Opinion
No. 183 2013.
2013-06-10
In The Matter of the Petition Of Devon Anthony BROWN For A Writ Of Prohibition.
Family Court No: CN95–10271.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices.
ORDER
MYRON T. STEELE, Chief Justice.
This 10th day of June 2013, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner, Devon Anthony Brown, has filed a petition with this Court requesting the issuance of a writ of prohibition pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43. Brown seeks to prohibit the Family Court from disclosing his residential address and his place of employment in connection with Family Court File Number CN95–10271. The Family Court judge assigned to that matter has responded to the petition by letter dated April 26, 2013. In the letter, the judge states that litigants can file a motion in the Family Court requesting that personal information be kept confidential, but that no such motion was filed in this case.
(2) A writ of prohibition is the legal equivalent of the equitable remedy of injunction, which may be issued to prevent a trial court from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction. Like a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition will not issue if the petitioner has another adequate remedy at law.
In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del.1988).
Id.
(3) The record before us reflects that the petitioner had the option of filing a motion in the Family Court to keep personal information confidential, but did not do so. Because he had an adequate remedy in the Family Court, the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a writ of prohibition by this Court. Nor is there any evidence that the Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction in any respect. Therefore, the petition for a writ of prohibition must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of prohibition is DISMISSED.