Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holmes v. Prothonotary, Superior Court N.C.C.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

June 4, 2015

MARVIN HOLMES Plaintiff,
v.
PROTHONOTARY, SUPERIOR COURT N.C.C., Defendant.

Submitted: April 13, 2015

Upon Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss GRANTED

Marvin Holmes, Pro Se.

Ophelia Waters, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Honorable Mary M. Johnston, J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

This litigation arises from claims by Marvin Holmes against the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of New Castle County. Holmes was arrested on July 31, 2012, for violating the terms of his probation. On August 9, 2012, Holmes was sentenced to Level IV Plummer Center, followed by a period of Level III probation. On August 28, 2012, Holmes filed a Motion for Sentence Modification, seeking medical treatment for a blood disorder. The Prothonotary was unable to locate the file containing the Motion for Sentence Modification until September 19, 2012. Holmes alleges that he was told that the file was lost from August 2012 until December 19, 2012.

Holmes filed a Complaint against the Prothonotary on August 19, 2014. He states that the Prothonotary lost the file containing the Motion for Sentence Modification and that by the time that the file was found, his sentencing judge had retired. Holmes argues that the sentencing judge might have granted his motion or alerted the Plummer Center about Holmes' blood disorder.

On September 25, 2014, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The State also asserted sovereign immunity.

On October 3, 2014, Holmes filed a Response to the Motion to Dismiss. In the Motion, Holmes renewed the arguments previously made in his Complaint.

On October 24, 2014, the State filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss. Holmes responded on April 13, 2015 and again restated the arguments made in his Complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must determine whether the claimant "may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof."[1] The Court must accept as true all non-conclusory, well-plead allegations.[2] Every reasonable factual inference will be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.[3] If the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.