Title: Biggins v. Department of Correction for the State of Delaware et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
§
§
No. 615, 2001
Petitioner Below,
§
Appellant,
§
Court Below—Superior Court
§
of the State of Delaware, in
v.
§
and for Kent County, in C.A.
§
No. 01M-09-008.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION §
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, §
et al. (DELAWARE 
§
CORRECTIONAL CENTER), 
§
§
Respondent Below,
§
Appellee.
§
Submitted: April 3, 2002
Decided:
June 6, 2002
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices.
O R D E R
This 6th day of June 2002, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, James A. Biggins, filed this appeal
from the Superior Court’s order dated October 10, 2001, that dismissed his
petition for a writ of mandamus.  The State of Delaware, on behalf of the
respondent-appellee, Delaware Correctional Center, has moved to affirm
2
the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the
face of Biggins’ opening brief that the appeal is without merit.  We agree
and AFFIRM.
(2)
Biggins is a prisoner at the Delaware Correctional Center
[DCC].1  In September 2001, Biggins filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus in the Superior Court, alleging that DCC’s inmate grievance
system and “disciplinary practices” are unconstitutional.  Biggins requested
that the Superior Court take “judicial notice” of DCC’s
repeated and continual abuse of authority; official
practices of misconduct; denial of access to the
courts; legal services denial including legal
information, notary, and legal supplies; denial of
medical and dental services; denial of medication;
withholding and destruction of both legal and
regular mail; repeated invasions of privacy
(reading and opening legal mail); unlawful
confiscation of legal mail; unsanitorial [sic] food
preparations and servicing practices; retaliatorial
[sic] disciplinary practices, etc.
Moreover, Biggins requested that DCC “place [him] back into a lower
security status,” expunge his “entire disciplinary record,” and “award
compensation . . . at the rate of $200 per day for each day [Biggins] was
deprived of his fundamental liberties.”
3
(3)
By order dated October 10, 2001, the Superior Court
summarily dismissed Biggins’ mandamus petition on the basis that Biggins
had “state[d] no grounds for seeking a writ of mandamus.”  On appeal,
Biggins contends that the Superior Court abused its discretion when
dismissing his mandamus petition.
(4)
A writ of mandamus may be issued by the Superior Court to a
lower court, public official or agency, to compel the performance of a duty
to which the petitioner has a clear legal right.2  Mandamus is issuable not
as a matter of right, but only in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.3
The petitioner seeking mandamus must establish a clear right to the relief
requested and must show that there is no other adequate remedy at law.4
(5)
The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when denying
Biggins’ mandamus petition.  Biggins did not establish in the Superior
Court that he has a clear legal right to the relief that he seeks, that DCC
has breached a duty owed to him, or that he is without an adequate remedy
at law to pursue his claims.
                                                                                                                             
1 In 1997, Biggins was sentenced to a total of 30 years at Level V imprisonment.  See
Biggins v. State, 1999 WL 1192332 (Del. Supr.) (affirming Biggins’ conviction and
sentence on direct appeal).
2 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996).
3 Schagrin Gas Co. v. Evans, 418 A.2d 997, 998 (Del. 1980).
4 In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807 (Del. 1994).
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is
AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice