Harvey v. Garrett

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: June 21, 2024
• Docket: 196, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

FERDELL F. HARVEY, § § Plaintiff Below, § No. 196, 2024 Appellant, § § Court Below—Superior Court v. § of the State of Delaware § TYRONE GARRETT, Director of § C.A. No. N24M-03-028 Wilmington Housing Authority, § SANDI ROSMINI, YVETTE § LOGAN, BETTY B. PINKETT, and § RAVEN Y. EDWARDS, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. §

Submitted: May 29, 2024 Decided: June 21, 2024

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the response, it appears to

the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Ferdell F. Harvey, filed this appeal from a Superior

Court Commissioner’s bench ruling that (i) passed on Harvey’s petition for an order

requiring the Wilmington Housing Authority to comply with the Delaware Freedom

of Information Act, and (ii) advised Harvey to review 29 Del. C. § 10005 and go to

the Attorney General’s Office. Section 10005(b) provides that “a person denied

access to public records by an administrative office or officer, a department head, commission, or instrumentality of state government which the Attorney General is

obliged to represent pursuant to § 2504 of this title must within 60 days of denial,

present a petition and all supporting documentation to the Chief Deputy as described

in subsection (e) of this section” and “[t]hereafter, the petitioner or public body the

Attorney General is otherwise obligated to represent may appeal an adverse decision

on the record to the Superior Court within 60 days of the Attorney General’s

decision.” Section 1005(e) describes how the Attorney General handles a petition

for determination of whether there has been a violation of the Delaware Freedom of

Information Act.

(2) The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Harvey to show cause

why this appeal should not be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to

consider an appeal taken directly from a Superior Court Commissioner’s ruling. In

his response to the notice to show cause, Harvey states that he is moving forward

under Superior Court Civil Rule 132. This rule describes the powers of Superior

Court Commissioners and the procedures for seeking review of Commissioners’

rulings in the Superior Court. According to the Superior Court docket, a hearing is

scheduled for July 26, 2024.

(3) The right to review of a Superior Court Commissioner’s ruling is to a

judge of the Superior Court.1 “In the absence of intermediate review by a Superior

1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132(a)(3), (4); Superior Court Administrative Directive 2007-5.

2 Court judge, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from any action

taken by a Commissioner.” 2 Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow Justice

2 Jagger v. State, 2019 WL 7369200, at *1 (Del. Dec. 30, 2019).