Can suit be filed in Delaware Superior Court by a Pro Se litigant?

Question

Or does anyone know of an attorney whose practice is in this area? I have a pending constitutional tort against NCC Police and have yet to find an attorney. A retired Judge friend of mine said that one can only prosecute in JP court as Pro Se, and he suggested going out of state for an attorney to get around the conflict of interest that I've found with most in-state attorneys I've spoke to. Though he didn't sit in on the bench in Superior Court and my reading of the Court rules disagrees with his statement. I could represent myself, though counsel would probably be preferred for their procedural experience and due to the fact that the case is essentially against the state.

Answer 1

If you cannot find a lawyer to help you it may well be that your case is not a viable one.

Aside from conflict of interests, and the fact that lawyers who are qualified to practice may fear to do so, there is the issue of immunity from suit.

Constitutional cases are normally brought in federal court anyway, unless your claim is under the state constitution.

Nothing stops you from filing pro se, but few non-lawyers have the training in constitutional law to bring such a case. Much less the procedural knowhow.

Answer 2

I'm not an attorney. You can go pro per in any court. Call the court clerk for more information. When you show up at court it is wise to inform the judge that you tried to find an attorney but could not. Your friend is right about the out of state attorney, although I'm not sure he could represent you but he could act as a consultant. Make sure you file a complaint! The cops try to make you think this doesnt matter but it does. You will probably also hear "thats a pretty serious charge" from the officer you file the complaint with. What he is doing is trying to scare you off or get you to make a conflicting statement. Do your homework online before filing the complaint. 'Jailhouse' lawyers are a good source of info for what you are doing because attorneys have a career interest in not taking these kinds of cases. You are likely to get only a $1 judgement if you win. You need to show actual damages. Do you have a friend that is a psychologist that you could see for anxiety? In any event the real justice will be in making him and as many of his co workers as possible haul themselves down to court and get on the stand. Question the officer in question, his partner, the supervisor that was on duty. Try to get the chief in to question him on department policy and how the officers are trained. If the officer was following policy/training then you need to file an additional suit against the department. Look at past cases, if this sort of thing has happened before you might even need to go after the city. Also, prior to filing talk to the state attorney generals office and the governors office to see what they have to say. Be careful, if you work with the attorney general make sure you do not waive your right to sue. Run all of this by your friend and see what he says about it. Lastly, let me know how your case goes!

Answer 3

Pass this Pro-Se case law by your judge friend...

*_PRO SE STANDARD OF REVIEW_*

Because the Plaintiff is pro se, the Court has a higher standard when
faced with a motion to dismiss, /_White v. Bloom_//_, 621 F.2d 276_/
makes this point clear and states: A court faced with a motion to
dismiss a pro se complaint must read the complaint's allegations
expansively, /_Haines v. Kerner_//_, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S. Ct.
594, 596, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972_/), and take them as true for purposes
of deciding whether they state a claim. /_Cruz v. Beto_//_, 405
_//_U.S._//_ 319, 322, 92 _//_S. Ct._//_ 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263
(1972_/).

Pro se litigants' court submissions are to be construed liberally and
held to less stringent standards than submissions of lawyers. If the
court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite
failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories,
poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with
rule requirements. /_Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70
L.Ed.2d 551 (1982_/); /_Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct.
285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976_/)(/_quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957_/)); /_Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972_/); /_McDowell v. Delaware
State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996_/); /_United States v.
Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992_/)(holding pro se petition cannot be
held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys); /_Then v.
I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999_/).

The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their
pleadings and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should
use common sense to determine what relief the party desires. /_S.E.C.
v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992_/). See also, /_United
States_//_ v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999_/) (Court has
special obligation to construe pro se litigants' pleadings liberally);
/_Poling v. K.Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J.
2000_/).

Defendant has the right to submit pro se briefs on appeal, even though
they may be in artfully drawn but the court can reasonably read and
understand them. See, /_Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.
1998_/). Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants
against consequences of technical errors if injustice would otherwise
result. /_U.S._//_ v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C.Cir. 1996_/).

Moreover, "the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to
determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible theory."
/_Bonner v. Circuit Court of _//_St. Louis_//_, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334 (8th
Cir. 1975_/) (quoting /_Bramlet v. _//_Wilson_//_, 495 F.2d 714, 716
(8th Cir. 1974_/)). Thus, if this court were to entertain any motion to
dismiss this court would have to apply the standards of /White v.
Bloom/. Furthermore, if there is any possible theory that would entitle
the Plaintiff to relief, even one that the Plaintiff hasn't thought of,
the court cannot dismiss this case.