Case Title: Matter of Coleman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 253, 2015

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2015-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF DEVIN COLEMAN §  No. 253, 2015 
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
 
Submitted: May 27, 2015 
  Decided: 
June 9, 2015 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 9th day of June 2015, upon consideration of the petition of Devin 
Coleman for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner, Devin Coleman, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of 
mandamus reversing the Superior Court Commissioner’s order denying 
Coleman’s motion to recuse her from considering his pending motion for 
postconviction relief.  The State has filed an answer and motion to dismiss 
Coleman’s petition.  After careful consideration, we find that Coleman’s petition 
manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the 
petition must be dismissed. 
(2) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower court to 
perform a duty if it is shown that:  (i) the complainant has a clear right to the 
performance of the duty; (ii) no other adequate remedy is available; and (iii) the 
2 
 
trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.1  A writ of 
mandamus will not be issued “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.”2  A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the present 
circumstances because recusal is a matter that is within the discretion of the 
judicial officer whose recusal is sought.3  Moreover, Coleman may raise the 
Commissioner’s denial of his motion in any appeal from a final order issued by 
the Superior Court in the proceedings below.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance 
of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DENIED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
Justice 
 
                                                          
 
1In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).  
2 Id. 
3 Id.