Biggins v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: February 14, 2024
• Docket: 436, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS, § § No. 436, 2023 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 9609015504 (S) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Appellee. §

Submitted: February 13, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2024

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on January 25, 2024, the Chief Deputy Clerk

issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why his motion to proceed in

forma pauperis should not be denied and his appeal should not be dismissed based

on his false certifications that he made a diligent and good faith effort to determine

what relevant case law controlled the issues he sought to raise on appeal and that he

had no reason to believe that his claims were foreclosed by controlling law.1 The

appellant received the notice to show cause on February 2, 2024. The appellant has

not paid the filing fee or responded to the notice to show cause within the required

1 In 2011, this Court found that Biggins’s numerous filings constituted “an abuse of the processes of the Court” and prohibited him “from filing any further papers in this Court challenging his convictions in Cr. ID No. 9609015504 without prior approval of a Justice of this Court.” Biggins v. State, No. 251, 2011, Docket Entry No. 9 (Del. July 11, 2011). ten-day period. Denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of

the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED under Supreme Court Rules

3(b)(2) and 29(b).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice