Opinion
C.A. No. 03M-03-026.
Date Submitted: May 1, 2003.
Date Decided: May 12, 2003.
Dear Mr. Cannon:
Petitioner Alton Cannon ("petitioner") has filed a petition seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus against Warden Robert I. George, Jr. and Commissioner Stanley Taylor ("the respondents"). Petitioner objects to a policy the Sussex County Violation of Probation ("VOP") Center has implemented regarding the costs of stationary and the types of stationary it will provide inmates. Since the filing of the petition, petitioner has been released from the VOP Center. Petitioner also has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because it is not notarized as 10 Del. C. § 8802(b) requires.
While reviewing the motion, I reviewed the petition itself. See 10 Del. C. § 8803. The petition is legally frivolous. As explained in Guy v. Greenhouse, Del. Supr., No. 285, 1993, Walsh, J. (December 30, 1993) at 2:
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 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. [All citations omitted.] The relief petitioner seeks is not the performance of a clear legal or ministerial duty. More importantly, however, since petitioner no longer is incarcerated, the respondents do not owe him any duty.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and the petition is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.