Yeager v. Fisher

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DANIEL T. YEAGER,1 § § No. 227, 2021 Petitioner/Respondent Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of § the State of Delaware v. § § File No. CK10-02177 TIANA D. FISHER, § Petition Nos. 20-20684, 20-25638, § 20-27061, 21-00055, 21-01604, Respondent/Petitioner Below, § 20-26029, 20-23713, and 20-18874 Appellee. §

Submitted: July 30, 2021 Decided: August 12, 2021

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On July 19, 2021, the appellant, Daniel T. Yeager, filed a notice of appeal from Family Court orders dated and docketed on June 9, 2021. A timely notice of appeal was due in this Court by July 9, 2021.2 The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Yeager to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, Yeager,

1 The Court assigns pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d). 2 Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i).

who is incarcerated, states that the prison was on lockdown at the time he was scheduled to see the notary and still is not fully open.

(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.4 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements.5 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered.6

(3) Yeager has not demonstrated that his failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.7 Department of Correction personnel are not court-related personnel.8 Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. The appeal must be dismissed.

3 Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 4 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 5 Ward v. Taylor, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2019); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d 481, 486-87 (Del. 2012). 6 Ward, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1; Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 7 See, e.g., Bissoon v. State, 2017 WL 4111332, at *1 (Del. Sept. 15, 2017) (dismissing untimely appeal in which the appellant asserted that the prison law library did not timely respond to his requests for copying and notarization); Schafferman v. State, 2016 WL 5929953, at *1 (Del. Oct. 11, 2016) (dismissing untimely appeal in which the appellant argued that prison personnel prevented him from filing a timely notice of appeal). See also Tuohy v. State, 2019 WL 6606356, at *1 (Del. Dec. 4, 2019) (dismissing untimely appeal in which the appellant contended that he could not access the law library to prepare his notice of appeal because the prison was on institutional lockdown). 8 Bissoon, 2017 WL 2017 WL 4111332, at *1.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves Justice