Case Title: Matter of Chang

Citation: 

Docket Number: 377, 2016

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2016-08-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF WEIH S. CHANG 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
 
§   
§ No. 377, 2016 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 8, 2016 
Decided: 
August 16, 2016 
Corrected: August 18, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND,VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 18th day of August 2016, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
On July 22, 2016, Weih S. Chang filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Delaware State 
Police for the arrest of a former Court of Common Pleas judge or, in the 
alternative, to issue a writ of mandamus to the Justice of the Peace Court for 
acceptance of his citizen’s arrest warrant for the same judge.  The Chief Deputy 
Clerk issued a notice directing Chang to show cause why this petition should not 
be dismissed for this Court’s lack of jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the 
police under Del. Const. Art. IV, § 11(5) or to the Justice of the Peace Court under 
Supreme Court Rule 43(b)(vi).  In his response to the notice to show cause, Chang 
claims that he sought to appeal the Court of Chancery’s denial of his petition for a 
writ of mandamus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Superior 
Court denied his petition for a writ of mandamus on August 3, 2016. 
 
2 
(2) 
Chang filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court, not a 
notice of appeal.  As to Chang’s demand for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the 
police, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to issuance of a writ of mandamus “to the 
Superior Court, and the Court of Chancery, or any of the Judges of the said courts 
and also to any inferior court or courts established or to be established by law and 
to any of the Judges thereof and to issue all orders, rules and processes proper to 
give effect to the same.”1  As to Chang’s demand for issuance of a writ of 
mandamus to the Justice of the Peace Court, the petition needed to be first filed 
and denied in the Superior Court.2  At the time Chang filed this petition on July 22, 
2016, there was no petition for a writ of mandamus that had been presented and 
denied in the Superior Court.  This petition must therefore be dismissed.        
(3) 
If Chang wishes to file a notice of appeal or a petition for a writ of 
mandamus based upon the Superior Court’s denial of the petition for a writ of 
mandamus he filed in that court on August 3, 2016, he must file a notice appeal of 
the Superior Court order or a new petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court.  
The notice of appeal or petition for a writ of mandamus must be accompanied by 
the required filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.   
 
 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. Art. IV, § 11(5). 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 43(b)(vi). 
 
3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of 
a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice