Title: Matter of Sturgis

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF EDWARD D. 
STURGIS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 370, 2010 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 24, 2010 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: June 29, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 29th day of June 2010, upon consideration of the petition of 
Edward Sturgis for an extraordinary writ of mandamus, it appears to the 
Court that:  
(1) 
The petitioner, Edward Sturgis, seeks to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the 
Delaware Department of Correction to release him from custody.  The State 
of Delaware has filed a response and motion to dismiss Sturgis’ petition.  
Without addressing the merits of Sturgis’ arguments, we find that his 
petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed. 
(2) 
This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus only when 
the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no 
other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily failed or 
 
- 2 - 
refused to perform its duty.1  An extraordinary writ will not be issued if the 
petitioner has another adequate and complete remedy at law to correct the 
act of the trial court that is alleged to be erroneous.2  More importantly, the 
Court’s jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is limited to instances 
when the respondent is a court or judge thereof.3  In this case, the Court has 
no original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the 
Department of Correction.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Sturgis’ petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
2 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955).   
3 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991).