Damiani v. Gill

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PABLO A. DAMIANI, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. GEORGE GILL, Defendant Below, Appellee. § § § § § § § § § § § No. 105, 2015 Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County C.A. No. N14C-05-186-ALR Submitted: May 8, 2015 Decided: July 14, 2015 Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. ORDER This 14th day of July 2015, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find it manifest that the Superior Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the appellee, George Gill, should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned opinion dated January 28, 2015. As to the argument of the appellant, Pablo A. Damiani, that he was unable to name or serve the guards identified as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 in his complaint because the Department of Correction did not respond to his inquiries, there is no indication that Damiani ever served any discovery upon Gill or any non-parties to obtain this information. Although pro se litigants are afforded some leniency in presenting their cases, “[t]here is no different set of rules for pro se plaintiffs, and the trial court should not sacrifice the orderly and efficient administration of justice to accommodate the unrepresented plaintiff.”1 The Superior Court did not err in dismissing the claims against the John Doe defendants. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice 1 Draper v. Med. Ctr., 767 A.2d 796, 799 (Del. 2001). 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.