Opinion
C.A. No.: N14C-12-275 FSS
11-05-2015
DAWUD MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN DAVID PIERCE, MAJOR JEFFREY A. CARROTHERS, TONYA SMITH, CAROL POWELL, CORPORAL RONALD HOLCOMB, Defendants.
cc: Prothonotary (Civil) Stuart B. Drowos, Deputy Attorney General Dawud Muhammad, pro se, Plaintiff
ORDER
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Disclosure Under Public Records Act - SUMMARILY DISMISSED
1. Plaintiff is a pro se inmate suing his jailers over alleged wrongful termination from a prison job. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis by leave of court. Defendants answered the complaint.
2. On October 7, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel, filed under Superior Court Civil Rule 34, with leave to correct the motion's shortcomings within three weeks.
3. Instead of filing a timely corrected motion, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned motion on October 30, 2015. Other than in its caption, the motion makes no reference to the "Public Records Act," and the motion includes requests for things that are not subject to disclosure outside discovery. It is simply another Rule 34 motion.
4. The motion, on its face, appears over broad. It also requests things that are not subject to discovery under any rule or statute. More importantly, the motion does not show that Defendants refused a proper discovery demand. Accordingly, the motion is merely a premature imposition on the court.
5. Plaintiff has no right to waste the court's time, especially not at public expense. Other litigants are entitled to be heard without delay while the court addresses frivolous motions like this one.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's October 30, 2015 Motion is SUMMARILY DISMISSED, without prejudice to Plaintiff's refiling the motion along with all filing fees that have been waived by the court. As to filing fees, the same goes for a motion to reargue this order.
Going forward, the Prothonotary SHALL NOT accept another motion to compel that does not include Plaintiff's certification as to how and when he requested the discovery at issue from Defendants, and their response.
Any further motion to compel or other discovery motion SHALL be referred to a commissioner without further order.
If Plaintiff attempts to evade this order by mis-captioning a pleading or otherwise, or a pattern of abuse emerges, the court may revoke in forma pauperis status entirely. Dismissal of the complaint is also possible.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: November 5, 2015
/s/ Fred S. Silverman
Judge cc: Prothonotary (Civil)
Stuart B. Drowos, Deputy Attorney General
Dawud Muhammad, 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).