PROCTOR v. WARDEN R. KEARNEY, 817 A.2d 805 (Del. 2003)

Nos. 624/625, 2001, ConsolidatedSupreme Court of Delaware.Submitted: October 11, 2002
Decided: January 23, 2003

Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Sussex County, C.A. Nos. 01M-07-005 and 01M-08-018.

Affirmed.

Unpublished opinion is below.

RONALD E. PROCTOR, JR., Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. WARDEN R. KEARNEY, DIANE CAISSE, BETH PEPPER BECK, HELEN LOWMAN, S/LT B. BRASURE, LT. R. HOLLIS, Respondents Below, Appellees. Nos. 624/625, 2001, Consolidated In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: October 11, 2002 Decided: January 23, 2003

Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.

Carolyn Berger, Justice:

ORDER
This 23rd day of January 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) Ronald Proctor is an inmate in the custody of the Department of Correction. Proctor is currently housed at the Delaware Correctional Center and has resided there since January 17, 2002. Prior to that date, Proctor was housed at the Sussex Correctional Institution (“SCI”).

(2) In 2001, Proctor filed two petitions for writs of mandamus with the Superior Court. The first petition, which was filed in July 2001, alleged generally that staff at SCI did not provide Proctor with photocopies of documents to which he was entitled. The second petition, which was filed in August 2001, alleged generally that staff at SCI restricted the time that Proctor was permitted to conduct research in the prison law library.

(3) By separate orders entered on October 31, 2001, the Superior Court dismissed Proctor’s mandamus petitions. This appeal followed.[1]

(4) In his opening brief on appeal, Proctor argues that he has “an inherent statutory conferred institutional policy and common law right of access to the courts and access to scribe materials to complete and file legal pleadings.” Proctor contends that “mandamus was [the] proper remedy to obtain relief for acts directed at Proctor over a 12 year period that caused numerous incidents of non-access and no access to any copy service [and to the law library].”

(5) The Superior Court may issue a writ of mandamus to a State officer, tribunal, board or agency to compel the performance of an official duty.[2] Mandamus is issuable not as a matter of right, but only in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.[3] The petitioner seeking mandamus relief must establish a clear right to the relief requested and that there is no other adequate remedy at law.[4]

(6) The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Proctor’s July 2001 mandamus petition. Proctor did not establish that he had a clear legal right to the relief that he requested.[5] Moreover, Proctor did not establish that the respondents violated a legal duty owed to him.

(7) The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when denying Proctor’s August 2001 mandamus petition. Proctor did not establish that he had a clear legal right to the relief that he requested.[6]
Moreover, Proctor did not establish that he was without an adequate legal remedy to address his claims.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgments of the Superior Court are AFFIRMED.