(a) When the individual seeking permission to proceed in forma pauperis is a prisoner, the prisoner shall file a certified summary of the prisoner’s inmate account, together with the affidavit required pursuant to § 8802 of this title. The summary shall contain all account activity for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, or for the entire time the prisoner has been incarcerated, whichever time is less.
(b) If a court determines that a prisoner may proceed in forma pauperis, the court shall issue an order directing that the complaint be filed setting forth the total amount to be paid and establishing a schedule for payment. The schedule shall be established as follows:
(1) The prisoner shall pay 20% of the average daily balance of the prisoner’s inmate account over the previous 6-month period or the entire time that prisoner has been incarcerated, whichever time is less.
(2) In each successive month, until the established court costs and filing fees are paid in full, the prisoner shall pay 10% of the average daily balance of the prisoner’s inmate account for the preceding month.
(c) Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s ability to demand a greater amount than would result from this calculation based upon the information provided in the affidavit.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a prisoner from paying more than the minimum due under the court’s calculation.
(e) To the extent that a prisoner refuses to pay fees and costs as ordered by the court, pursuant to this section, the court may order the Department to debit the prisoner’s inmate account in accordance with § 8903(13) of Title 29.
(f) In no event shall a prisoner file a complaint or appeal of a judgment arising from a complaint brought in forma pauperis if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or an appeal in a federal court or constitutional or statutory court of the State that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time that the complaint is filed. Complaints or appeals therefrom dismissed prior to the enactment of this section shall be counted for purposes of determining the number of previously dismissed proceedings. No petition for a writ of habeas corpus or any appeal from the denial of any such petition shall be dismissed under this subsection.
(g) A prisoner may not bring or file a complaint relating to a condition of confinement, whether proceeding in forma pauperis or otherwise, unless the prisoner has fully exhausted all administrative remedies available through the institutional grievance procedure. The fact that monetary damages or any other form of legal or equitable relief may not be available through the grievance procedure shall not excuse the inmate from exhausting the institutional grievance procedure prior to filing a complaint.
70 Del. Laws, c. 411,
§
1;
70 Del. Laws, c. 186,
§
1;
73 Del. Laws, c. 276,
§§
4, 5;
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case:
Shockley v. Phelps, 769 F. Supp. 2d 725 (D. Del. 2011).
Shockley v. Phelps, 769 F. Supp. 2d 725 (D. Del. 2011).
“ood time credits; (3) the Delaware state courts violated the due process and ex post facto clauses by retrospectively refusing to honor petitioner’s “de facto” release and conditional release dates; (4) the Delaware Supreme Court violated the ex post facto clause in September…”
Amir Fatir v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
· cites it 6× “” 8 The term “imminent” — undefined in 10 Del. C. § 8804 — has its ordinary meaning:9 “threatening to occur immediately” or “about to take place.”
Fatir v. Records (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 4× “11 10 Del. C. § 8804(a). -3- which relief may be granted, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in the future, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint is filed.”
Biggins v. Igwe (Del. 2022).
· cites it 3× “310, 2014—he has brought three or more frivolous complaints in forma pauperis and is therefore prohibited by 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) from filing “a complaint or appeal of a judgment arising from a complaint brought in forma pauperis .”
Walls v. Coupe (Del. 2015).
· cites it 5× “According to Walls, he should have been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis because his mandamus petition was in the nature of a habeas corpus petition, which is exempt from dismissal under 10 Del. C. § 8804(1).4 Walls made a similar argument in Walls v.”
Michael-destry Williams Trust v. United States (Del. Ch. 2018).
· cites it 2× “5 Your application meets the criteria for prisoners to proceed in forma pauperis under 10 Del. C. § 8804, and I recommend the Court grant your application to proceed in forma pauperis.”
Michael-destry Williams v. United States (Del. Ch. 2018).
