Title: Matter of Nicholson

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JESSE H. 
NICHOLSON, JR., FOR A WRIT 
OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 488, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§    
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: October 27, 2005 
 
 
 
 
Decided:  December 23, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 23rd day of December, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Jesse H. Nicholson, Jr., a prison inmate, seeks to 
invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of 
mandamus1 to compel the Superior Court to direct the Prothonotary to issue 
process in a civil case in which he is the plaintiff.2  Defendants Stanley 
Taylor, et al., have filed an answer requesting that Nicholson’s petition be 
dismissed.  We find that Nicholson’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be 
dismissed. 
 
(2) 
In April 2005, Nicholson filed a petition for a writ of 
mandamus in the Superior Court on the ground that prison officials had 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
2 Nicholson v. Taylor, et al., Del. Super., C.A. No. 05M-04-024. 
 
2
arbitrarily failed to perform their duty.  The Superior Court ordered that the 
complaint would not be dismissed and that service of process would issue.  
The Superior Court also granted Nicholson’s motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis. 
 
(3) 
The Superior Court docket reflects that the Prothonotary issued 
amended summonses to the defendants in Nicholson’s case in October 2005.  
The Superior Court docket also reflects that all but one of the defendants 
were served with Nicholson’s complaint in early November 2005.  The 
remaining writ was returned non est as to defendant Taylor on November 22, 
2005.      
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel the trial court to perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent 
to the issuance of the writ, Nicholson must demonstrate that he has a clear 
right to the 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 in this 
case.  The Superior Court docket reflects that the Prothonotary has issued 
process, rendering Nicholson’s petition moot.  There is, moreover, no 
                                                 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
 
3
evidence that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform 
its duty. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Nicholson’s petition for 
a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice