Case Title: Matter of Biggins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 33, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JAMES ARTHUR 
BIGGINS FOR AN 
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT 
§ 
§   
No. 33, 2016 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   March 30, 2016 
Decided: 
June 1, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 1st day of June 2016, upon consideration of James Arthur Biggins’ 
request to file a petition seeking an unspecified extraordinary writ, the State’s 
response, and the additional filings in this matter,1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
Biggins was convicted in 1997 of multiple sex offenses.  Since that 
time he has filed many unsuccessful petitions seeking to overturn his convictions 
and sentences.  As a result of Biggins’ numerous frivolous filings, this Court 
entered an order on July 11, 2011, prohibiting him from “filing any further papers 
in this Court challenging his convictions in Cr. ID 9609015504 without prior 
approval of a Justice of this Court.”2 
                                                 
1 Among those additional filings, we note that Biggins filed two motions on March 22, seeking to 
expand the record and compel the production of transcripts and other documents.  Those two 
motions are hereby denied. 
2 Biggins v. State, 2011 WL 2731214 (Del. July 11, 2011). 
 
2 
 
(2) 
On January 19, 2016, Biggins filed a petition seeking an unspecified 
extraordinary writ.  After the Clerk issued a rule to show cause why the petition 
should not be dismissed for Biggins’ failure to obtain prior approval of a Justice to 
file, Biggins wrote to the Court asking permission to file his petition.  The State 
filed a response asking that the petition be dismissed for failure to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ.  After careful 
consideration, we grant Biggins’ request to file his petition but dismiss the petition 
for lack of jurisdiction. 
 
(3) 
Although Biggins’ request for relief is not well-articulated, he asserts 
that newly discovered evidence exists proving that his 1997 trial was unfair.  In 
support of this assertion, Biggins attaches to his petition a letter dated June 25, 
2015 from an attorney with the United States Department of Justice (“USDOJ”) to 
Delaware Attorney General Matthew Denn regarding Biggins’ criminal case.  The 
letter states that the laboratory report provided by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation in Biggins’ case included statements that were unreliable because the 
statements exceeded the limits of science that then existed.  The letter offered no 
comment on whether or not the unreliability of the FBI laboratory report was 
material to Biggins’ case. 
 
(4) 
Given his assertion of newly discovered evidence, the Court infers 
that Biggins is requesting that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Superior 
 
3 
Court to grant him a new trial.  This Court has original jurisdiction to issue an 
extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a duty if the 
petitioner can show that:  (i) he has a clear right to the performance of the duty; (ii) 
no other adequate legal remedy is available; and (ii) the trial court has arbitrarily 
failed or refused to perform its duty.3  A writ of mandamus will not be issued “to 
compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a 
particular way, or to dictate the control of its docket.”4   
(5) 
The Superior Court docket in Biggins’ criminal case reflects that he 
filed a motion for a new trial on July 16, 2015, after receiving the USDOJ’s letter 
to Attorney General Denn.5  To the extent that Biggins is requesting this Court to 
order the Superior Court to rule on his pending motion, we conclude that a writ of 
mandamus is not warranted because Biggins cannot establish that the Superior 
Court has arbitrarily refused to act.  Although the Superior Court erroneously 
believed that Biggins had filed an appeal that left the Superior Court without 
jurisdiction to rule on his motion, we do not find the Superior Court’s failure to act 
to be an arbitrary refusal.  Biggins’ litigious history and the multitude of 
documents that he has continued to file in the Superior Court no doubt contributed 
                                                 
3In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).  
4 Id. 
5 The Superior Court docket reflects that Biggins also filed a motion for a new trial in May 2015, 
but that the Superior Court declined to rule on it until it received further information regarding 
the USDOJ’s audit of the lab report filed in Biggins’ case. 
 
4 
to the Superior Court’s incorrect assumption that it had lost jurisdiction in his case.  
Moreover, to the extent that Biggins is requesting this Court to order the Superior 
Court to grant his motion for a new trial, mandamus is not warranted because this 
Court will not order the Superior Court to decide his pending motion in any 
particular way.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of 
an extraordinary writ is DISMISSED.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice