Opinion
436 2023
02-14-2024
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee.
Submitted: February 13, 2024
Court Below-Superior Court of the State of Delaware Cr. ID No. 9609015504 (S)
ORDER
COLLINS J. SEITZ, JR. CHIEF JUSTICE.
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. 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 ten-day period. Denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.
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).
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).