Biggins v. Danberg, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JAMES A. BIGGINS, Defendant BelowAppellant, v. CARL DANBERG, et al., Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 132, 2010 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 08C-12-025 Submitted: June 25, 2010 Decided: August 24, 2010 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 24th day of August 2010, upon consideration of the parties briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, James Biggins, filed this appeal from a Superior Court order dated January 27, 2010. The trial court s order granted a motion filed by defendant below, Correctional Medical Services, to revoke a prior court order granting Biggins leave to file his complaint in forma pauperis. The Superior Court s order further provided that Biggins had until March 1, 2010 to pay the required filing fees or else his complaint would be dismissed. Biggins failed to pay the fees. This appeal ensued. (2) The record reflects that Biggins filed his complaint on March 6, 2009 against various officials and employees of the Department of Correction (the DOC) and the DOC s medical provider, Correctional Medical Services (CMS). Biggins complaint alleged that, in December 2008, he had been placed in isolation for two days and denied access to medicine for his various medical conditions, including sickle cell disease, scoliosis, migraines, acid reflux disease, back pain, and bleeding ulcers. Biggins also alleged that the DOC s employees served him polluted water and engaged in unsanitary procedures and failed to wear proper protection when preparing and serving food. He also alleged that the DOC failed to provide proper heat. Biggins sought both compensatory and punitive damages for these alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (3) Biggins filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Superior Court granted that motion. Thereafter, CMS filed a motion to revoke Biggins in forma pauperis status, alleging that Biggins, while incarcerated, had filed three or more prior actions that were dismissed because they were frivolous or failed to state a claim. Moreover, CMS alleged, Biggins had failed to establish that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury in order to proceed in forma pauperis.1 1 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8804(f) (Supp. 2008). Section 8804(f) provides that any inmate who, while incarcerated, has had three or more prior complaints dismissed for being frivolous or 2 (4) Upon consideration of the motion, the Superior Court found that Biggins had filed at least eight prior complaints while incarcerated that had been deemed frivolous or had been dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.2 The court further found that Biggins most recent complaint was based upon an incident that had happened several months prior to the filing of his complaint. Therefore, Biggins could not establish that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that [his] complaint [was] filed. 3 (5) After careful consideration, we hold that the Superior Court s factual findings are supported by the record. Accordingly, we find no error or abuse in the Superior Court s revocation of Biggins in forma pauperis status.4 Moreover, we find no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of Biggins complaint for failure to pay the required fees. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice failing to state a claim may not file another complaint in forma pauperis unless the inmate is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint is filed. 2 See Biggins v. Phelps, Del. Super., C.A. No. S08M-12-018, Graves, J. (Jan. 7, 2009). 3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8804(f) (Supp. 2008). 4 See Biggins v. Phelps, 2009 WL 2055128 (Del. Supr. July 16, 2009). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
