Opinion
Docket No. 87, 1999.
March 16, 1999.
MANDAMUS DISMISSED.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LARRY D. MARVEL FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 87, 1999. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: March 5, 1999. Decided: March 16, 1999.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and BERGER, Justices.
ORDER
This 16th day of March 1999, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Larry D. Marvel ("Marvel"), it appears to the Court that:
(1) On February 1, 1999, Marvel brought a civil action in mandamus in the Superior Court. In his mandamus petition, Marvel alleged that he was unlawfully suspended from his position as an inmate worker at the Delaware Correctional Center ("DCC"). Marvel requested that the Superior Court issue a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner of the Department of Correction ("DOC") and a preliminary injunction to DCC. He asked that the Superior Court compel DOC to review his suspension and enjoin DCC from further interfering with his employment at the prison.
(2) By order dated February 3, 1999, the Superior Court dismissed Marvel's petition for a writ of mandamus. The court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction, and that mandamus was not available as a remedy to review the "classification decision."
(3) Marvel did not file an appeal from the Superior Court's February 3 order, as he had a right to do. See 10 Del. C. § 148 (providing for 30-day period in which to file appeal in civil action). Rather, Marvel filed the pending petition for a writ of mandamus. Marvel's petition requests that this Court compel the Superior Court and/or the Court of Chancery to issue a writ of mandamus to DOC and a preliminary injunction to DCC.
(4) 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. In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988). The Court will not issue a writ of mandamus "to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of its docket." Id.
(5) Marvel's petition for a writ of mandamus manifestly fails to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction. To the extent that Marvel requests that this Court compel the Court of Chancery to issue a preliminary injunction to DCC, Marvel has not established a clear legal right to the relief that he seeks. Moreover, because Marvel has not established that he has filed a request for a preliminary injunction with the Court of Chancery, he cannot establish that he has no other adequate legal remedy, or that the Court of Chancery has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him.
(6) There is also no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Superior Court. As previously noted, Marvel did not file an appeal from the Superior Court's dismissal of his mandamus petition. 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. Matushefske v. Herlihy, Del. Supr., 214 A.2d 883, 885 (1965).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Marvel's petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. NORMAN VEASEY, Chief Justice