John Doe 4 v. Red Clay Consolidated School District, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE § § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellant, § § v. § § RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED § SCHOOL DISTRICT; DEFENDANT § DOES 1-20, all individually and in their § official capacities as members of the Board of the School District at the time of § the abuse; MERVIN B. DAUGHERTY, in § § his official capacity as Superintendent of the Red Clay School District; CHARLES § § KALENKOSKI, personal representative § of the Estate of William Blickley, § § Defendants Below, § Appellees. JOHN DOE 4, No. 490, 2012 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 09C-07-043 Submitted: September 14, 2012 Decided: September 26, 2012 Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 26th day of September 2012, it appears to the Court that: (1) The plaintiff-appellant, John Doe 4,1 has petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from an interlocutory order of the 1 John Doe 4 is the pseudonym plaintiff used in filing the complaint in the Superior Court. The trial judge used this pseudonym in the caption of its order denying certification of this appeal. Superior Court, dated June 14, 2012, which ordered plaintiff to proceed with his case using his legal identity.2 Plaintiff also appeals the Superior Court s order, dated August 6, 2012, denying reargument. (2) The plaintiff filed the application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Superior Court on August 20, 2012. The Superior Court denied the certification application on September 7, 2012. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the within interlocutory appeal be REFUSED. Plaintiff s motion requesting to use a pseudonym on appeal is moot. BY THE COURT: /s/ Jack B. Jacobs Justice For consistency, we therefore also use this pseudonym in the caption of our order. We do not otherwise rule on the plaintiff s motion requesting to use a pseudonym on appeal. 2 Plaintiff had not sought the Superior Court s permission to file the complaint using a pseudonym. -2-
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.
