May 25, 2021) (citing Shah v. Coupe, 2014 WL 5712617, *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 3, 2014); Pinkston v. Del. Dept. of Corr., 2013 WL 6439360, *1 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2013)).Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978).
Similarly, under well-established Delaware law, a prisoner does not have a liberty interest in a prison work assignment that serves to reduce a sentence. See Pinkston v. Del. Dep't Corr., 2013 WL 6329360, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2013); Smith v. Salas, 5 A.3d 631 (Table), 2010 WL 3632825, at *1 (Del. Sept. 20, 2010). Thus, because Petitioner does not have a liberty interest in earning good time credits through prison employment, his instant contention that his due process rights were violated by failing to credit his sentence with the good time credit he would have earned had he been employed from October 23, 2012 to October 15, 2013 fails to establish a viable claim for relief.
Section 6530 shows our legislature's "recognition of the need for flexibility and discretion in classification, discipline, and assignment to programs [,]" Treatment classifications are within the sound discretion of the DOC and this Court will not interfere with such decisions absent manifest injustice.Pinkston v. Del. Dep't of Corr., 2013 WL 6439360, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2013). Id.
Pinkston v. Del. Dept. of Corr., 2013 WL 6439360, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2013) (citing Washington v. Dept.of Corr., 2006 WL 1579773, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 31, 2006)); Parker v. Kearney, 2000 WL 1611119, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2000)) (holding that Petitioner had an adequate legal remedy for his alleged constitutional claims in the form of a District Court action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, therefore a writ of mandamus was inappropriate). 9. For the foregoing reasons, the Respondents' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Nicholson v. Taylor, 2005 WL 2475736, *2 (Del. 2005); see also Brittingham v. Town of Georgetown, 113 A.3d 519 (Del. 2015).Pinkston v. Del. Dept. of Corr., 2013 WL 6439360, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2013) (citing Washington v. Dept.of Corr., 2006 WL 1579773, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 31, 2006)); Parker v. Kearney, 2000 WL 1611119, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2000)) (holding that Petitioner had an adequate legal remedy for his alleged constitutional claims in the form of a District Court action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, therefore a writ of mandamus was inappropriate).
E.g., Adams, 2021 WL 3673239, at *2; Morton, 2021 WL 2355232, at *2; Beeks v. Jennings, 2021 WL 2349993, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. June 8, 2021); Long v. Jennings, 2021 WL 2134854, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. May 25, 2021); see Lewis v. May, 2021 WL 4516706, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 30, 2021); Pinkston v. Del. Dep't of Corr., 2013 WL 6433960, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2013); Washington v. Dep't of Corr., 2006 WL 1579773, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 31, 2006); see generally 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2020). See also Ward v. Hennessy, 2004 WL 1790193, *1 (Del. Aug. 3, 2004) (affirming on alternative remedy grounds dismissal of mandamus because petitioner filed civil lawsuit on what he sought by mandamus).
The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party; however, it will not "accept conclusory allegations unsupported by specific facts," nor will it "draw unreasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) must be denied if the Petitioner could recover under "any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint."Long v. Jennings, 2021 WL 2134854, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. May 25, 2021)(citing Shah v. Coupe, 2014 WL 5712617, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 3, 2014); Pinkston v. Del. Dept. of Corr., 2013 WL 6439360, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2013)).Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978)
Since Mr. Long fails to meet one of the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus, mandamus is inappropriate. Pinkston v. Del. Dept. of Corr., 2013 WL 6439360, at *3 (Del. Super. Dec. 4, 2013) (citing Washington v. Dept. of Corr., 2006 WL 1579773, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. May 31, 2006)); Parker v. Kearney, 2000 WL 1611119, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2000)) (holding that Petitioner had an adequate legal remedy for his alleged constitutional claims in the form of a District Court action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, therefore a writ of mandamus was inappropriate).
Oct. 19, 1992) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-467 (1983)). Pinkston v. Del. Dept. of Corr., 2013 WL 6439360, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 4, 2013); Nicholson, 1992 WL 354208, at *2; Ali v. Phelps, 2011 WL 4824156, at *1 (Del. Oct. 11, 2011).