Title: Wilson, et al. v. Danberg, et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JAMES WILSON, NORMAN 
MILLER, BARRY DIXON, SAM 
JONES, RONELL MORRIS, 
JAMAH GROSVENOR, ANDRAE 
MANDEL, and BRYAN EVANS,   
 
Plaintiffs Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
CARL DANBERG, BEAU BIDEN, 
MIKE DELOY, BARRY BILES, L. 
MUNIZ, TIM WEST, MARTIN 
BURTON, CURT ROGERS, and K. 
WEST, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 525, 2010 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. S10M-04-025 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: September 3, 2010 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 11, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 11th day of October 2010, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and the appellees’ motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court 
Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The 
plaintiff-appellant, James 
Wilson, 
an incarcerated 
individual, filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s August 5, 2010 order 
 
2 
denying his petition for a writ of mandamus.1  The State of Delaware has 
filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment on the ground that it 
is manifest on the face of the opening brief that the appeal is without merit.2  
We agree and affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Wilson filed a complaint in the Superior 
Court alleging that a non-party inmate was assaulted by prison guards.  
Following the alleged assault, grievances were filed and requests sent to 
prison officials asking that the guards be transferred to another facility.  The 
complaint requested that the Attorney General file charges against the 
guards who committed the alleged assault, that charges be filed against 
prison officials for failing to file charges against the guards and respond to 
the inmates’ grievances, and that an injunction prohibiting the guards from 
violating the inmates’ constitutional rights be issued.  The Superior Court 
subsequently dismissed the complaint, which it construed as a petition for a 
writ of mandamus.   
 
(3) 
In this appeal, Wilson claims that the Superior Court erred and 
abused its discretion when it dismissed his complaint and when it denied his 
request to amend his complaint to add a retaliation claim.   
                                                 
1 It appears that Wilson is the only plaintiff participating in the appeal. 
2 Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). 
 
3 
 
(4) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by the 
Superior Court to compel an administrative agency or public official to 
perform a duty.3  As a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that a) he has a clear right to the performance of 
the duty; b) no other adequate remedy is available; and c) the agency or 
official has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform the duty.4  Mandamus will 
not issue to compel an agency or official to perform a discretionary act.5  
 
(5) 
We conclude, given the claims and requests for relief asserted 
in the complaint, that the Superior Court properly construed it as a petition 
for a writ of mandamus.  Moreover, we conclude that the Superior Court 
properly denied the petition for failing to demonstrate that mandamus relief 
was warranted, given that it sought to compel the performance of 
discretionary acts by public officials.  Finally, we conclude that the Superior 
Court acted within its discretion in denying Wilson’s request to amend the 
complaint to add a retaliation claim.     
 
(6) 
It is manifest on the face of the opening brief that this appeal is 
without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by 
                                                 
3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4 Id. 
5 Guy v. Greenhouse, Del. Supr., No. 285, 1993, Walsh, J. (Dec. 30, 1993) (citing Capital 
Educ. Assn. v. Camper, 320 A.2d 782, 786 (Del. Ch. 1974) and Darby v. New Castle 
Gunning Bedford Educ. Assn., 336 A.2d 209, 211 (Del. 1975)). 
 
4 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to 
affirm is GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
  
 
                                                 
6 Plaintiff-appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby denied as moot.