The Delaware Supreme Court denied certification for an interlocutory appeal in *Murphy v. Walters*, a case involving allegations of police misconduct against multiple law enforcement agencies in Delaware. The court issued its order on Jan. 30, 2026, after considering the notice of interlocutory appeal filed by plaintiffs seeking to challenge a Superior Court decision.
The case involves Erica Murphy and Edwin Sanchez serving as guardians ad litem for J.S., a minor, along with plaintiffs Alfred Evans and Kaimyhre Ibn-Britt-Jackson. The plaintiffs filed suit against numerous defendants including Delaware State Police officers Corporal Dempsey R. Walters, Corporal Earl Marchione, and Detective David Armstrong, as well as Newport Police Officer Thomas D. Kashner.
Additional defendants include the Delaware State Police, New Castle County Police Department, Newport Police Department, and Elsmere Police Department. The plaintiffs also named unknown officers as Jane Doe and John Doe defendants because they were unable to identify them by name when filing their complaint.
The underlying claims stem from alleged physical and psychological injuries that plaintiffs said they suffered during interactions with police officers in August 2023. In July 2025, the plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking damages and asserting multiple claims including violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, assault and battery, and false imprisonment.
The Superior Court apparently dismissed the claims against the unidentified Jane Doe and John Doe defendants, prompting the plaintiffs to seek an interlocutory appeal to challenge that decision. An interlocutory appeal allows parties to appeal certain rulings before a final judgment is entered in the case.
Along with their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion to proceed anonymously, seeking to use a pseudonym for the minor plaintiff and to name the unidentified police officers as Jane and John Doe defendants until they could be properly identified.
The Delaware Supreme Court's order, issued by Justices Valihura, Traynor, and Legrow, indicates that the court considered the notice of interlocutory appeal and related exhibits before denying certification. The court did not provide detailed reasoning for the denial in the available portion of the order.
Interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored because they can delay proceedings and fragment litigation. Courts typically require that such appeals meet strict criteria, including that the order involves a controlling question of law about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between law enforcement and community members, particularly involving incidents that allegedly result in physical and psychological harm. The involvement of multiple police departments suggests the incident may have involved coordination between different law enforcement agencies or occurred across jurisdictional boundaries.
The use of guardians ad litem for the minor plaintiff demonstrates the court's recognition that special protections are needed when minors are involved in litigation, especially cases involving alleged police misconduct. Guardians ad litem are appointed to represent the best interests of minors in legal proceedings.
The plaintiffs' difficulty in identifying all the officers involved reflects a common challenge in police misconduct cases, where victims may not immediately know the names or badge numbers of all officers present during an incident. Courts have varying approaches to allowing such cases to proceed with placeholder defendants while discovery is conducted to identify the actual officers.
The denial of the interlocutory appeal means the case will continue in Superior Court, where the plaintiffs will need to address the dismissal of their claims against the unidentified officers. They may need to seek alternative methods to identify the Jane and John Doe defendants or file amended pleadings once they obtain the officers' identities through discovery or other means.
The case involves significant legal questions about civil rights violations under Section 1983, which allows individuals to sue state and local officials who violate their constitutional rights while acting under color of law. Such claims are common in police misconduct litigation and can result in both monetary damages and injunctive relief.
The multiple defendants and agencies involved suggest this case could have broader implications for law enforcement practices and policies across several Delaware jurisdictions. The outcome may influence how similar cases are handled and could affect training, policies, and procedures within the named police departments.