Opinion
Nos. 242, 2002 and 243, 2002.
Submitted: May 17, 2002.
Decided: May 24, 2002.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County C.A. No. 00C-07-012
Appeal Dismissed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
VIRGIL N. MANGRUM, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. LEWIS WARREN, J. LLEWELLYN BELL MEMORIAL CHAPEL and STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants Below, Appellees. Nos. 242, 2002 and 243, 2002 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: May 17, 2002 Decided: May 24, 2002
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
Randy J. Holland, Justice:
ORDER
This 24th day of May 2002, it appears to the Court that:
(1) On April 30, 2002, Virgil N. Mangrum filed a notice of appeal, which purported to appeal from an order of the Superior Court dated March 22, 2002. Attached to Mangrum's notice of appeal were two documents entitled, respectively, "Motion from Interlocutory Order" and "Motion for Writ of Mandamus." In light of Mangrum's alternative requests for relief, the Clerk of this Court separately docketed Mangrum's notice of appeal with its two attachments as a notice of interlocutory appeal (case No. 242, 2002) and a petition for an extraordinary writ of mandamus (case No. 243, 2002). We have reviewed Mangrum's documents as well as the appellee's response to Mangrum's petition for a writ. We have determined that both of these matters must be dismissed.
(2) The record reflects that a Superior Court jury returned a verdict in defendants' favor in April 2001. Mangrum appealed the jury's verdict to this Court. We affirmed the Superior Court's judgment on appeal and issued the mandate in November 2001. In March 2002, Mangrum filed in the Superior Court a "Motion for Amendment" pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rules 15(b) and (c), seeking to amend his complaint below. The Superior Court's March 22, 2002 "order" from which Mangrum now seeks to take an interlocutory appeal, in fact, is a letter from a Superior Court case manager informing Mangrum that his case is closed and that no further filings should be presented.
State Farm was not named as a defendant in the Superior Court proceedings.
(3) Mangrum's attempt to take an interlocutory appeal from the March 22, 2002 letter is inappropriate for many reasons. First, this Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of orders issued by judges of the Superior Court.
See Redden v. McGill, 549 A.2d 695 (Del. 1988).
This Court has no appellate jurisdiction to review a letter issued by a Superior Court employee. Moreover, Mangrum has not attempted to comply with any of the requirements for seeking interlocutory review under Supreme Court Rule 42, including filing his notice of interlocutory appeal within thirty days of the entry of the order sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, Mangrum's notice of interlocutory appeal must be dismissed.
(4) Moreover, Mangrum's petition for a writ of mandamus fails on its face to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ. This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus only when the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily has failed or refused to perform its duty. In this case, Mangrum requests that a writ be issued compelling the trial judge to disqualify herself from hearing Mangrum's Motion to Amend. Because Mangrum's case has been closed for months, he cannot demonstrate a clear right to have his Motion to Amend heard by the Superior Court, nor can he establish that the Superior Court arbitrarily has refused to act. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to dismiss must be granted.
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that these appeals are hereby DISMISSED.