Title: Boone & Trevor v. Dept. of Health & Social Services
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 112, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 22, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
TODD BOONE and TREVOR 
WIBERG, 
 
 
Petitioners Below- 
Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 
SOCIAL SERVICES, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 112, 2016 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. S15M-09-039 
§   
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: May 27, 2016 
 
 
 
 
Decided: 
July 22, 2016 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
This 22nd day of July 2016, upon consideration of the opening brief 
and the motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellants, Todd Boone and Trevor Wiberg (“the 
Appellants”), filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s dismissal of their 
petition for a writ of mandamus.  The State Department of Health and Social 
Services (“DHSS”) has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s 
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the Appellants’ 
opening brief that their appeal is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
 
2
(2) 
The Appellants each have a debilitating medical condition and 
are registered medical marijuana cardholders.1  In September 2015, they 
filed a petition in the Superior Court2 requesting that a writ of mandamus be 
issued directing DHSS to issue compassion center registration certificates to 
the highest scoring applicants in Kent County and Sussex County as required 
by Sections 4914A(c) and (d) of the Medical Marijuana Act.3  The 
Appellants asserted that DHSS had a duty to issue certificates to the highest 
scoring applicant in each county by January 1, 2013 and to issue three 
additional certificates to the highest scoring candidates in each county by 
January 1, 2014.  Although DHSS issued a compassion center registration 
certificate to an applicant in New Castle County, it failed to do so in either 
Kent County or Sussex County.  The Appellants are residents of Sussex 
County. 
(3) 
DHSS filed a motion for summary judgment in the Superior 
Court.  At a hearing, the Superior Court denied summary judgment but 
dismissed the Appellants’ complaint without prejudice because the duty that 
the Appellants sought to have DHSS perform was discretionary in nature, 
                                                 
1 16 Del. C. § 4902A(1), (3) (Supp. 2014) (defining “cardholder” and “debilitating 
medical condition”). 
2 See 16 Del. C. § 4924A (Supp. 2014) (providing that “any citizen may commence an 
action in Superior Court to compel [DHSS] to perform the actions mandated pursuant to 
the provisions of this chapter.”). 
3 16 Del. C. § 4914(c)-(d) (Supp. 2014). 
 
3
and a writ of mandamus will be issued only to perform a nondiscretionary 
duty. 
(4) 
We agree with that conclusion.  The Superior Court has 
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a State officer, tribunal, board or 
agency to compel the performance of an official duty.4  A writ of mandamus, 
however, is not issued as a matter of right but only in the exercise of sound 
judicial discretion.5  Moreover, a writ of mandamus is appropriate only if the 
petitioner can establish a clear legal right to the performance of a 
nondiscretionary duty.6  
(5) 
In this case, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in 
dismissing the Appellants’ petition for a writ of mandamus.  Although 
Section 4914A(c) and (d) establish DHSS’ duty to seek applicants for 
compassion center registration certificates and to issue those certificates to 
qualified applicants, 11 Del. C. § 4914A(e)(2) makes it clear that, 
notwithstanding the other provisions of the statute, DHSS must exercise 
discretion in evaluating applications and must deny applications that fail to 
satisfy the statutory requirements and regulatory requirements established by 
DHSS.  Thus, the Appellants could not establish that DHSS had arbitrarily 
                                                 
4 10 Del. C. § 564 (2013). 
5 Schagrin Gas Co. v. Evans, 418 A.2d 997, 998 (Del. 1980). 
6 Semick v. Dep’t of Corr., 477 A.2d 707, 708 (Del. 1984). 
 
4
refused to perform a nondiscretionary duty owed to them.  Finally, we note 
that the Superior Court dismissed the mandamus petition without prejudice, 
which left the door open for the Appellants to bring a direct action under 16 
Del. C. § 4924A as contemplated by the statute.  Appellants are thus not 
without a remedy, if warranted, for violations of the statute. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Justice