Case Title: Matter of Wilson

Citation: 

Docket Number: 141, 2003

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2003-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
1Wilson v.  Williams, et al., Super.  Ct., C.A. No.  01M-03-058.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
§
PETITION OF JAMES A.
§
No.  141, 2003
WILSON FOR A WRIT OF
§
MANDAMUS.
§
C.A. No.  01M-03-058.
Submitted: April 7, 2003
Decided:
May 21, 2003
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R 
This 21st day of May 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
James A.  Wilson seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel
the Superior Court to rule on (i) a petition for a writ of mandamus that Wilson filed
on March 16, 2001 and (ii) a motion for “default of judgment” that Wilson filed on
March 17, 2003.1  The State has filed an answer and has moved to dismiss the petition.
(2)
It appears from the Superior Court docket that, by order dated October
30, 2002, the Superior Court granted in part and denied in part the respondents’
motion to dismiss Wilson’s mandamus petition.  By order dated December 11, 2002,
the Superior Court directed that Wilson should have a new parole hearing within
ninety days.  Apparently, the parole hearing was scheduled for March 6, 2003, but did
not take place on that date.  The hearing was held on May 13, 2003.  
2In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
3Id.
4By letter dated April 8, 2003, a copy of which was filed with this Court, the Superior
Court informed Wilson that the court would rule upon his motion for “default of judgment” once
Wilson’s mandamus petition was decided by the Supreme Court.
2
(3)
A writ of mandamus may issue only when the petitioner can show that
(i) he or she has a clear right to the performance of a duty by a trial court; (ii) no other
remedy is available; and (iii) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform
its duty.2    “[I]n the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal or failure 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.”3
(4)
Wilson has not demonstrated that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed
or refused to perform a duty.  By order dated December 11, 2002, the Superior Court
acted upon Wilson’s mandamus petition.  Wilson’s motion for default judgment is
pending before the Superior Court and will be ruled upon in due course.4
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/ Carolyn Berger
Justice