Title: Petition of Joseph A. Hurley, Esquire

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
§ 
No. 268, 2007 
OF JOSEPH A. HURLEY, ESQUIRE,  
§ 
FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR, 
§ 
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A STAY  
§ 
PURSUANT TO SUPREME COURT 
 
§ 
RULE 32(a)  
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 19, 2007 
Decided:  August 6, 2007 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 6th day of August 2007, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of 
prohibition or, in the alternative, motion for stay and the State’s answer and motion 
to dismiss, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1)  
Petitioner, Joseph A. Hurley, Esq., seeks a “Writ of Prohibition 
prohibiting the assignment of Judge Brady to any substantive matter where the 
petitioner is involved as counsel or, in the alternative, grant a Stay of her April 23, 
2007 Order refusing to grant recusal in the petitioner’s substantive matters.”  We 
conclude that a writ of prohibition is inappropriate because Mr. Hurley has not 
demonstrated that Judge Brady is proceeding in a specific case in which she is 
clearly disqualified.  Additionally, a writ of prohibition is inappropriate because a 
client of Mr. Hurley has an adequate and complete remedy by way of an appeal to 
 2
correct an erroneous act of the Superior Court.  Accordingly, the petition for a writ 
of prohibition is dismissed and the motion for stay is denied as moot. 
 
(2)  
On April 12, 2007, Mr. Hurley filed an action in the Superior Court 
seeking the recusal of the Honorable M. Jane Brady, a judge of the Superior Court, 
from all present and future matters filed in the Superior Court in which Mr. Hurley 
appears as counsel.1  The request for this relief was not filed in any proceeding 
pending before the Superior Court.  Instead, the action was docketed as a 
miscellaneous civil complaint. 
 
(3)  
On April 23, 2007, Judge Brady denied the motion for recusal.  On 
April 26, 2007, Mr. Hurley filed a motion for a stay of the Superior Court’s 
judgment, which, on May 10, 2007, Judge Brady also denied.  Mr. Hurley 
docketed an appeal from Judge Brady’s April 23, 2007 letter opinion on May 22, 
2007.  This Court has dismissed that appeal as premature and remanded the matter 
to the Superior Court with instructions to dismiss the miscellaneous complaint on 
the same ground.2 
 
(4)  
In his petition for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, motion 
for stay filed in this Court, Mr. Hurley claims that Judge Brady committed legal 
error when she denied his motion for recusal.  He contends that, given his public 
                                          
 
1 Hurley’s request was confined to “substantive matters,” such as presiding over a trial, a 
suppression hearing, a violation of probation hearing, or a contested sentencing hearing. 
2 In re Brady, Del. Supr., No. 255, 2007, Ridgely, J. (August 6, 2007). 
 3
role in opposing her nomination to the bench, there is “an appearance of bias 
sufficient to cause doubt as to her impartiality as viewed by a reasonable observer” 
in all Superior Court cases in which he appears as counsel.  He further contends 
that he has exhausted all forms of redress, both formal and informal, and, therefore, 
his petition for a writ of prohibition is appropriate.  On his request for a stay, Mr. 
Hurley contends that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of his case and 
the public interest will be served if the stay is granted.3   
 
(5)  
This Court “has original jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition not 
only to prevent a lower court from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction, but to 
restrain an individual judge from proceeding in a case in which the judge is clearly 
disqualified by reason of personal interest, bias or prejudice.”4  Mr. Hurley’s 
petition does not relate to any case that has been assigned to Judge Brady by the 
President Judge nor to any specific matter involving Mr. Hurley which is pending 
before her.  Because “[a]ny inquiry into the question of whether a judge’s 
impartiality might reasonably be questioned is case specific,”5 Mr. Hurley’s 
petition is not ripe for review. 
                                          
 
3 Kirpat, Inc. v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n., 741 A.2d 356, 357 (Del. 1998).  
Mr. Hurley acknowledges that two Kirpat factors, i.e. whether the appellant would suffer 
irreparable harm and whether the defendant would suffer substantial harm, do not fit the 
circumstances of this case.   
4 In re Witrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 
5 Stevenson v. State, 782 A.2d 249, 258 (Del. 2001).  
 4
 
(6)  
Moreover, “a writ of prohibition, a form of extraordinary remedy, will 
not be issued if the petitioner has an adequate and complete remedy at law to 
correct an alleged erroneous act of the lower court.”6  On appeal, a client of Mr. 
Hurley may seek this Court’s review of all claims of error by the Superior Court, 
including a claim of error in denying a motion to recuse based on the trial judge 
being disqualified by reason of bias or prejudice.  
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 
prohibition is DISMISSED and the motion for stay is DENIED as moot.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
6 Witrock, 649 A.2d at 1054.