Title: Matter of Beebe

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

1DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(6); SUPR. CT. R. 43.
2Beebe v. Thomas Carroll, Delaware Board of Parole, and M. Jane Brady, Esquire,
C.A. No. 03M-02-003.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF CHARLES N.
BEEBE FOR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
§
§  No. 208, 2003 
§ 
§
Submitted: May 5, 2003
  Decided:   June 19, 2003
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices
O R D E R
This 19th day of June 2003, it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner, Charles N. Beebe, seeks to invoke this Court’s
original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel the
Office of the Prothonotary to issue process with respect to a petition for a writ
of mandamus Beebe filed in the Superior Court.2  The State of Delaware, as the
real party in interest, has filed an answer requesting that Beebe’s petition be
dismissed.  We find that Beebe’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original
jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.
(2)
On February 4, 2003, Beebe filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus, and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, in the Superior Court.
3In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
-2-
In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Beebe requested the Superior Court to
compel the Board of Parole to grant his request for parole.  He claimed that: he
has a liberty interest in being paroled; the Board’s denials of his requests have
violated his constitutional right to due process; he has finished all available
rehabilitation programs; and the denials are based on Board rules not in effect
at the time his crime was committed, thus violating the ex post facto provisions
of the state and federal constitutions.
(3)
On May 6, 2003, the Superior Court granted Beebe’s petition to
proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus
prior to the issuance of service of process on the defendants.  The grounds for
the denial were that: a) the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to review
decisions of the Board of Parole; and b) an inmate has no legally enforceable
right to parole and no due process claim as a result of being denied parole.  
(4)
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent to
the issuance of the writ, Beebe must demonstrate that: he has a clear right to the
4Id.
5In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991).
-3-
performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and the trial
court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.4
(5)
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus by this
Court in this case.  This Court’s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of
mandamus is limited to instances where the respondent is a court or a judge.5
Because Beebe asks this Court to direct the Prothonotary to issue process with
respect to his petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the Superior Court, this
Court is without jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus as the Prothonotary
is neither a court nor a judge.   
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Beebe’s petition for a writ
of mandamus is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ E. Norman Veasey
Chief Justice