IMO the Petition of Miles Brice for a Writ of Mandamus

• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 473, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE § PETITION OF MILES BRICE FOR § No. 473, 2024 A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § §

Submitted: January 13, 2025 Decided: March 19, 2025

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the petition for an extraordinary writ of mandamus and

the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner, Miles Brice, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of

this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus directed to

the Department of Correction (“DOC”). After careful review, we conclude that

Brice’s petition fails to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction and must therefore

be dismissed.

(2) Brice is an inmate incarcerated at James T. Vaughn Correctional

Center. He alleges that DOC has failed to provide him with necessary medical care,

constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Brice asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing DOC to treat his broken

hand without further delay. (3) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may be issued by

this Court to compel a trial court to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. 1 The

Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ of mandamus is limited

to instances where the respondent is a court or a judge thereof.2 Consequently, this

Court is without jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to DOC.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s motion to

dismiss is GRANTED. The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice

1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 2 In re Hitchens, 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). 3 We note that the cases that Brice cites were federal actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2