the draft report, I approved your request to proceed in
forma pauperis and waived payment of fees and costs. After reviewing the
complaint, I found that you had an adequate remedy at law, i.e., a writ of certiorari
or a writ of mandamus appealing the decision of the Parole Board in the Superior
Court or a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. As a result, I found that this
Court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over your
complaint. For this reason, I concluded that your complaint and its related motions
were legally frivolous within the meaning of 10 Del. C. § 8803(b), and
recommended their dismissal.
At the end of my draft report, I referred you to the process of taking
exception to a Master’s Draft Report under Court of Chancery Rule 144. Rule
144(b) states in pertinent part: “any party failing to file a notice of exception within
the period prescribed by this rule shall be deemed to have waived the right to
review the report[.]”3 Under Rule 144(d)(1), a party “shall file a notice of
exceptions within eleven days of the date of the report.”4 The deadline for filing a
notice of exceptions to my draft report was August 1st. Your “Plaintiff’s
Exceptions to Master’s Draft Report” was filed on August 2nd, and was untimely.
2
Ct.Ch.R. 6(a).
3
Ct.Ch.R. 144(b).
4
Ct.Ch.R. 144(d).
Page 3 of 5
Since you failed to file your notice of exceptions within the prescribed eleven (11)
days from the date of the Master’s Draft Report, it was deemed a Master’s Final
Report and, following review by the Chancellor, was approved and adopted as a
Final Order of the Court on August 2nd. In your motion for reargument, you are
now asking the Court to: (1) vacate its August 2nd Final Order; (2) declare that
your exceptions to the Master’s Draft Report were timely filed; (3) reject the
Master’s findings that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and your
complaint is legally frivolous; and (4) proceed to address your complaint and
motions.
A motion for reargument is governed by Rule 59(f). The standard on a
motion for reargument is whether “the Court has misapprehended a material fact or
rule of law” and whether the misapprehension is “such that the outcome of the
decision would be affected.”5 Your motion fails to satisfy this standard. You point
to no material fact or rule of law that was misapprehended or misapplied by the
Chancellor who, after reviewing the Master’s Final Report, approved the report’s
recommendations and adopted the report’s finding of facts as a Final Order of the
Court. Instead, you attack the validity of Rule 144 and the efficiencies (or lack
5
Sunrise Ventures, LLC v. Rehoboth Canal Ventures, LLC, 2010 WL 975581, at 1
(Del. Ch. March 4, 2010)(quoting Cole v. Kershaw, 2000 WL 1336724, at 3(Del.
Ch. Sept. 5, 2000)).
Page 4 of 5
thereof) of the United States Post Office and the prison mail system. None of
these are meritorious grounds for reargument.
Since the Supreme Court has remanded this matter to the Court for a ruling
on your pending motion for reargument6, I am waiving a draft report and issuing
this as my final report. Please refer to Rule 144 for the process of taking exception
to a Master’s Final Report.
Respectfully,
/s/ Kim E. Ayvazian
Kim E. Ayvazian
Master in Chancery
KEA/kekz
Enclosure
6
See Getz v. Board of Parole, No. 449,2016 (Del. Oct. 21, 2016)(ORDER).
Page 5 of 5