Opinion
Docket No. 130, 1999.
May 12, 1999.
MANDAMUS DISMISSED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GIBSON A. HALL FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 130, 1999. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted: April 21, 1999. Decided: May 12, 1999.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of May 1999, upon consideration of (i) the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Gibson A. Hall on March 30, 1999; (ii) Hall's letter dated April 3, 1999, supplementing his petition; (iii) the defendants' answer and motion to dismiss; and (iv) Hall's "Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer and Motion to Dismiss," it appears to the Court that:
(1) Supreme Court Rule 43 states in pertinent part that, other than the complaint and the answer, if an answer is requested by the Court as it was in this case, no further submissions of the parties shall be accepted unless directed by the Court. Hall's "Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer and Motion to Dismiss" responds to the defendants' answer and motion to dismiss. As such, Hall's motion is in violation of Supreme Court Rule 43, and it shall be stricken.
(2) On October 24, 1995, Hall brought a civil action in the Superior Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials of the Department of Correction and the Attorney General of the State of Delaware ("the defendants"). Hall is now incarcerated in the State of New Mexico.
(3) By order dated March 30, 1998, the Superior Court granted the defendants' motions to quash Hall's subpoenas duces tecum. The court also denied Hall's motion to hold one of the defendants in contempt. By order dated July 20, 1998, the Superior Court denied Hall's motion under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b). The court also directed that the defendants submit allegedly privileged documents to the court for an in camera inspection.
(4) Hall's petition for a writ of mandamus requests that this Court "revoke" the Superior Court's orders of March 30 and July 20, 1998. Hall claims that the orders are factually and legally "erroneous" in the face of "overwhelming facts and proof positive evidence." Hall also claims that the Superior Court failed to conduct the in camera inspection that was contemplated by the court's order of July 20, 1998. As a result, Hall claims that the Superior Court trial judge has "conspired with the defendants to obstruct justice" and seeks an Order of this Court removing the judge from the case.
(5) This Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a duty, but only when the complainant has a clear right to the performance of the duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court has failed or refused to perform its duty. There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case.
In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).
(6) Hall is not without an adequate remedy to correct the alleged "erroneous" orders of the Superior Court. Hall will have a right to appeal those orders, and any other alleged errors, once a final judgment is entered in the case. A petition for a writ of mandamus is not available to correct alleged errors in the proceedings in the trial court which are subject to ordinary appellate review. Furthermore, mandamus is not an available remedy for review of interlocutory orders which can be reviewed on appeal.
Matushefske v. Herlihy, Del. Supr., 214 A.2d 883, 885 (1965).
Williams v. Marvel, Del. Supr., 158 A.2d 486, 487 (1960).
(7) Hall has not demonstrated that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to conduct the in camera inspection. Although unbeknownst to Hall at the time he filed his petition in this Court, the Superior Court conducted the review in the latter part of 1998. Having conducted the review, the Superior Court, by order dated December 31, 1998, directed that the defendants disclose certain information to Hall. Unfortunately, through an error in mailing, the Superior Court's December 31 order was not provided to Hall in a timely fashion. Furthermore, through apparent inadvertence by the defendants' counsel, the documents subject to production also were not provided to Hall in a timely fashion. But, those oversights have now been remedied. To the extent Hall seeks an Order of this Court compelling the Superior Court to conduct the in camera inspection, Hall's petition is moot.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hall's "Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer and Motion to Dismiss" is STRICKEN. The defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Hall's petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. NORMAN VEASEY, Chief Justice