Opinion
C.A. No. 99M-04-031-RRC.
Submitted: August 13, 1999.
Decided: November 5, 1999.
Upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus." GRANTED.
William L. Defoe, III, SBI No. 00383142, Delaware Correctional Center, P.O. Box 500, Smyrna, Delaware 19977.
John A. Eberly, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 820 N. French Street, 6th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
Dear Counsel:
Pending before this Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff William L. Defore, III's Petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus. The motion is based on Plaintiff's alleged failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in this letter opinion, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
In this mandamus action, Plaintiff alleges that Warden Raphael Williams, Major Perry Phelps, Angelo Cauthan and Rod Johnson (collectively Respondents) have denied Plaintiff "meaningful access to courts which comports with those constitutional standards delineated in the United States Supreme Court. . . ." Plaintiff's allegations are set forth in toto.
At the time of the filing of this mandamus action, Plaintiff was incarcerated within the State of Delaware Department of Correction and housed at the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility at 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Plaintiff has since been relocated to the Department's Delaware Correctional Center.
Raphael Williams is the warden of the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility at 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Major Perry Phelps is the security superintendent of the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility at 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Plaintiff alleges that this individual is a clerk at the east side law library of the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility at 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Plaintiff alleges that this individual is a clerk at the west side law library of the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility at 1301 East 12th Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Plaintiffs' Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus atArgument and Authorities, Point I.
1) Respondent number #3 Angelo Cauthan who is clerk of the West Side Law Library at Gander Hill prison refuses to furnish [Plaintiff] with a copy of institutional law library policies as delineated by state statute or dept. of corrections policy. This contravenes title 11 § 6535.
2) Respondent #3 [Angelo Cauthan] refused to allow petitioner to make copies of grievance procedure rules or disciplinary rules and he only allows [Plaintiff] to review them in the law library approx. 1 hour every 3 weeks.
3) Respondent #3 [Angelo Cauthan] disallows [Plaintiff] to view any pertinent department of corrections rules or regulations and make copies thereof including but not limited to inmate housing rules, inmate reference manuals and standard operation procedures.
4) Respondent #3 [Angelo Cauthan] refuses to allow [Plaintiff] more than five individual cases to research per week. He also refuses to clarify what specific policy or rules mandate such a limitation on research materials.
5) Respondent #4 Rod Johnson charges [Plaintiff] 25 [cents] per copy/page for any requested legal material above the five cases per week for research purposes.
6) Respondent #2 Major Perry Phelps has upheld these policies by acquiescing through his approval of grievance board recommendations which denied [Plaintiff] any relief.
7) Respondent #1 Warden Raphael Williams has been made aware of and is aware of institutional policies (implicit or explicit) which forestall, thwart, frustrate and obstruct pro se litigation and has acquiesced in implimentation [sic] of such policies which greatly abridge [Plaintiff's] right to access courts in a meaningful way.
Plaintiffs Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus at IV Facts ¶¶ 1-7.
Plaintiff's petition contends that his alleged denial of access to the courts, through the law library, has occurred because he was denied more than five (5) photocopied cases per week without charge. Plaintiff does not contend that the law library is refusing him the right to review cases, but that the law library is denying him access to the courts by refusing to provide him with copies of cases for him to review in his housing unit. For example, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that he sent a request to the library for 15 cases to research and was only sent two. Having to pay for additional copies, according to Plaintiff, unreasonably limits his requests and is the basis for his petition.
Plaintiff's Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus atArgument and Authorities, Example I.
The Court may issue a writ of mandamus "to an inferior court. . . or agency to compel the performance of a duty to which the petitioner has established a clear legal right." Mandamus is appropriate "only where the petitioner's legal right is clear and where he or she seek performance of a ministerial duty imposed by law." Mandamus "will not lie to enforce an act involving an exercise of discretion, except to the extent that it may compel one to exercise his [or her] official discretion."
Snyder v. Andrews, Del. Super., 708 A.2d 237, 239 (1998).
Bramble v. Dannemann, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 5769, Brown, V.C. (Jan 10, 1980) (Mem. Op.).
Id.
This Court concludes that Plaintiff has no right of mandamus to seek copies of institutional and/or Department of Correction policies related to the law library, grievance procedures or disciplinary rules. As noted in Defendant's motion, 11 Del. C. § 6535 provides that prisoners "shall have access to those portions of disciplinary rules that apply to them, at places and times deemed reasonable and appropriate by the Commissioner." Mandamus is not appropriate to compel an official to exercise that official's discretion. Furthermore, the issue of free copies has already been decided in Delaware. In Simpson v. Snyder, the Court of Chancery found "no case . . . that goes beyond holding that reasonable access to books is necessary to hold that the constitution requires that copying services be provided free of charge and on an unlimited basis to inmates." This Court finds that Plaintiff has not been denied access to the courts because he is permitted to review cases in the law library and make copies. Although Plaintiff cannot make an unlimited number of copies, this Court finds that a reasonable limitation on the amount of free copies available to Plaintiff is not a denial of access nor grounds for a mandamus action. Therefore this Court finds that Plaintiff's Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and is dismissed.
Simpson v. Snyder, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 15682, Allen, C. (April 28, 1997) (Mem. Op. And Order) at 5, aff'd 700 A.2d 736 (1997).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's "Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus" is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.