Opinion
C.A. No. 09C-02-030 FSS.
December 30, 2009.
Upon Defendant, Romie D. Bishop's "Request to Correct CAPTION AND RE-CONSIDER Appeal from Commissioner's Findings of Fact, Recommendations and Orders". DENIED.
ORDER
1. On December 18, 2009, the court dismissed Defendant, Romie D. Bishop's, appeal from the commissioner's November 20, 2009 bench ruling.
2. On December 28, 2009, Mr. Bishop filed the above-captioned motion for re-consideration. The motion is a timely motion for reargument.
3. Apart from Mr. Bishop's accusations about the court's alleged "class bias" and other misconduct, the motion for reargument's only point is that "Defendant . . . filed a Motion to Proceed In forma Pauperis."
4. Apparently, Mr. Bishop contends that his having asked to appear in forma pauperis means he is entitled to a transcript at taxpayers' expense, upon his demand. The docket, however, does not show that Mr. Bishop has been granted in forma pauperis status.
5. Moreover, "a civil litigant does not have an absolute right to be provided with copies of transcript at State expense." It is one thing to waive filing fees and the like, which the court will do for a litigant who truly cannot afford those costs. It is yet another thing to issue a government check to a court reporter at a disappointed litigant's insistence. This is a civil case and the appeal here was discretionary.
Lynch v. McCarron, 1997 WL 33110, at *1 (Del. Supr. Jan. 13, 1997). See also Jones v. Sopa, 1998 WL 664964, at *1 (Del. Supr. July 17, 1998).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant, Romie D. Bishop's motion for reargument, as captioned above, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.