IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF STEVEN A. Mc LEOD FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION § § No. 228, 2015 § §
Submitted: May 26, 2015 Decided: July 15 , 2015
Before HOLLAND , VALIHURA , an d SEITZ , Justices.
O R D E R
Th is 15 th day of July 2015 , upon consideration of the petition of Steven A.
McLeod for a n extraordinary writ of prohibition , it appears to the Court that : (1) The petitioner, Steven A. McLeod , seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of proh ibition precluding the trial judge from presiding over a civil case filed by the petitioner in the Superior Court

. The defendant in the ca se below, Hughey F. McLeod, filed a response to Steven McLeod’s petition and moved to dismiss the petition . After careful review, we find that Steven McLeod’s petition manifestly fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petiti on must be
dismissed. (2) This petition arises from a case currently pending in the Superior
Court. In a motion filed on December 13 , 2013, Steven McLeod asked the President Judge of the Superior Court to re

- assign the case to another Superior2

Court judge under Superior Court Civil Rule 40(a ) because the trial judge had not ruled on multiple motions he had filed. On April 15, 201 4 , Steven McLeod filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge

. Steven McLeod claimed that disqualification was necessary because , among other things, the trial judge had not ruled on pending motions, had entered orders with typographical errors , and did not send an
order to his classification officer as requested , resulting in his inability to participat e telephonically in a court hearing

. 1 (3) In a letter dated April 17, 2014 , the trial judge informed Steven McLeod that she had received his motion to disqualify and forwarded it to the President Judge because it was similar to the motion for re

- a ssignment pending
before the President Ju dge. The President Judge denied the motion for re

assignment on May 29, 2014. (4) On May 5, 2014, Steven McLeod filed a petition in this Court for a writ of prohibition precluding the trial judge from presiding over his Superior
Court case or a writ of mand amus disqualifying the trial judge. This Court dismissed the petition on June 25, 2014 because Steven McLeod had an adequate and complete remedy at law

— a decision on the pending motion to disqualify could

1 Steven McLeod is incarcerated in Florida.3

be reviewed on a timely appeal

. 2 We noted that the trial judge must rule on the motion to disqualify. 3 (5) On May 5, 2015, Steven McLeod filed another petition in this Court for a writ of prohibition to disqualify the trial judge from hearing his case. In this petition, McLeod claims he is entitled to a writ of prohibition because the trial judge failed to rule on his Apr il 2014 motion to disqualify and failed to mail copies
of certain court rulings to him. In a letter dated May 18, 2015, the trial judge
informed this Court that she had not decided the April 2014 motion to disqualify due to an oversight and expected to issue a decision within ten business days. On May 26, 2015, Hughey McLeod filed an answer and motion to dism iss Steven McLeod’s petition for a writ of prohibition

. The trial judge issued a decision denying Steven McLeod’s motion to disqualify on May 28, 2015. (6) 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 “ When this Court's original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is invoked, the burden is upon

2 In re McLeod , 2014 WL 2927411, at *1 (Del. June 25, 2014).

3 Id. at n.4.

4 In re Witrock , 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994).4

the petitioner to demonstrate a clear entitlement to that relief

. ” 5 A writ of prohibition is not a substitute for an appeal and will be denied if the petitioner has an adequate and complete remedy at law

. 6 (7) Steven McLeod has not demonstrated clear entitlem ent to a writ of prohibition. T he trial judge has ruled on the motion to disqualify. As to Steven McLeod’s contention that the trial judge failed to mail him copies of certain rulings, th e Superior Court docket reflects that multiple rulings were mailed to Steven McLeod in April 2015 when it was not clear if all of those rulings had been
mailed previously . The trial judge also gave Steven McLeod additional time to identify a specific caus ation expert and the content of that expert’s testimony in light of Steven McLeod’s contention that he had not received the decision reflecting that ruling. (8) Moreover , Steven McLeod has an adequate and complete remedy at
law

. The trial judge’s decision denying Steven McLeod’s motion to disqualify can be reviewed on a timely appeal of a final judgme nt in the Superior Court case. Steven McLeod’s petition for a writ of prohibition must be dismissed.

5 Id.

6 Id

.5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a w rit of prohibition is DISMISSED

. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice