Case Title: Matter of Biggins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 117, 2009

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JAMES ARTHUR 
BIGGINS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 117, 2009 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: March 30, 2009  
 
 
 
 
   Decided: April 9, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 9th day of April 2009, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, James Arthur Biggins, a prison inmate, seeks to 
invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of 
mandamus1 to compel the Superior Court to issue service of process in a 
civil case he filed on August 1, 2008 and to award him damages sustained 
while waiting for his complaint to be served.  The State of Delaware has 
filed an answer requesting that the petition be dismissed.  We find that 
Biggins’ petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this 
Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, on August 1, 2008, Biggins filed a 
complaint in the Superior Court against nineteen individual prison officials 
and medical personnel on the ground that they had acted with deliberate 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2 
indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 
Amendment of the United States Constitution.  The Superior Court docket 
reflects that, on January 16, 2009, Biggins wrote to the Prothonotary 
inquiring about the status of service of the complaint upon the defendants.  
The Superior Court docket further reflects that, in February 2009, service 
was effectuated upon three of the defendants.  Subsequently, in March 2009, 
writs were returned non est as to the additional defendants, who were either 
no longer working at the prison or could not be identified. 
 
(3) 
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, the petitioner must demonstrate that a) he has a clear 
right to the performance of the duty; b) no other adequate remedy is 
available; and c) the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its 
duty.3 
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  The Superior Court docket reflects that service already has been 
attempted or effectuated on the defendants named in Biggins’ complaint, 
rendering his petition moot.  Biggins also has failed to demonstrate that the 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
 
3 
trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a duty owed to him.  As 
such, Biggins’ petition must be dismissed. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Biggins’ petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice