Opinion
C.A. No.: N14C-06-083 FSS
03-27-2015
JOHN E. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN REYNOLDS, et al., Defendants.
cc: Prothonotary (Criminal) Roopa Sabesan, Esquire Jason Staib, Esquire John E. Miller, pro se, Plaintiff
ORDER
Upon Plaintiff's Third Motion for Reargument, Captioned Now as "Motion to Amend" - DENIED.
1. Plaintiff, who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, refuses to accept the court's July 14, 2014 order, which allowed the case to go forward on a limited basis.
2. The July order clearly limited this litigation to Defendant's stark claim that he was disciplined without a hearing or opportunity to present a defense.
3. Since then, Plaintiff filed an "untimely," "out-of-order" motion for reargument, captioned "Petition for Reconsideration," which was denied on August 14, 2014, followed by his filing another motion for reargument captioned "Petition for the Court's Leave for the Plaintiff to Replead the Dismissed Claims in this Case."
4. The court denied Plaintiff's second motion for reargument on October 8, 2014, and it specifically cautioned Plaintiff about abuse of process, warning him:
Plaintiff is now cautioned that if he abuses process again by filing a pleading that is repetitive or otherwise improperly imposes on the court, the court will revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status.
5. Because Plaintiff's latest motion to amend does not include the proposed amendment, it is harder to judge. But, from the motion, it appears Defendant wants to allege "other due process/procedural due process violations." Those "violations" are:
1. DOC failed to submit a violation report within the 24-hour time limit on writing Disciplinary Reports;
2. DOC ignored or rejected Defendant's grievance about the untimely Disciplinary Report concerning Plaintiff.
6. In its July 14, 2014 order, the court plainly stated that Plaintiff was only entitled to litigate at taxpayer expense his claims:
1. Plaintiff was not permitted to call any witnesses at his disciplinary hearing;The order further stated: "[T]his court does not generally review prison administrative issues." The order reiterated that Plaintiff was only allowed to pursue his claim that he was not allowed to mount a defense in a prison-held disciplinary hearing.
2. Plaintiff was not permitted to introduce any evidence; and
3. Plaintiff was not given a chance to be fully heard.
6. Plaintiff's latest claim that the Disciplinary Report used against him violated the "24-hour rule," such as it may be, relates to the filing of the disciplinary proceeding's timeliness, not to whether Plaintiff received notice and fair opportunity to be heard. Thus, Plaintiff again is trying to get around the July 14, 2014 order and challenge the hearing's outcome.
7. The court will not allow Plaintiff to turn this litigation into an impermissible appeal from a prison disciplinary proceeding. And, the court refuses to argue with Plaintiff. Plaintiff had a right to be heard by DOC, and he has a right to be heard by the court. Through repetitive pleadings, no matter how he captions them, Plaintiff does not have a right to impose on the court or other litigants who also have rights. As explained below, the court will begin to impose graduated sanctions that may result in this complaint's dismissal in its entirety.
Plaintiff's February 20, 2015 "Motion to Amend" is DENIED. Going forward, consistent with the October 8, 2014 order, the Prothonotary SHALL upon receipt forward any pleading filed by Plaintiff to chambers. The court will review the pleading and may order that it be docketed, the court may only allow it to be docketed after Plaintiff pays costs previously waived, or the court may reject the pleading and revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status entirely. This procedure will apply to any attempt, direct or indirect, to reargue this order or the earlier orders, and to every future pleading filed by Plaintiff. If Plaintiff persists in filing unacceptable pleadings, the court may dismiss the case entirely.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 27, 2015
/s/ Fred S. Silverman
Judge
cc: Prothonotary (Criminal)
Roopa Sabesan, Esquire
Jason Staib, Esquire
John E. Miller, pro se, Plaintiff
See 10 Del. C. § 8803 (e): "When a court finds that a litigant has abused the judicial process by filing frivolous or malicious litigation, the court may enjoin that litigant from filing future claims without leave of court." See also, Walls v. Phelps, 85 A.3d 59 (Del. 2014) (affirming trial court's decision to revoke prisoner's in forma pauperis status).