Title: Laub v. Danberg, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 180, 2009
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 8, 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
ROLLIN LAUB, 
 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CARL DANBERG, RICK KEARNEY, 
ANTHONY RENDINA, THOMAS 
CARROLL, GUY FOWLER, PRISON 
CLASSIFICATION BOARD, LARRY 
SAVAGE, and MARVIN CREASY, 
 
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§  No. 180, 2009 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  for the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. 07M-09-012 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§   
 
Submitted:  July 27, 2009 
Decided:  September 8, 2009 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
This 8th day of September 2009, upon consideration of appellant’s 
opening brief and the State’s motion to affirm,1 it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Rollin Laub, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s dismissal of his complaint.  The State of Delaware, as the real party 
in interest, has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment on the 
                                                 
1 Laub requested permission to respond to the State’s motion.  A response to a 
motion to affirm generally is not permitted under Supreme Court Rule 25(a).  Laub’s 
request is hereby denied. 
 
2
ground that it is manifest on the face of Laub’s opening brief that his appeal 
is without merit.  We agree and affirm. 
(2) 
The record reflects that Laub is incarcerated at the Vaughn 
Correctional Facility in Smyrna, Delaware.  On September 24, 2007, Laub 
filed a complaint in the Superior Court against certain correctional 
authorities seeking a writ of mandamus and asserting claims for abuse of 
process and retaliation.  Laub requested relief in the form of a writ of 
mandamus directing prison officials to stop violating certain constitutional, 
statutory, and regulatory provisions.  He also requested the appointment of a 
special master to ensure defendants’ compliance with the laws, as well as 
reinstatement to his prison job and classification status and other 
institutional privileges, which he claims were wrongfully taken away from 
him.  Laub also requested restitution and court costs. 
(3) 
On October 15, 2007, the Superior Court wrote to Laub 
informing him of certain deficiencies in his complaint and motion to proceed 
in forma pauperis, including his failure to properly serve his complaint on 
the opposing parties or counsel.  Laub responded by providing necessary 
documentation to support his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  
Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Laub’s complaint on the 
grounds that Laub had failed to effectuate service on the Attorney General in 
 
3
compliance with 10 Del. C. § 3103(c).  He also had failed to serve any of the 
individual defendants, except Commissioner Danberg, in violation of 
Superior Court Civil Rule 4(f)(1).  The defendants also asserted that Laub’s 
complaint failed to state a claim for mandamus relief and, to the extent he 
asserted claims of abuse of process and retaliation, those claims, in fact, 
were claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Laub had failed to exhaust his 
administrative remedies. 
(4) 
Laub requested an extension of time to respond to the State’s 
motion to dismiss.  Additionally, he requested the Superior Court to order 
the State to provide him with discovery in the form of the DOC’s policy and 
procedures manual.  He stated that he needed the document in order to 
respond to the motion to dismiss.  The State responded that the manual was 
protected from discovery under 11 Del. C. § 4322.2  Thereafter, Laub filed 
his response to the motion to dismiss. 
(5) 
After considering the parties’ respective positions, the Superior 
Court found that Laub had failed to properly serve the defendants as 
required by Superior Court Civil Rule 4.  The trial court, therefore, 
concluded that Laub’s complaint was subject to dismissal pursuant to 
                                                 
2 See 11 Del. C. § 4322(c), (d) (2007). Subsection (c) provides, in part, that “[n]o 
inmate shall be provided with a copy” of the DOC’s policy and procedures manual.  
Subsection (d) provides that DOC policies and procedures are “confidential” and “not 
subject to disclosure except upon the written authority of the Commissioner.” 
 
4
Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient process.  Notwithstanding 
this conclusion, the Superior Court went on to address the merits of Laub’s 
claims, as well, finding that Laub’s complaint failed to state a claim upon 
which relief could be granted because he failed to establish his entitlement to 
the performance of a duty by the DOC, nor had he established that he lacked 
another adequate legal remedy. 
(6) 
We agree with the Superior Court’s conclusion.  A writ of 
mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by the Superior Court to 
compel an inferior court, administrative agency, or public official 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 not issue to compel the performance of a discretionary act.5 
(7) 
Laub has not demonstrated that the DOC arbitrarily failed or 
refused to perform a duty to which he has a clear right. As such, the Superior 
Court acted within its discretion when it dismissed his petition for a writ of 
mandamus for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 
                                                 
3 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996); 10 Del. C. § 564. 
4 Id. 
5 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
 
5
(8) 
It is manifest on the face of Laub’s opening brief that his 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.  The judgment below shall be affirmed on 
the basis of, and for the reasons set forth, in the Superior Court’s well-
reasoned decision dated March 4, 2009. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 
GRANTED.  The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice