Title: Matter of Watson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 71, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: May 9, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN 
THE 
MATTER 
OF 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
KEAVNEY 
L. 
WATSON 
FOR 
A 
WRIT 
OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 71, 2006 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 24, 2006 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: May 9, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 9th day of May 2006, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Keavney L. Watson, seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Superior Court to rule on his motions to proceed in forma 
pauperis, which were filed in ten separate civil actions.  The State of 
Delaware has filed an answer and motion to dismiss.  We find that Watson’s 
petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.     
 
(2) 
In August and September 2005, Watson filed civil complaints 
in ten different cases against various individuals and companies.  He filed a 
motion to proceed in forma pauperis with each complaint.  On November 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
 
2
23, 2005, the Superior Court held a hearing on the motions.  In response to 
an inquiry by Watson, the Superior Court stated that no action would be 
taken in the cases until the transcript of the hearing was filed.  The Superior 
Court docket reflects that the transcript of the hearing was filed in the 
Superior Court on February 27, 2006.   
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, Watson must demonstrate that: he has a clear right 
to the performance of the duty; no other adequate remedy is available; and 
the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3 
 
(4) 
In addition to ruling on Watson’s motions to proceed in forma 
pauperis, the Superior Court must also review each complaint to determine 
whether it should be served on the defendants.4  As such, we do not find the 
passage of approximately two months since the date the transcript was filed 
to constitute evidence of the Superior Court’s arbitrary failure or refusal to 
act.  We find no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this case. 
 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id. 
4 Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8803(b). 
 
3
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Watson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice