(a) In all cases in which a court has granted an individual leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court shall issue an order authorizing the filing of the complaint and establishing the amount of court costs and filing fees to be paid. The court may, in its discretion, establish a schedule for the payment of the costs and fees.
(b) Upon establishing the amount of fees and costs to be paid, the court shall review the complaint. Upon such review, the complaint shall be dismissed if the court finds the action is factually frivolous, malicious or, upon a court’s finding that the action is legally frivolous and that even a pro se litigant, acting with due diligence, should have found well settled law disposing of the issue(s) raised. Any order of dismissal shall specifically identify whether the complaint was factually frivolous, legally frivolous and/or malicious. Service of process shall not issue unless and until the court grants leave following its review.
(c) If a court does not dismiss a complaint pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, but the record subsequently reveals the action is factually frivolous, malicious or the action is legally frivolous and that even a pro se litigant, acting with due diligence, should have found well settled law disposing of issue(s) raised, the court may upon its own motion or the motion of a party, enter judgment against plaintiff and dismiss the complaint. Any such order of dismissal shall specifically identify whether the complaint was factually frivolous, legally frivolous and/or malicious.
(d) If, at any time, the court dismisses an action or otherwise enters judgment against a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, the jurisdiction of the court over the litigant continues until all costs and fees associated with the action are paid.
(e) When a court finds that a litigant has abused the judicial process by filing frivolous or malicious litigation, the court may enjoin that litigant from filing future claims without leave of court. When so enjoined, any future requests to file claims must be accompanied by an affidavit certifying that:
(1) The claims sought to be litigated have never been raised or disposed of before in any court;
(2) The facts alleged are true and correct;
(3) The affiant has made a diligent and good faith effort to determine what relevant case law controls the legal issues raised;
(4) The affiant has no reason to believe the claims are foreclosed by controlled law; and
(5) The affiant understands that the affidavit is made under penalty of perjury.
70 Del. Laws, c. 411,
§
1;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
124
cases (
53 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case:
Proctor v. Bunting, 797 A.2d 671 (Del. 2002).
Proctor v. Bunting, 797 A.2d 671 (Del. 2002).
“Accordingly, pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(e), Proctor is enjoined from filing any future claims in this Court without first seeking leave of the Court.”
Walter Earl Allen, II v. Comm'r Robert Coupe (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 5× “2 The test for sufficiency is a broad one: the pleading will survive the motion to dismiss so long as “a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the [petition].”3 Stated differently, a petition will not be dismissed…”
Sanders v. Dep't of Just. (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 5× “The Court will next review the complaint pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). Pursuant to 10 Del.”
Fatir v. Bd. of Pardons (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 5× “The Court will next review the Petition pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). Pursuant to 10 Del.”
Ward T. Evans v. Comm'r Robert Coupe (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803, before approval of an in forma pauperis application, the Court must initially review the complaint or petition to determine 1 872 A.”
Taylor v. DSCYF (Del. 2019).
· cites it 4× “This appeal arises from a Superior Court order, dated April 17, 2019, dismissing the appellant’s complaint under 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). The appellant, Sonja Taylor, is a former employee of the appellee, Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families (“DSCYF”).”
Anderson v. Gen. Motors, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Anderson’s claims are barred by res judicata. So, his claim must be dismissed.”
Chrustowski v. Minuti (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Court must next consider whether or not the complaint should be dismissed, as required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). 2. The Court views pro se in forma pauperis civil suits generously.”
Laws v. State (Del. 2016).
· cites it 3× “ln the future, if Laws files a notice of appeal or a petition for an extraordinary writ concerning his 1989 convictions, the Clerk is directed to refuse the filing unless it is accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with swom…”
Evans v. State (Del. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Evans is ENJOINED under 10 Del. C. § 8803 and this Order from filing a future notice of appeal or extraordinary writ concerning his conviction and sentence without first obtaining the Court’s permission.”
Woods v. State (Del. 2017).
· cites it 3× “f April 2017, it appears to the Court that: (1) In 2016, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to refuse any filings from the appellant, Bernard Woods, relating to his 2008 convictions and sentence, unless the filing was accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed…”
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(a) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(b) — 55 cases
Taylor v. DSCYF (Del. 2019).
“This appeal arises from a Superior Court order, dated April 17, 2019, dismissing the appellant’s complaint under 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). The appellant, Sonja Taylor, is a former employee of the appellee, Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families (“DSCYF”).”
Chrustowski v. Minuti (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
“Court must next consider whether or not the complaint should be dismissed, as required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). 2. The Court views pro se in forma pauperis civil suits generously.”
Ward T. Evans v. Comm'r Robert Coupe (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
“Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803, before approval of an in forma pauperis application, the Court must initially review the complaint or petition to determine 1 872 A.”
Sanders v. Dep't of Just. (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
“The Court will next review the complaint pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). Pursuant to 10 Del.”
Fatir v. Bd. of Pardons (Del. Super. Ct. 2020).
“The Court will next review the Petition pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(b). Pursuant to 10 Del.”
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(c) — 7 cases
Walter Earl Allen, II v. Comm'r Robert Coupe (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).
“2 The test for sufficiency is a broad one: the pleading will survive the motion to dismiss so long as “a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the [petition].”3 Stated differently, a petition will not be dismissed…”
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(d) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) — 57 cases
Proctor v. Bunting, 797 A.2d 671 (Del. 2002).
“Accordingly, pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(e), Proctor is enjoined from filing any future claims in this Court without first seeking leave of the Court.”
Woods v. State (Del. 2017).
“f April 2017, it appears to the Court that: (1) In 2016, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to refuse any filings from the appellant, Bernard Woods, relating to his 2008 convictions and sentence, unless the filing was accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed…”
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(e)(1) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(e)(2) — 1 case
— 10 Del. C. § 8803(f) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.