Harris v. Delaware State University

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAIJE A. HARRIS, :
: C.A. No.: K24C-07-034 JJC
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY, :
:
Defendant. :
:
:

Submitted: January 14, 2025
Decided: January 15, 2025

ORDER
On this 15th day of January 2025, having considered Defendant Delaware
State University’s (the “University’s”) motion to dismiss, and various motions filed
by Plaintiff DaiJe Harris, it appears that:
1. Ms. Harris filed a complaint, pro se, alleging various causes of action
relating to (1) her time as a student at the University and (2) the University’s refusal
to provide her a transcript. As relief, she seeks ten million dollars in damages and
injunctive relief. Contemporaneously with her complaint, she filed a procedurally
inappropriate motion for summary judgment. The University then filed a motion to
dismiss her complaint. The Prothonotary emailed Ms. Harris a letter on September
23, 2024, directing her to file a response to the motion to dismiss on or before
October 7, 2024. She declined to file a written response.
2. Ms. Harris later filed a combined motion seeking various forms of relief that
the Delaware Superior Court Civil Rules do not permit. Within that motion, she
seems to ask the judicial officer, and the civil case manager assigned to her case, to
recuse themselves unless they file a response to the motion under oath. Given her
references to requested recusal, the Court has performed the two-step analysis
required by Los v. Los.1 The Court harbors neither subjective bias for or against
either party and there is no objectively apparent bias. As a result, recusal is
inappropriate. The remainder of the types of relief requested in Ms. Harris’
combined filing are procedurally out of sequence or cannot be granted pursuant to
pretrial motion practice.
3. Presently, the University seeks dismissal of Ms. Harris’ various claims
pursuant to Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6). As previously mentioned,
Ms. Harris declined to file a written response. Then, when the Court notified her of
the date and time for an oral argument, she emailed the Prothonotary’s Office
indicating she refused to participate.2 Even when providing Ms. Harris the laxity
due a pro se litigant, her failure to respond to the University’s motion makes it
appropriate for the Court to grant it as unopposed.
WHEREFORE, for the aforementioned reasons, Defendant Delaware State
University’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Jeffrey J Clark
Resident Judge

Via File & ServeXpress
U.S. Mail to Daije A. Harris

1
95 A.2d 381 (1991).
2
D.I. 27.