Case Title: Sanders v. Danberg, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 53, 2010

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2010-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES B. SANDERS, 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No. 53, 2010 
 
Plaintiff Below, 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellant,  
 
 
 
§ 
Court Below—Superior 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Court of the State of  
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Delaware in and for   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
Sussex County 
CARL DANBERG, COMMISSIONER, 
§ 
 
STATE DEPARTMENT OF 
 
 
§ 
CORRECTION, MIKE DELROY,  
 
§  
WARDEN OF SUSSEX CORRECTIONAL § 
INSTITUTION, MELVIN HENNESSY, 
§  
SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT, STAFF §  
LT. MICHAEL ATTALION, JOSEPH 
§ 
JOHNSON, STAFF LT.-HEARING   
§ 
OFFICER SERGEANT JEREMY BLANK, § 
SUSSEX CORRECTIONAL 
 
 
§ 
 
  
INSTITUTION, 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Defendants Below, 
 
 
 
§ 
C.A. No. S07M-08-014 
 
Appellees.  
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: April 26, 2010 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
June 8, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of June 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
2
 
(1) 
The appellant, Charles B. Sanders (Sanders), is incarcerated at 
the Sussex Correctional Institution.  The appellees are prison officials 
employed by the Department of Correction (DOC). 
 
(2) 
In 2007, Sanders brought a miscellaneous mandamus civil 
action in the Superior Court against DOC.  Sanders alleged that his transfer 
to administrative segregation pending an investigation and disciplinary 
hearing violated due process, and that his subsequent charge and conviction 
of a Class I offense violated an inmate conduct policy of DOC.  Sanders 
requested that the Superior Court direct DOC to remove the disciplinary 
conviction from his institutional file and reinstate fifteen days of good time 
credit.  Sanders also sought compensatory damages in the amount of 
$32,000.00. 
 
(3) 
By order dated October 21, 2009, the Superior Court granted 
DOC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Sanders’ amended 
complaint seeking mandamus relief.1  This appeal followed.  On behalf of 
DOC, the State of Delaware has filed a motion to affirm the Superior 
Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Sanders’ 
opening brief that this appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
                                          
 
1 Sanders v. Danberg, 2009 WL 3531803 (Del. Super.). 
 
3
 
(4) 
The Superior Court may issue a writ of mandamus to compel a 
state agency such as DOC to perform a duty.2  A writ of mandamus is an 
extraordinary remedy, however, and is “appropriate only when a plaintiff is 
able to establish a clear legal right to the performance of a non-discretionary 
duty.”3  “[T]he duty must be prescribed with such precision and certainty 
that nothing is left to discretion or judgment.”4  Mandamus will not issue to 
“force a particular result.5 
 
 
(5) 
In this case, the Superior Court acted well within it discretion 
when it dismissed Sanders’ amended complaint for mandamus relief.  
Following DOC’s discovery of a large amount of contraband in Sanders’ 
cell, DOC did not have a duty to provide Sanders with a hearing prior to 
transferring him to administration segregation pending further investigation.6  
Moreover, in the disciplinary proceedings that followed, DOC did not have a 
duty to charge and/or to convict Sanders only of a Class II offense instead of 
the Class I offense for which he was charged and found guilty.7   
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of Sanders’ opening brief that this 
appeal is without merit.  The issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
                                          
 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 564 (1999); Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996). 
3 Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Ed. Ass’n, 336 A.2d 209, 210 (Del. 1975). 
4 Id. at 211. 
5 Id. 
6 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996).  
7 Sanders’ argument that he was wrongly charged and convicted of a Class I offense was 
heard at two levels within the prison system and was found to be without merit. 
 
4
settled Delaware law, and to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion.  The Superior Court’s judgment shall be 
affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons set forth in, the Superior Court’s 
well-reasoned decision of October 21, 2009. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice