Case Title: Matter of Proctor

Citation: 

Docket Number: 610, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2004-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
1Proctor v.  State, Del.  Super., C.A. No.  001-12-003; State v.  Proctor, C.A. No.
00-05-0039HO (Del.  CCP Nov.  17, 2000). 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
§
No.  610, 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF RONALD E.
§
Court Below–Superior Court of
PROCTOR, JR., FOR A WRIT
§
the State of Delaware, in and
MANDAMUS.
§
for Kent County in C.A. No.  
§
00A-12-003.
Submitted: January 9, 2004 
Decided:
February 24, 2004 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 24th day of February 2004, upon consideration of the petition for a
writ of mandamus filed by Ronald E.  Proctor, Jr., the State’s response to the
petition, Proctor’s motion for stay and his “addendum” to the motion for stay,
it appears to the Court that:
(1)
On December 6, 2000, the petitioner, inmate Ronald E.  Proctor,
Jr., filed an appeal in the Superior Court from the Court of Common Pleas’
suspension of his driving privileges.1  It appears from the Superior Court docket
that Proctor has filed his opening brief and, as of October 3, 2003, the State has
filed its answering brief.  
2Proctor attaches copies of the motions and other documents that, he says,  are
pending in the Superior Court.  None of the documents, however, is listed on the Superior
Court docket.  The motions and documents include:  (a) a “Motion for Reconsideration of
Commissioner’s Order and Request for Transcript of Proceedings” dated March 26, 2003;
(b) duplicate letters dated March 25 and July 7, 2003, addressed to the Prothonotary
regarding subpoenas; (c) duplicate letters dated March 25 and July 7, 2003, addressed to the
President Judge regarding a Freedom of Information Act Request; (d) a letter of objection
dated July 7, 2003; and (e) a request for an extension of time dated October 12, 2003, to file
the reply brief. 
3Proctor contends that he is dependent upon the Superior Court to provide him with
copies of pleadings that he has filed because he is “not permitted access to [the] copy
service” at the prison.
2
(2)
In his motion for stay in this Court, as supplemented, Proctor seeks
a “stay [of] all case(s) filed and pending in this Court” on the basis that the
Department of Correction has denied him access to postage, envelopes and
writing materials, such as paper and pens.  Proctor, however, is not entitled to
file anything further in this case.  Consequently, a stay of the matter for lack of
writing materials, envelopes and postage, is neither necessary nor helpful, and
his motion for stay will be denied.
(3)
Proctor seeks to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue
an extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court to rule on
motions that Proctor claims he has filed since March 2003.2  Proctor also seeks
to compel the Superior Court to provide him with “copies of pleadings filed”3
4Proctor contends that the Superior Court extended the filing deadline for the State’s
answering brief and should likewise extend his reply brief deadline.
5In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).
6Id.
7Id.
3
and to issue an amended brief schedule providing for a filing date for his reply
brief.4  
(4)
This Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior
Court to perform a duty only if the petitioner can demonstrate that (a) he has a
clear right to the performance of the duty; (b) no other remedy is available; and
(c) the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.5
Absent a clear showing that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused
to act, “this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus 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.6
(5)
In this case, Proctor has not demonstrated that the Superior Court
has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him.  Clearly, the
Superior Court has no duty to provide Proctor with copies of pleadings that he
has filed, and it has no duty to extend the brief schedule.7  With the exception
of a “motion to stay” that was filed by Proctor on October 30, 2003, and again
4
on January 9, 2004, the Superior Court docket does not support Proctor’s claim
that he has filed motions and other documents since March 2003 upon which
the Superior Court has not acted.   Indeed, there is no indication in this case that
the Superior Court is not prepared to rule in the near future upon Proctor’s
motion to stay and ultimately on the merit of the appeal from the Court of
Common Pleas.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Proctor’s motion for stay
is DENIED.  The State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.  The petition for a
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J.  Holland
Justice