Case Title: In the Matter of the Petition of Aishia Simms for a Writ of Warranto

Citation: 

Docket Number: 459, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2024-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN 
THE 
MATTER 
OF 
THE 
PETITION OF AISHIA SIMMS 
FOR 
A 
WRIT 
OF 
QUO 
WARRANTO 
§     No. 459, 2023 
§   
§ 
 
 
Before TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and GRIFFITHS, Justices. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
This 9th day of February 2024, after consideration of the complaint for a writ 
of quo warranto, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Aishia Simms, filed a complaint seeking to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court to issue an extraordinary writ of quo warranto.  
Simms is a defendant in a residential summary-possession action in the Justice of 
the Peace Court.1  The complaint in this writ action alleges that the magistrate who 
presided over some of the proceedings in the summary-possession action lacked the 
authority to do so because his term as a justice of the peace was expired.  The 
complaint also alleges that the magistrate violated Simms’s constitutional and other 
rights and asserts various errors in the summary-possession action.   
(2) 
After careful review, we conclude that the complaint must be 
dismissed.  As an initial matter, a complainant may not ask this Court to issue an 
extraordinary writ to the Justice of the Peace Court “unless a petition for such writ 
 
1 The Court has taken judicial notice of the record in Windsor Castle, LLC v. Simms, Case No. 
JP13-23-019125.   
2 
 
shall have been first presented to and denied by the Superior Court.2  Because Simms 
has not alleged, and the Superior Court docket does not reflect, that she sought a writ 
of quo warranto from the Superior Court in the first instance, the complaint must be 
dismissed.3 
(3) 
It also appears from the allegations of the complaint and publicly 
available records that the complaint is without merit.  As this Court explained in 
Capriglione v. State, “[t]he writ of quo warranto ‘is a remedy that is essentially 
adversarial in nature that seeks to remove the challenged officer from a position.  
The writ or order is like a summons commanding the respondent to show by what 
authority he or she claims to hold an office and is, in effect, an order to show 
cause.’”4  In support of her allegations that the magistrate’s term was expired, Simms 
attached records from a New Castle County public records database and the General 
Assembly website indicating that the magistrate’s term expired in 2011.  But the 
General Assembly’s website confirms that the magistrate was reappointed as 
recently as June 2023.5  Finally, to the extent that the complaint seeks to correct legal 
 
2 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 43(b)(vi). 
3 See In re Paskins, 2005 WL 2333896, at *1 (Del. Sept. 21, 2005) (dismissing petition for a writ 
of mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas because the petitioner had not sought a writ of 
mandamus from the Superior Court in the first instance, as required by Supreme Court Rule 43). 
4 279 A.3d 803, 805 n.13 (Del. 2021) (quoting 65 AM. JUR. 2d Quo Warranto § 2 (Feb. 2021)); 
see also Hampson v. State, 233 A.2d 155, 156 (Del. 1967) (describing a petition for a writ of quo 
warranto as “the common law remedy available in Delaware for determining the right to hold and 
occupy a public office”). 
5 
DEL. 
GEN. 
ASSEM., 
Hon. 
James 
R. 
Hanby 
Sr. 
Nominee 
Information, 
at 
https://legis.delaware.gov/Nomination?nominationId=2128 (reflecting Senate confirmation of 
3 
 
errors in the summary-possession action or other relief beyond removal of the 
magistrate from office, a proceeding for a writ of quo warranto cannot provide the 
desired relief.6 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the complaint seeking issuance 
of a writ of quo warranto is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
reappointment on June 7, 2023, for an eight-year term); see also DEL. GEN. ASSEM., Hon. James 
R. 
Hanby 
Sr. 
Nominee 
Information, 
at 
https://legis.delaware.gov/ 
Nomination?nominationId=1628 (reflecting Senate confirmation of reappointment on May 17, 
2017, for a six-year term). 
6 See Hampson, 233 A.2d at 157 (stating that a proceeding for a writ of quo warranto is “brought 
by the Attorney General in the public interest against an alleged usurper of the office” and that the 
“remedy afforded by the writ is that of ouster”); see also 65 AM. JUR. 2d Quo Warranto § 2 (Jan. 
2024) (“Quo warranto is a preventative remedy addressed to preventing a continuing exercise of 
an authority unlawfully asserted rather than to correcting what has already been done under that 
authority.”).