Supreme Court of Delaware, 2021

Yeager v. Fisher

Supreme Court of Delaware · Decided August 12, 2021 · Montgomery-Reeves J.

Opinion

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, 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.

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

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

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.