· cites it 2× “And, as was determined in the previous action, you have met the criteria for prisoners to proceed in forma pauperis under 10 Del. C. §8804, and I recommend that the Court grant your application to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter.”
Biggins v. Dutton, 986 A.2d 1164 (Del. 2009).
· cites it 3× “The Superior Court had denied Biggins' motion to file his complaint without prepayment of the filing fee on the ground that Biggins was statutorily precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis under 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) because, on three or more prior occasions, Biggins had filed…”
Walls v. Phelps (Del. Super. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 3× “) Submitted: June 3, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 ORDER On Plaintiff’s Motion Under Rule 60(b)(6), Rule 112(a), and 10 Del. C. § 8804(b) DENIED 1. By Order dated August 21, 2012, this Court revoked the in forma pauperis status of plaintiff Joseph M.”
Biggins v. Phelps (Del. Ch. 2014).
· cites it 3× “2 Defendants have moved to dismiss Biggins’s claim and to revoke his in forma pauperis status pursuant to the “three strikes” rule of 10 Del. C. § 8804(f). On August 18, 2008, Biggins was allegedly involved in a fight with another inmate.”
— 10 Del. C. § 8804(1) — 2 cases
Walls v. Coupe (Del. 2015).
“According to Walls, he should have been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis because his mandamus petition was in the nature of a habeas corpus petition, which is exempt from dismissal under 10 Del. C. § 8804(1).4 Walls made a similar argument in Walls v.”
— 10 Del. C. § 8804(a) — 3 cases
Fatir v. Records (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
“11 10 Del. C. § 8804(a). -3- which relief may be granted, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in the future, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint is filed.”
— 10 Del. C. § 8804(b) — 1 case
Walls v. Phelps (Del. Super. Ct. 2014).
“) Submitted: June 3, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 ORDER On Plaintiff’s Motion Under Rule 60(b)(6), Rule 112(a), and 10 Del. C. § 8804(b) DENIED 1. By Order dated August 21, 2012, this Court revoked the in forma pauperis status of plaintiff Joseph M.”
— 10 Del. C. § 8804(e) — 1 case
Amir Fatir v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
“” 8 The term “imminent” — undefined in 10 Del. C. § 8804 — has its ordinary meaning:9 “threatening to occur immediately” or “about to take place.”
— 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) — 17 cases
Shockley v. Phelps, 769 F. Supp. 2d 725 (D. Del. 2011).
“ood time credits; (3) the Delaware state courts violated the due process and ex post facto clauses by retrospectively refusing to honor petitioner’s “de facto” release and conditional release dates; (4) the Delaware Supreme Court violated the ex post facto clause in September…”
Biggins v. Igwe (Del. 2022).
“310, 2014—he has brought three or more frivolous complaints in forma pauperis and is therefore prohibited by 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) from filing “a complaint or appeal of a judgment arising from a complaint brought in forma pauperis .”
Fatir v. Records (Del. Super. Ct. 2023).
“11 10 Del. C. § 8804(a). -3- which relief may be granted, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in the future, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the complaint is filed.”
Amir Fatir v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. (Del. Super. Ct. 2025).
“” 8 The term “imminent” — undefined in 10 Del. C. § 8804 — has its ordinary meaning:9 “threatening to occur immediately” or “about to take place.”
Biggins v. Dutton, 986 A.2d 1164 (Del. 2009).
“The Superior Court had denied Biggins' motion to file his complaint without prepayment of the filing fee on the ground that Biggins was statutorily precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis under 10 Del. C. § 8804(f) because, on three or more prior occasions, Biggins had filed…”
— 10 Del. C. § 8804(g) — 2 cases
— 10 Del. C. § 8804(t) — 1 case
Walls v. Coupe (Del. 2015).
“According to Walls, he should have been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis because his mandamus petition was in the nature of a habeas corpus petition, which is exempt from dismissal under 10 Del. C. § 8804(1).4 Walls made a similar argument in Walls v.”
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.