McCAMBRIDGE v. BISHOP, 09C-02-030 FSS (Del.Super. 12-30-2009)

JOELI McCAMBRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. SHIRLEY BISHOP and ROMIE DAVID BISHOP, Defendants.[1]

C.A. No. 09C-02-030 FSS.Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.
December 30, 2009.

[1] The caption is correct. For the caption, a counterclaimant is property denominated “Defendant.” A defendant’s filing a counterclaim does not make the defendant a “Counter Claim Plaintiff.” While a counterclaim’s nature is offensive rather than defensive, it is part of the answer. It is not a pleading, much less a separate cause of action. See generally Bernstein v. IDT Corp., 582 F. Supp. 1079,1089 (D. Del. 1984) (discussing the federal counterparts to Del.R.Civ.P.7(a), 12(a), and 13(a)).

Upon Defendant, Romie D. Bishop’s “Request to Correct CAPTIONAND RE-CONSIDER Appeal from Commissioner’s Findings of Fact,Recommendations and Orders”. DENIED.

ORDER
FRED S. SILVERMAN, Judge.

1. On December 18, 2009, the court dismissed Defendant, Romie D. Bishop’s, appeal from the commissioner’s November 20, 2009 bench ruling.

2. On December 28, 2009, Mr. Bishop filed the above-captioned

Page 2

motion for re-consideration. The motion is a timely motion for reargument.

3. Apart from Mr. Bishop’s accusations about the court’s alleged “class bias” and other misconduct, the motion for reargument’s only point is that “Defendant . . . filed a Motion to Proceed In forma Pauperis.”

4. Apparently, Mr. Bishop contends that his having asked to appea in forma pauperis means he is entitled to a transcript at taxpayers’ expense, upon his demand. The docket, however, does not show that Mr. Bishop has been granted in forma pauperis status.

5. Moreover, “a civil litigant does not have an absolute right to be provided with copies of transcript at State expense.”[2] It is one thing to waive filing fees and the like, which the court will do for a litigant who truly cannot afford those costs. It is yet another thing to issue a government check to a court reporter at a disappointed litigant’s insistence. This is a civil case and the appeal here was discretionary.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant, Romie D. Bishop’s motion for

Page 3

reargument, as captioned above, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[2] Lynch v. McCarron, 1997 WL 33110, at *1 (Del. Supr. Jan. 13, 1997). See also Jones v. Sopa, 1998 WL 664964, at *1 (Del. Supr. July 17, 1998).

Page 1

jdjungle