Title: Riley v. Carroll
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 326, 2003
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
JAMES W. RILEY, 
           
Petitioner Below- 
Appellant,   
 
v. 
 
THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, et 
al., 
     
 
 
     
Respondents Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
 
 
   No. 326, 2003 
 
   Court Below – Superior Court 
   of the State of Delaware, 
   in and for Kent County  
   C.A. No. 03C-05-014 
                      
 
Submitted:  October 31, 2003 
   Decided:  December 17, 2003  
 
Before HOLLAND, STEELE and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 17th day of December 2003, upon consideration of the briefs on appeal 
and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, James W. Riley, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to 
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1  We find no merit to the appeal.  
Accordingly, we affirm.   
 
(2) 
In his petition, Riley claimed that prison officials violated his 
constitutional rights when they deducted the costs of photocopying legal materials 
                                                 
1 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b) (6). 
 
 
-2-
from his prison account.2  Riley argues that, because he is on death row and may 
not participate in any work programs at the Delaware Correctional Center,3 the 
deductions prevent him from purchasing necessities at the prison commissary and 
limit his ability to file court actions to redress alleged violations of his 
constitutional rights.  The record reflects that, at the time the Superior Court 
dismissed his petition in June 2003, Riley was no longer a prisoner on death row.  
In May 2003, he was sentenced to life imprisonment following his retrial and 
conviction of Murder in the First Degree.4 
 
(3) 
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.5  In addition, the 
petitioner must establish that there has been an arbitrary refusal or failure to act, 
and that no other remedy is available.6  In order to state a constitutional claim, an 
                                                 
2 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6532(f). 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 6532(g). 
4 IK82-06-0838. 
5 Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996). 
6 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 
 
 
-3-
inmate must point to evidence of actual or imminent interference with access to the 
courts.7 
 
(4) 
Because Riley has not pointed to any evidence of actual or imminent 
interference with access to the courts, he has failed to show a clear legal right to 
the performance of a duty by prison officials.  Moreover, because Riley is no 
longer on death row and presumably may now participate in the work programs at 
the prison, it appears that his claim is now moot.  Under these circumstances, the 
Superior Court was within its discretion to dismiss Riley’s petition for a writ of 
mandamus.     
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.   
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
/s/ Randy J. Holland 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7 Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 
343(1996)).