United States District Court, D. Delaware
Supreme Court No. 383, 2018 Superior Court of the State of
Delaware in and for New Castle County Crim. A. No. 91009844DI
Christopher R. Desmond, Defendant/Petitioner, James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware. Pro se
NOREIKA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Christopher R. Desmond ("Defendant") filed a notice
of removal on August 21, 2018 of State v. Desmond,
Delaware Supreme Court No. 282, 2018 and Delaware Superior
Court Crim. ID No. 91009844DI. (D.I. 3). He removed the
matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1455 which sets forth the
procedure for removal of criminal prosecutions. Defendant
appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, but he paid the filing fee. The
Court proceeds to screen the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b). For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will summarily remand the matter
to the Delaware Supreme Court and/or the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New County.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
are the facts set forth in the Superior Court's July 10,
2018 Order denying Defendant's eleventh motion for
postconviction relief. See State v. Desmond, 2018 WL
3409916, at *1 (Del. Super. July 10, 2018) (footnotes
1. Defendant was convicted in November 1992 of Robbery First
Degree and related crimes. The factual and procedural history
of both the case and the "plethora" of subsequent
postconviction actions are incorporated by reference from the
Court's opinion issued January 5, 2011. For an overview
of Defendant's first six motions for postconviction
relief, see State v. Desmond, 2011 WL 91984 (Del.
Super. Ct. Jan. 5, 2011). In that opinion, the Court
procedurally barred Defendant's seventh motion for
postconviction relief by determining that Defendant's
claims were not asserted in prior proceedings or were
2. Subsequently, this Court summarily dismissed
Defendant's eighth motion for postconviction relief on
March 7, 2012, finding that Defendant's eighth motion was
procedurally barred. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that
decision on August 9, 2012.
3. On February 26, 2013, this Court denied Defendant's
ninth motion for postconviction relief as procedurally barred
as untimely and repetitive. As a consequence, Defendant's
motion for appointment of counsel was denied as moot.
4. In 2014, this Court deemed three filings listed below to
be "subsequent motions pursuant to Superior Court
Criminal Rule 61 for Postconviction Relief."
1. October 7, 2013: Motion to Amend Defendant's
Correction of Illegal Sentence.
2. October 14, 2013: Motion to Amend Original Dismissal
Motion DI29, DI 31 Pursuant [sic] Superior Court Civil Rule
15(c), (d) and Superior Court Criminal Rules of Procedure
3. October 14, 2013: Motion to Amend Pursuant to the Superior
Court Criminal Rule 61(e) and 61(b)(6) Appointment of Counsel
for the Unresolved D.I. 64.
As a result, this Court denied the motions (interpreted as
the tenth motion for postconviction relief) as repetitive
pursuant to Rule 61(i)(2) and procedurally ...