LONGFELLOW v. KEARNEY, 05M-07-022 (Del.Super. 2005)

RE: JOSEPH R. LONGFELLOW v. RICK KEARNEY, Warden of SCI and Dave Vinson, Records Supervisor.

C.A. No. 05M-07-022.Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex County.Submitted: August 1, 2005.
August 2, 2005.

T. HENLEY GRAVES, Resident Judge

Dear Mr. Longfellow:

Pending before the Court are a petition seeking a writ of mandamus and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, the petition seeking a writ of mandamus is dismissed because it is not written in a manner which allows the Court to determine if you are entitled to such a writ.

As the Supreme Court explained in Guy v. Greenhouse, Del. Supr., No. 285, 1993, Walsh, J. (December 30, 1993):

Under Delaware law, the basis for issuance and the scope of relief available through a writ of mandamus under Delaware law are both quite limited. Mandamus is issuable not as a matter of right, but only in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Moreover, when directed to an administrative agency or public official, mandamus will issue only to require performance of a clear legal or ministerial duty. For a duty to be ministerial and thus enforceable by mandamus, the duty must be prescribed with such precision and certainty that nothing is left to discretion or judgment. [Citations omitted.] Accord Taylor v. State, 716 A.2d 975 (Del. 1998); Washington v. State, 713 A.2d 932 (Del. 1998).

You have not set forth what clear legal or ministerial duty the respondents owe you nor have you detailed how respondents have not performed that duty. Accordingly, this Court dismisses your petition seeking a writ of mandamus.

IT IS SO ORDERED.