Desmond v. Bullock

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHRISTOPHER R. DESMOND, §
§
Plaintiff Below, § No. 574, 2018
Appellant, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
JEFFREY BULLOCK, § C.A. No. N18M-18-028
§
Defendant Below, §
Appellee. §
Submitted: January 9, 2019
Decided: February 8, 2019
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On November 14, 2018, the appellant, Christopher R. Desmond, filed
a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his motion to compel the
Secretary of State to accept his petition for review of his convictions by the Board
of Pardons. Based on his filing of a number of unsuccessful motions and petitions
challenging his 1992 convictions, this Court previously directed the Clerk of the
Court to refuse any filings from Desmond unless the filing was accompanied by the
required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn
affidavit containing the certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) and that
motion was granted by the Court.1 Desmond filed an incomplete and un-notarized
motion to proceed in forma pauperis with his notice of appeal.
(2) The Senior Court Clerk directed Desmond to provide a completed and
notarized motion by November 29, 2018. Desmond failed to do so. On December
31, 2018, the Superior Court directed Desmond to show cause why this appeal
should not be dismissed for his failure to file a completed and notarized motion to
proceed in forma pauperis as directed. On January 9, 2019, Desmond filed his
response to the notice to show cause.
(3) Although it is not entirely clear, Desmond seems to argue that members
of the Court have been found to be appointed unconstitutionally. Desmond does not
address his failure to file a completed and notarized motion to proceed in forma
pauperis as directed by the Court. Nor has he paid the filing fee. Under these
circumstances, this appeal must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
1
Desmond v. Biden, 2015 WL 631582, at *3 (Del. Feb. 11, 2015).
2