Title: Matter of Biggins
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 299, 2010
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE 
PETITION OF JAMES ARTHUR 
BIGGINS FOR A WRIT OF 
MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 299, 2010 
§ 
 
Submitted:  June 15, 2010 
Decided:  July 21, 2010 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 21st day of July 2010, upon consideration of the petition of James 
Arthur Biggins for an extraordinary writ of mandamus and the State’s 
response thereto, it appears to the Court that:  
(1) 
The petitioner, James Arthur Biggins, seeks to invoke the 
original jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the 
Attorney General of the State of Delaware to file a response to a pending 
petition for a writ of mandamus that Biggins filed in the Superior Court in 
C.A. No. N10M-02-064.  The State of Delaware has filed a response and 
motion to dismiss Biggins’ petition in this Court. After careful review, we 
find that Biggins’ petition manifestly fails to invoke the original jurisdiction 
of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be DISMISSED. 
(2) 
The Superior Court docket reflects that Biggins filed his 
mandamus petition in that court on February 1, 2010.  On February 24, 
 
- 2 - 
2010, the Superior Court granted Biggins’ motion to proceed in forma 
pauperis and directed that service of process be issued to the respondents, 
including the Attorney General and many State employees and officials 
within the Department of Correction.  After being served with Biggins’ 
petition, the respondents filed a motion to revoke Biggins’ in forma pauperis 
status on May 18, 2010.  The trial judge set June 21, 2010 as the deadline for 
Biggins to file his response to the motion.  The motion remains pending 
decision before the Superior Court.  
(3) 
Biggins filed his petition for an extraordinary writ of mandamus 
in this Court on May 20, 2010.1  Biggins requests that a writ be issued 
compelling the respondents in his Superior Court case to file a response to 
the writ he has pending in the trial court.  The State has moved to dismiss 
Biggins’ current petition on the ground that it fails to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court.  We agree. 
(4) 
This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a trial 
court only when the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the 
performance of a duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial 
                                                 
1 Biggins filed a document entitled “Petitioner’s Opening Brief for an Order of 
Writ of Mandamus” on April 30, 2010.  Because Biggins had no case pending in this 
Court for which an opening brief was due, his “Opening Brief” was returned to him.  
Biggins re-filed his opening brief on May 20, 2010 asking that it be treated as a petition 
for an extraordinary writ. 
 
- 3 - 
court arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.2  An extraordinary writ 
will not be issued if the petitioner has another adequate and complete 
remedy at law to correct the act of the trial court that is alleged to be 
erroneous.3  More importantly, the Court’s jurisdiction to issue an 
extraordinary writ is limited to instances when the respondent is a court or 
judge thereof.4  In this case, the Court has no original jurisdiction to issue a 
writ of mandamus compelling the Attorney General and Department of 
Correction employees to respond to Biggins’ petition pending before the 
Superior Court.5 
(5) 
To the extent that Biggins is requesting that the Superior Court 
be compelled to order the respondents to answer his petition, Biggins cannot 
demonstrate that he is entitled to the writ.  In the first instance, Biggins 
cannot establish that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed to act in his 
case.  It has been only a few weeks since the June 21 deadline for Biggins to 
respond to the motion to revoke his in forma pauperis status.  The outcome 
of that motion may affect the outcome of his petition for mandamus.  The 
passage of only a few weeks does not reflect an arbitrary refusal to act by the 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Canaday v. Superior Court, 116 A.2d 678, 682 (Del. 1955).   
4 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). 
5 Id. 
 
- 4 - 
Superior Court.  In the absence of a clear showing of an arbitrary refusal to 
act, this Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior 
Court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a 
particular way, or to dictate the control of its docket.6   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Biggins’ petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d at 620.