Title: Gattis v. Danburg, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 210, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 14, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROBERT GATTIS,  
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CARL DANBURG, RICK 
KEARNEY, and PERRY PHELPS, 
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 210, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. 08M-07-070 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: June 19, 2009 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 14, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of July 2009, 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 petitioner-appellant, Robert Gattis, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s March 19, 2009 order dismissing his petition for a writ of 
mandamus.  The respondents-appellees, Carl Danburg, Rick Kearney, and 
Perry Phelps, have moved 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.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Gattis is a prison inmate.  In his 
mandamus petition filed in the Superior Court, Gattis claimed that Danburg, 
Kearney, and Phelps, all of whom hold supervisory positions at the 
Delaware Department of Correction (“DOC”), had failed to comply with 
DOC inmate grievance procedures and requested the Superior Court to 
compel them to undertake retraining in those procedures by an independent 
outside agency and order them to comply with DOC policies and procedures 
and the Delaware Code.1  The Superior Court dismissed Gattis’ petition on 
the ground that it had failed to state a claim upon which relief may be 
granted.2   
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by a 
court to compel an administrative agency to perform a duty.3  As a condition 
precedent to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must demonstrate that 1) 
he has a clear right to the performance of the duty; 2) no other adequate 
remedy is available; and 3) the administrative agency has arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform its duty.4  Moreover, mandamus will issue only to require 
                                                 
1 As noted by the Superior Court, Gattis attached as exhibits grievance forms requesting, 
among other things, servicing of the prison TV system, an extension cord for his 
headphone, reimbursement for a $4.00 charge for dental visits, and retention of his 
Playboy magazines during the pendency of his appeal. 
2 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b) (6). 
3 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 564. 
4 Id.  
 
3 
the performance of a clear legal or ministerial duty.5  Mandamus will not 
issue to compel a discretionary act.6   
 
(4) 
Gattis has not demonstrated that DOC has arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform a ministerial duty to which he has a clear right.  As such, 
the Superior Court acted within its discretion when it dismissed Gattis’ 
petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim upon which relief 
may be granted.   
 
(5) 
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 
settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, 
there was no abuse of discretion.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme 
Court Rule 25(a), the State of Delaware’s motion to affirm is GRANTED.  
The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                                 
5 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
6 Id.