Opinion
C.A. No. 03C-01-024 (THG)
February 28, 2003
ORDER
1) Plaintiff Mamie Catherine Hall ("plaintiff") filed a document captioned "Complaint Deserving Change of Venue" and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court referred this matter to the Commissioner who filed proposed findings of fact and recommendations on February 14, 2003.
Plaintiff also is known as Sarah Louise Hall. She changed her name to Mamie Catherine Hall in March, 2000. In re Hall, CCP, C.A. No. 00-03-193, Smalls, J. (March 27, 2000).
2) The Commissioner noted as follows. Plaintiff, in her affidavit in support of her application to proceed in forma pauperis, avers that she receives supplemental security income from the Social Security Administration in the amount of $552 per month and that she owns her own house and a motor vehicle. There is no indication that a mortgage exists on the real property nor does plaintiff list any debts she might have. Plaintiff has not established she is indigent. Accordingly, the Commissioner recommended the Court deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See Hall v. Yacucci, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-10-301, Babiarz, J. (November 21, 1997) (ORDER).
3) The Commissioner also noted that the complaint in this case is indecipherable. It is impossible to tell what plaintiff's claims are or what relief she requests. Consequently, the Commissioner recommended as follows. The complaint should be dismissed as legally frivolous. Also, to the extent claims therein are those previously advanced in the cases of Hall v. Scott, Del. Super., C.A. No. 97C-05-048, Del Pesco, J. (April 15, 1998), aff'd, 716 A.2d 974 (Del. 1998), and Hall v. Yacucci, Del. Super., C.A. No. 98C-05-249, Del Pesco, J. (June 4, 1998), aff'd, 723 A.2d 839 (Del. 1998), those claims are barred by res judicata. If plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief, the complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since only Chancery Court can grant such relief. Accordingly, the Commissioner recommended that the Court dismiss the "Complaint Deserving Change of Venue" as legally frivolous.
4) On February 20, 2003, plaintiff filed what the Court will consider to be an appeal of the Commissioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Therein, plaintiff notes that this Court previously has granted in forma pauperis motions she has filed; she instructs the Court to take her property if need be; and she maintains she has valid claims.
5) The Court reviews the matter de novo. Plaintiff has not set forth anything in her appeal which cures the problems with the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the complaint as outlined by the Commissioner. Consequently, the Court adopts the findings of the Commissioner and accepts the recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, THIS 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2003, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1) The Court denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiff has not established she is indigent.
2) The Court denies the issuance of service of process and dismisses the action because the "Complaint Deserving Change of Venue" is legally frivolous.