Case Title: Matter of Hall

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2000-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Matter of Hall  Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GIBSON A. HALL FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. § § No. 59, 2000 § Submitted: March 1, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000 Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices. ORDER This 16th day of March 2000, it appears to the Court that: (1) On October 24, 1995, Gibson A. Hall ( Hall ), an inmate formerly incarcerated in the State of Delaware, brought a civil action in the Superior Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials of the Department of Correction and the Attorney General of the State of Delaware ( defendants ).1 At the present time and for the foreseeable future, Hall is incarcerated in New Mexico. Initially, Hall s case was assigned to Superior Court Judge William T. Quillen. In September 1999, the case was reassigned to Superior Court Judge John E. Babiarz, Jr. 1 Hall v. McGuigan, et al., Del. Super., C.A. No. 95C-10-222-JEB. (2) On November 22, 1999, and again on January 24, 2000, Hall filed requests for a pretrial conference. It appears from the Superior Court docket that the Prothonotary promptly referred Hall s requests to Judge Babiarz for consideration. It does not appear that Judge Babiarz has taken any action on Hall s requests for a pretrial conference. (3) Hall seeks to invoke this Court s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court to conduct a pretrial conference or to rule on Hall s pending requests for a pretrial conference. The defendants have filed an answer and motion to dismiss Hall s petition. We find that Hall s petition for a writ of mandamus manifestly fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. (4) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2 As a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ, Hall must demonstrate: that he has a clear right to 2 In re Hyson, Del. Supr., 649 A.2d 807, 808 (1994). -2- the performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3 (5) To the extent Hall requests that this Court compel the Superior Court to conduct a pretrial conference, his petition fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Hall has not established a clear legal right to a pretrial conference. Moreover, in view of Hall s pending requests for a pretrial conference, he has not established that he is without an adequate legal remedy. Consequently, a writ of mandamus is inappropriate under the circumstances. (6) To the extent Hall requests that this Court compel the Superior Court to act on Hall s pending requests for a pretrial conference, Hall s petition also fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court. Mandamus will not issue to dictate the control of a trial court s docket, except upon a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal to act.4 The passage of three months 3 Id. 4 In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988). -3- since the filing of Hall s first request for a pretrial conference does not indicate an arbitrary refusal to act on his request.5 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Hall s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph T. Walsh Justice 5 See In re Brookins, Del. Supr., 736 A.2d 204, 206 (where the passage of four months since a postconviction motion was referred to a Superior Court judge was not evidence of an arbitrary refusal or failure to rule on the motion). -4-