Title: Matter of Watson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 507, 2005
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 29, 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
 
IN 
RE 
THE 
PETITION 
OF 
KEAVNEY L. WATSON FOR A 
WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
§ 
§  No. 507, 2005 
§ 
§  
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: November 4, 2005 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: December 29, 2005 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 29th day of December 2005, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner, Keavney L. Watson, seeks to invoke this 
Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus1 to 
compel the Superior Court to decide his motion to proceed in forma pauperis 
(“IFP”).  The State of Delaware has filed an answer and motion to dismiss.  
We find that Watson’s petition manifestly fails to invoke the original 
jurisdiction of this Court.  Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.   
 
(2) 
In August and September 2005, Watson filed a number of civil 
complaints in the Superior Court and filed a motion to proceed IFP in each 
one.  On November 23, 2005, the Superior Court held a hearing on Watson’s 
motions to proceed IFP.  On that same date, the Superior Court issued an 
order stating that the motions will not be decided until the court reporter files 
                                                 
1 Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); Supr. Ct. R. 43. 
the transcript of the hearing.  The Superior Court docket reflects that the 
court reporter has not yet filed the transcript. 
 
(3) 
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued by this 
Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty.2  As a condition precedent to 
the issuance of the writ, Watson must demonstrate that he has a clear right to 
the performance of the duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and the 
trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3   
 
(4) 
There is no basis for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in this 
case.  The Superior Court has not decided Watson’s motions because the 
court reporter has not yet filed the transcript of the hearing.  There is no 
evidence that the Superior Court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform a 
duty that is owed to Watson. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Watson’s petition for a 
writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
3 Id.