Opinion
No. 326, 2003.
Submitted: October 31, 2003.
Decided: December 17, 2003.
Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, C.A. No. 03C-05-014.
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
This 17th day of December 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal and the record below, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner-appellant, James W. Riley, filed an appeal from the Superior Court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We find no merit to the appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6).
(2) In his petition, Riley claimed that prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they deducted the costs of photocopying legal materials from his prison account. Riley argues that, because he is on death row and may not participate in any work programs at the Delaware Correctional Center, the deductions prevent him from purchasing necessities at the prison commissary and limit his ability to file court actions to redress alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The record reflects that, at the time the Superior Court dismissed his petition in June 2003, Riley was no longer a prisoner on death row. In May 2003, he was sentenced to life imprisonment following his retrial and conviction of Murder in the First Degree.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 6532(f).
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 Del. C. § 6532(g).
IK82-06-0838.
(3) A writ of mandamus is a command that may be issued by the Superior Court to an inferior court, public official or agency to compel the performance of a duty to which the petitioner has established a clear legal right. In addition, the petitioner must establish that there has been an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, and that no other remedy is available. In order to state a constitutional claim, an inmate must point to evidence of actual or imminent interference with access to the courts.
Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996).
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343(1996)).
(4) Because Riley has not pointed to any evidence of actual or imminent interference with access to the courts, he has failed to show a clear legal right to the performance of a duty by prison officials. Moreover, because Riley is no longer on death row and presumably may now participate in the work programs at the prison, it appears that his claim is now moot. Under these circumstances, the Superior Court was within its discretion to dismiss Riley's petition for a writ of mandamus.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.