Case Title: Matter of Johnson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 250, 2001

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF SCOTT O.
JOHNSON FOR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS.
  No. 250, 2001
Submitted: June 21, 2001
Decided:
July 18, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.
  
O R D E R
This 18th day of July 2001, upon consideration of the petition for a
writ of mandamus filed by Scott O. Johnson (and as supplemented by
Johnson on June 19, 2001) and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by
the State of Delaware,1 it appears to the Court that:
(1)
Johnson has applied to this Court for a writ of mandamus to be
directed to the Department of Correction and the Superior Court.  Johnson
alleges that correctional authorities have failed to given him credit for time
he spent at Level V waiting for a Level IV placement.2
                                                 
1 The Court has not considered Johnson’s answer to the State’s motion to dismiss.  A
response is not permitted to a motion to dismiss unless specifically requested by the
Court.  See Supr. Ct. R. 43(b)(ii).  Accordingly, Johnson’s answer shall be stricken as
a non-conforming document.  See Supr. Ct. R. 34.
2 See Johnson v. State, Del. Supr., Nos. 41 & 74, 1996, Berger, J., 1997 WL 70827
(Feb. 12, 1997) (ORDER) (affirming January 1996 sentencing order in State v.
Johnson, Del. Super., Cr.A. No. IN93-05-0868).
2
(2)
 “[T]his Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of
mandamus is limited to instances when a respondent is a court or a judge
thereof.”3  Accordingly, Johnson’s petition must be dismissed, because it
requests the issuance of a writ to the Department of Correction.
(3)
This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to a trial court only
when the petitioner can show that there is the clear right to the
performance of a duty by the trial court, and that the trial court has
arbitrarily refused or has failed to perform the duty.4  Here, Johnson has
not demonstrated that he has initiated the appropriate legal process in the
Superior Court to effect a review of the Department of Correction’s
calculation of his sentence.  Because Johnson has not demonstrated that he
has the clear right to the performance of a duty by the Superior Court, he
cannot prevail on a claim that the court has arbitrarily refused or failed to
perform a duty.  Accordingly, Johnson’s petition for a writ of mandamus
must be dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
  s/Joseph T. Walsh
    Justice
                                                 
3 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); In re Hitchens, Del. Supr., 600 A.2d 37, 38 (1991).
4 In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).