Title: Winward v. Taylor
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 454, 2001
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRIAN J. WINWARD,
Petitioner Below-
Appellant,
v.
STANLEY TAYLOR,
Respondent Below-
Appellee.
§
§
§  No. 454, 2001
§
§
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
§  in and for New Castle County
§  C.A. No. 01M-01-002
§
§
Submitted: November 7, 2001
  Decided:   December 12, 2001
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices
O R D E R
This 12th day of December 2001, upon consideration of the
appellant’s opening brief and the appellee’s motion to affirm pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1)
The petitioner-appellant, Brian J. Winward, filed this appeal
from the August 23, 2001 order of the Superior Court dismissing his
petition for a writ of mandamus, denying his various motions and enjoining
him from filing repetitive claims.  The State of Delaware, as the real party
in interest, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the
2
ground that it is manifest on the face of Winward’s opening brief that the
appeal is without merit.1  We agree and AFFIRM.
(2)
In this appeal, Winward claims that the Superior Court abused
its discretion by a) dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus,
including his claims of constitutional violations, b) denying his various
motions,2 and c) enjoining him from filing any further pleadings in forma
pauperis3 with respect to the issues raised in his petition for a writ of
mandamus.  Winward asks that counsel be appointed and his case be
permitted to proceed through discovery and trial or, alternatively, that the
Department of Correction be ordered to re-classify him and enroll him in
the Key Program.4
(3)
Winward is currently serving a lengthy Level V prison
sentence after being convicted of several violent felonies.  Winward’s
petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that the Department of
Correction be ordered to enroll him in the Key Program was the latest in a
                                                          
1Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
2Winward filed motions to enlarge the time to respond to the State’s motion to dismiss,
appoint counsel, strike the State’s motion to dismiss and impose sanctions against the
State.
310 Del. C. § 8803(e).
3
long series of legal actions Winward has filed to compel his participation in
various drug treatment programs for inmates.5
(4)
A writ of mandamus is a command that may be issued by the
Superior Court to an inferior court, public official or agency to compel the
performance of a duty to which the petitioner has established a clear legal
right.6  The petitioner must also establish that there has been an arbitrary
refusal or failure to act and there is no other adequate remedy available.7
Ultimately, the issuance of such a writ is within the discretion of the
Superior Court.8
(5)
There was no error or abuse of discretion in any of the
Superior Court’s rulings. The Superior Court correctly determined that
Winward’s petition for a writ of mandamus failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, first, because an inmate’s participation in a
                                                                                                                                                                            
4The Key Program is a drug treatment program for inmates.  Inmates participating in
the Key Program are classified at Level IV rather than Level V.
5Our review of the record indicates that Winward has unsuccessfully pursued numerous
similar claims over the course of several years both in the federal courts and the
Delaware state courts, including the Superior Court and the Court of Chancery.
6Clough v. State, Del. Supr., 686 A.2d 158, 159 (1996).
7Id.; In re Bordley, Del. Supr., 545 A.2d 619, 620 (1988).
8Ingersoll v. Rollins Broadcasting of Delaware, Inc., Del. Supr., 272 A.2d 336, 338
(1970).
4
particular drug treatment program rests within the discretion of the
Department of Correction9 and, second, because “an inmate does not have
a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his or her prison classification
status.”10  As such, Winward could not establish a clear legal right to the
relief he requested.11  Also, because Winward’s motion for enlargement of
time was moot, his motion for the appointment of counsel was repetitive
and his motions to strike and for sanctions had a faulty factual basis, the
Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in denying them.  Finally,
there was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Superior Court
in enjoining Winward from filing repetitive claims in the future.12
(6)
It is manifest on the face of Winward’s opening brief that the
appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal clearly are
                                                          
9Clough v. State, 686 A.2d at 159.
10Id.
11The Superior Court specifically rejected Winward’s contention that prior orders of a
now-retired Superior Court judge prevent dismissal of his petition.  The first order,
dated September 22, 1997, states that Winward “may enter the Key Program while
incarcerated.”  The second order, dated February 8, 2001, orders the State to respond
to Winward’s petition.  The Superior Court properly determined that the first order
permitted, but did not mandate, Winward’s entry into the Key Program and that the
second order did not prevent its subsequent dismissal of Winward’s petition, upon an
independent review of the petition, the State’s timely motion to dismiss, as well as the
retired judge’s order.
1210 Del. C. §§ 8801(7) and 8803(e).
5
controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial
discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Randy J. Holland
Justice