Biggins v. Igwe

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMES BIGGINS, §
§
Plaintiff Below, § No. 320, 2022
Appellant, §
§ Court Below: Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
EMEKA IGWE, ESQUIRE, § C.A. No. N21C-09-058
§
Defendant Below, §
Appellee. §
§
Submitted: September 23, 2022
Decided: September 26, 2022
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears
to the Court that:
(1) On September 6, 2022, the appellant, James Biggins, filed a notice of
appeal from a Superior Court order dated August 8, 2022, which denied his motion
for reargument of the court’s June 16, 2022 order granting the defendant’s motion
to dismiss. Biggins also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Senior
Court Clerk issued a notice directing Biggins to show cause why this appeal should
not be dismissed because Biggins failed to pay the required filing fee and—as set
forth in this Court’s order dated September 11, 2014, in Appeal No. 310, 2014—he
has brought three or more frivolous complaints in forma pauperis and is therefore
prohibited by 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) from filing “a complaint or appeal of a judgment
arising from a complaint brought in forma pauperis . . . unless [he] is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury at the time that the complaint is filed.”
(2) On September 23, 2022, Biggins filed a document entitled “Motion for
the Expansion of the Record,” which appears to be a response to the notice to show
cause. Biggins states that the Court has “asked the appellant to establish proof of
the filing status in the instant case” and appears to seek an opportunity to provide
the Court with copies of the records in previous cases. Although the purpose of the
requested relief is not entirely clear, it appears that Biggins desires to show that he
has not brought three or more frivolous complaints in forma pauperis.
(3) The request to expand the record is denied and the appeal is dismissed.
This Court has already determined that Biggins “has brought three or more frivolous
complaints in forma pauperis” and “is prohibited from filing any further complaint
unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the
complaint is filed.”1 Biggins does not allege any danger of physical injury; he does
not contend that this is a case to which 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) does not apply; and the
underlying case does not involve allegations of any danger of physical injury.
1
Biggins v. Danberg, No. 310, 2014, Docket Entry No. 15 (Del. Sept. 11, 2014) (citing 10 Del. C.
§ 8804(f)).
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)
and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
3