Case Title: Matter of Buchanan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 23, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
§ 
OF DAVID BUCHANAN FOR A 
 
§   No. 23, 2013 
WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 19, 2013 
  Decided: 
April 23, 2013 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 23rd day of April 2013, upon consideration of David Buchanan’s petition 
for a writ of certiorari, as well as the State=s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to 
the Court that: 
(1) 
Buchanan again seeks to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction to issue 
an extraordinary writ of certiorari to review alleged errors occurring in a Family Court 
civil proceeding.  The State of Delaware has filed a response to Buchanan’s petition 
and has moved to dismiss.  We conclude that Buchanan’s petition manifestly fails to 
invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court and therefore must be dismissed. 
(2) 
A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is used to correct 
irregularities in the proceedings of a trial court.1 Certiorari is available to challenge a 
final order of a trial court where the right of appeal is denied, a grave question of 
                                                          
 
1 Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del. 1977). 
 
 
-2-
public policy and interest is involved, and no other basis for review is available.2  
“Where these threshold requirements are not met, this Court has no jurisdiction to 
consider the petitioner's claims, and the proceedings will be dismissed.”3   
(3) 
In this case, Buchanan argues that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to 
consider his ex-wife’s petition for a protection from abuse (PFA) order and had no 
jurisdiction to prohibit Buchanan from possessing firearms or to exclude him from the 
marital home. He contends that this Court has jurisdiction to review his petition 
because there was never any “proper appellate review” to address the Family Court’s 
alleged errors at the time the alleged errors occurred.   
(4) 
We disagree.  Buchanan attaches to his current petition a copy of the 
decision by a Family Court judge, dated May 9, 2008, which rejected Buchanan’s 
appeal from the Commissioner’s issuance of the PFA.  Buchanan did not appeal that 
decision to this Court.  Our previous holding that Buchanan had a full and fair 
opportunity to challenge the validity of the PFA4 is the law of the case and governs the 
outcome of this proceeding. Because Buchanan has failed to establish that our prior 
                                                          
 
2 Id. at 437-38. 
3 In re Butler, 609 A.2d 1080, 1081 (Del. 1992). 
4 See Buchanan v. State, 2011 WL 3452148 (Del. Aug. 8, 2011). 
 
 
-3-
ruling is clearly in error or produced an injustice,5 we conclude that his petition must 
be dismissed.  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of certiorari 
is DISMISSED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
                                                          
 
5 See Gannett Co., Inc. v. Kanaga, 750 A.2d 1174, 1181 (Del. 2000) (noting that, unlike the 
doctrine of res judicata, the law of the case doctrine it is not an absolute bar to reconsideration of a 
prior decision that is clearly wrong, produces an injustice or should be revisited because of changed 
circumstances).