IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MARC ROMANO

, )

)

Petitioner

, )

)

v. ) C.A. No. N21M

- 02

- 150 JRJ

)

KATHLEEN JENNINGS, )

)

Respondent

. )

Date Submitted: May 1 4 , 2021

Date Decided: May 17

, 2021

ORDER

1. On March 1, 2021, Petitioner Mar c Romano , a prisoner at the James T.

Vaughn Correctional Center (“JTVCC”)

, filed a pro se document titled “Petition for

a Writ of Mandamus/Motion to Compel/Rule to Show Cause for Serious Physical

Illness, Injury or Infirmity” ( the “Petition”)

. 1 In his Petition, Romano argues that

prison officials at the JTVCC have exhibited deliberate indifference in managing the

spread of COVID

- 19

. 2 Due to this alleged indifference , Romano asserts that he has

been exposed to a substantial risk of serious physical illness in violation of the Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution. 3 Romano asks the Court for a writ of

mandamus compelling the Department of Correction (“DOC”) and the State of

1 Trans. ID. 66377365.

2 See generally id.

3 See id. at ¶ 19.2

Delaware “to show cau se as to why he should not be released to a lower supervision

of custody to avert his inevitable COVID

- 19 infection.” 4

2. On March 29, 202 1, Respondent Kathleen Jennings filed the instant

Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”)

. 5 In her Motion, Jennings argues that Romano

cannot pursue a writ of mandamus until he shows that no adequate remed y is

available to him

. 6 Jennings contends that Romano cannot make that showing

because he could have pursued a remedy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. 7 Jennings further

argues that even if Romano’s Petition is properly before the Court, Romano “has not

established tha t he has any medical need that is being deliberately disregarded by

DOC prison officials.” 8 For these reasons, Jennings asks the Court to dismiss

Romano’s Petition. 9

3

. On March 30, 2021, the Court sent a letter to Romano. 10 In that letter,

the Court informed Romano that it had received Jennings’s Motion. 11 The Court

provided Romano with a copy of the Motion and asked for Romano’s response by

4 Id. at ¶ 21.

5 Trans. ID. 66462951.

6 Id. at ¶ 10.

7 Id.

8 Id. at ¶ 11.

9 Id. at ¶ 16.

10 Trans. ID. 66467094.

11 Id.3

April 30, 2021. 12 Importantly , t he Court stated that Romano’s failure to respond by

the deadline would “be deemed a lack of opposition to the motion

. ” 13

4. On April 19, 2021 , Jennings sent Romano no tice that she would be

presenting her Motion the Court. 14

5

. On May 14, 2021, Jennings filed a letter with the Court in which she

noted that, a s of that date , Romano had not filed his response

. 15 Because Romano

was required to file his response by April 30, 2021

, Jennings asked the Court to grant

her Motion. 16

6. The Court deems Jennings’s Motion unopposed. T he Court made clear

that it would deem the Motion unopposed if Romano fail ed to respond by April 30,

2021

. Despite adequate notice, Romano failed to meet that deadline. Accordingly,

the Court grants Jennings’s Motion. 17

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kathleen

Jennings’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED

.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 See Trans. ID. 66527272.

15 Trans. ID. 66602410.

16 See id (asking the Court to “deny Petitioner’s Writ for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted”).

17 See generally Proctor v. Taylor , 2006 WL 1520085 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 18, 2006) (granting

respondents’ motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of mandamus after deeming the motion

unopposed due to petitioner ’ s failure to respond).4

IT IS SO ORDERED.



# Jan R. Jurden

Jan R. Jurden, President Judge

Original to Prothonotary

cc: Marc Romano (SBI# 00442780 )

Anna E. Currier (DAG)