From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Major v. Carroll

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County
Aug 19, 2002
No. 02M-08-008 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2002)

Opinion

No. 02M-08-008

August 19, 2002


ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

1) Petitioner Samuel Major ("petitioner") has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus regarding the award of good time credits. He also has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

2) Petitioner is indigent. However, pursuant to recently enacted 10 Del. C. § 8804(f), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will not be granted to a petitioner who has had three or more complaints or petitions dismissed by state and/or federal courts as frivolous or malicious or because they failed to state a claim. I deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because petitioner has not established he passes that threshold requirement. In addition, petitioner has not established he has followed all internal grievance procedures to obtain resolution of the good time credit issue. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002); 10 Del. C. § 8804(g).

3) Even if I were to grant the motion, I would not allow the petition to proceed because petitioner has failed to set forth sufficient facts in his petition which would permit the Court to conclude he may be entitled to a writ of mandamus. He should, at the least, have submitted his inmate status sheet.

NOW, THEREFORE, THIS 19th DAY OF AUGUST, 2002, I dismiss the petition without prejudice.


Summaries of

Major v. Carroll

Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County
Aug 19, 2002
No. 02M-08-008 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2002)
Case details for

Major v. Carroll

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL MAJOR, Petitioner v. WARDEN THOMAS CARROLL AND RECORD, Respondents

Court:Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County

Date published: Aug 19, 2002

Citations

No. 02M-08-008 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2002)

Citing Cases

Cardone v. State of Delaware Dept. of Corr.

Accordingly, the Court must grant the Respondents' motion to revoke Cardone's in forma pauperis status…