Title: Matter of Baker

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE  
 
§ 
PETITION OF DAVID-MICHAEL 
§  No. 203, 2009 
BAKER FOR A WRIT OF  
 
§ 
MANDAMUS 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted: April 20, 2009 
  Decided: 
June 2, 2009 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices. 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 2nd day of June 2009, upon consideration of the petition of David-
Michael Baker for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The petitioner seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this 
Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus 
directing the Court of Chancery to grant his petition to file his complaint against 
several defendants, including the State of Pennsylvania and other state or local 
officials, without prepayment of the required filing fee.  The Court of Chancery 
denied petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in that court and also 
indicated that the complaint  was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim 
under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6). We find that Baker’s petition manifestly 
fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the petition must 
be dismissed. 
 
 
-2- 
(2) 
A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower court to 
perform a duty if it is shown that:  the complainant has a clear right to 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.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 the grant of in forma pauperis status is a matter within 
the sound discretion of the trial court and mandamus will not lie to challenge the 
performance of a discretionary act.3 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance 
of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DENIED.   
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
Justice 
 
                                                          
 
1In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).  
2 Id. 
3 Id.