Opinion
No. 02M-07-012
September 9, 2002
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REARGUE
1) On August 27, 2002, petitioner Edward Gibbs ("petitioner") filed a document captioned "Appeal Order Dismissing Petition". The Court treats this document as a motion to reargue the Court's decision of August 19, 2002, dismissing petitioner's petition seeking a writ of mandamus regarding credit time.
2) Petitioner has not presented any information which would cause this Court to reconsider its previous decision. The dismissal was not with prejudice. Petitioner has the right to file a petition which establishes he is entitled to a writ of mandamus and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which complies with 10 Del. C. § 8804(f), 10 Del. C. § 8804(g), and Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). However, he has not done so in this situation, and the Court will not further consider the current petition.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THIS 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002, that the motion to reargue is denied.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
1) Petitioner Edward Gibbs ("petitioner") has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus regarding the award of good time credits. He also has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
2) Petitioner is indigent. However, pursuant to recently enacted 10 Del. C. § 8804(f), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will not be granted to a petitioner who has had three or more complaints or petitions dismissed by state and/or federal courts as frivolous or malicious or because they failed to state a claim. I deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because petitioner has not established he passes that threshold requirement. In addition, petitioner has not established he has followed all internal grievance procedures to obtain resolution of the good time credit issue. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002); 10 Del. C. § 8804(g).
3) Even if I were to grant the motion, I would not allow the petition to proceed because petitioner has failed to set forth sufficient facts in his petition which would permit the Court to conclude he may be entitled to a writ of mandamus. He should, at the least, have submitted his inmate status sheet.
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 2002, I dismiss the petition without prejudice.