Lewis v. Coupe
381, 2016
| Del. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- Appellant Edward Lewis filed a notice of appeal on July 25, 2016 and an opening brief challenging a July 5, 2016 Prothonotary letter and (implicitly) a May 25, 2016 Superior Court order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus.
- The Clerk informed Lewis the July 5 letter was not a court order and told him to amend his notice to appeal the May 25, 2016 Superior Court order by August 8, 2016.
- Lewis filed an amended notice of appeal on August 4, 2016 and argued his appeal was timely because the Prothonotary allegedly refused to accept a Rule 59(e) motion for reargument, which would have tolled the appeal period.
- The Court noted Supreme Court Rule 6 requires timely filing of a notice of appeal and that timeliness is jurisdictional; pro se status does not excuse noncompliance.
- The record showed Lewis filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment under Superior Court Civil Rule 58 (not a Rule 59(e) motion for reargument), and the certificate of service for the document Lewis claimed was a Rule 59(e) motion was dated June 10, 2016 — after the five-day deadline for reargument — rendering any Rule 59(e) motion untimely.
- The Court found no court-related personnel caused Lewis’s untimely filing and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appeal timely under Supreme Court Rule 6? | Lewis argued his appeal should be deemed timely because his post-judgment filing tolled the appeal period. | The State (and Court) asserted the notice of appeal was filed after the deadline and time to appeal is jurisdictional. | Held: Appeal untimely; timeliness is jurisdictional and not met. |
| Can the Court review the Prothonotary’s July 5 letter? | Lewis sought review of the Prothonotary’s action returning his filing. | Court: actions by trial court clerical staff are not appealable to this Court. | Held: No jurisdiction to hear appeal from Prothonotary letter. |
| Did Lewis file a Rule 59(e) motion that tolled the appeal period? | Lewis claimed he filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reargument which tolled the appeal deadline. | Record shows he filed a Rule 58 Motion to Vacate, not a Rule 59(e) motion; certificate of service dated June 10 rendered any Rule 59(e) motion untimely. | Held: No timely Rule 59(e) motion; tolling did not occur. |
| Was Lewis’s delay attributable to court-related personnel (exception to strict timeliness)? | Lewis implied the Prothonotary’s refusal to accept his filing caused the delay. | Court found the record did not show court personnel caused the late filing. | Held: No court-attributable delay; exception inapplicable; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del. 1989) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481 (Del. 2012) (pro se status does not excuse failure to meet jurisdictional filing requirements)
- Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362 (Del. 1979) (no jurisdiction to appeal clerical acts of trial court staff)
- Tomasetti v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc., FSB, 672 A.2d 61 (Del. 1996) (only timely motions for reargument toll the appeal period)
- Preform Building Components, Inc. v. Edwards, 280 A.2d 697 (Del. 1971) (untimely post-judgment filings are not properly considered by the court)