Title: Matter of Browne
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 329, 2002
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 16, 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 
OF CECIL BROWNE FOR A WRIT 
OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 329, 2002 
§  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: July 3, 2002 
 
 
 
 
  Decided:  September 16, 2002 
 
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 16th day of September 2002, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Cecil Browne, seeks to invoke this Court’s original 
jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to compel the Superior 
Court to provide him, at State expense, with transcripts of proceedings in a civil 
matter currently on appeal to this Court.  To the extent that the Superior Court 
already has afforded Browne the relief he requests, the matter is moot.  To the 
extent that Browne seeks a writ compelling the Superior Court to provide 
additional relief, he has failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.  
Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in June 1999, Browne filed a civil lawsuit 
against Thriftway in the Superior Court.  Following trial in February 2002, Browne 
                                                          
 
1DEL. CONST. art. IV, § 11(6); SUPR. CT. R. 43. 
 
2
appealed the Superior Court’s judgment to this Court.2  In May 2002, Browne was 
informed by this Court that his notice of appeal had not been served upon the court 
reporter and that he should file a motion in the Superior Court if he wished to 
obtain transcripts at State expense.  The record reflects that Browne filed a motion 
in the Superior Court for transcripts at State expense and that, on July 23, 2002, the 
Superior Court issued an order providing, at State expense, a copy of the transcript 
of the February 12, 2001 hearing.  It, thus, appears that Browne has obtained at 
least part of the relief he seeks and, to that extent, his petition is moot.  
 
(3) 
This Court will issue a writ of mandamus to a trial court only when 
the petitioner can show that there is a clear right to the performance of a duty at the 
time of the petition, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court has 
failed or refused to perform the duty.3  “[T]his Court will not issue a writ of 
mandamus to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to 
decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of its docket.”4  To the 
extent that Browne seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Superior Court to 
provide additional transcripts,5 he has failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of 
                                                          
 
2Browne v. Thriftway, No. 191, 2002. 
3In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
4Id. 
5In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Browne also appears to request copies of transcripts 
from proceedings on 1/4/02, 2/4/02, 2/6/02 and 2/7/02. 
 
3
this Court.  Because even an indigent appellant in a civil case does not have an 
absolute right to transcripts at State expense and the Superior Court had discretion 
to deny any such request,6 Browne has failed to demonstrate a clear right to the 
performance of a duty which the Superior Court has failed or refused to perform. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Browne’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_/s/ Myron T. Steele________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                          
 
6Brown v. State, 721 A.2d 1263, 1266 (Del. 1998).