Biggins v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS, §
§ No. 436, 2023
Defendant Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
v. §
§ Cr. ID No. 9609015504 (S)
STATE OF DELAWARE, §
§
Appellee. §
Submitted: February 13, 2024
Decided: February 14, 2024
ORDER
It appears to the Court that, on January 25, 2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk
issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis should not be denied and his appeal should not be dismissed based
on his false certifications that he made a diligent and good faith effort to determine
what relevant case law controlled the issues he sought to raise on appeal and that he
had no reason to believe that his claims were foreclosed by controlling law.1 The
appellant received the notice to show cause on February 2, 2024. The appellant has
not paid the filing fee or responded to the notice to show cause within the required
1
In 2011, this Court found that Biggins’s numerous filings constituted “an abuse of the processes
of the Court” and prohibited him “from filing any further papers in this Court challenging his
convictions in Cr. ID No. 9609015504 without prior approval of a Justice of this Court.” Biggins
v. State, No. 251, 2011, Docket Entry No. 9 (Del. July 11, 2011).
ten-day period. Denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of
the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rules
3(b)(2) and 29(b).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Chief Justice
2