Opinion
C.A. No. 09M-07-137-JEB.
Date Submitted: November 30, 2009.
Date Decided: March 11, 2010.
Upon Petitioner's Request for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed.
Joseph Chambers, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Petitioner.
Stacey X. Stewart, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington Delaware Attorney for Respondent Delaware Department of Correction.
ORDER
On this 11th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of Petitioner's Request for Writ of Mandamus, the Court finds that:
1. On July 14, 2009, Petitioner Joseph Chambers, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in order to obtain from the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC") a change as to prison classification from "medium-high segregated security housing" to medium security housing. On November 2, 2009, the DOC filed a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's request pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. Petitioner alleges that his liberty interest in obtaining a particular type of prison housing is being infringed upon due to the DOC's failure to provide him with his proper prison classification. However, while the Petitioner concedes that a prisoner does not have a liberty interest in any specific type of housing, he also alleges that the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause protects a state-created liberty interest emphasized in a prison regulation. Petitioner does not provide the Court with the prison regulation of which he speaks. The Department of Correction contends that Petitioner has no clear right to a specific type of housing or classification and that the prison regulations do not provide any such right.
Since petitioning the Court for mandamus on July 14, 2009, Petitioner has been transferred to medium security housing.
3. The Court may issue a writ of mandamus in order to compel performance of a duty by an administrative agency. However, a writ is an extraordinary remedy that is issued only where a petitioner can demonstrate "a clear legal right to the performance of a non-discretionary duty." The duty must be specific and precise such that no discretion is involved in its performance. And, while a writ may compel performance of a duty, it may not dictate the manner of performance or any particular result. Furthermore, the petitioner must also show that the agency has failed to perform its duty and that no other remedy is available.
Del. Code Ann. Tit. 10, § 564; Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158,159 (Del. 1996).
Darby v. New Castle Gunning Bedford Ed. Ass'n, 336 A.2d 209, 210 (Del. 1975).
Darby, 336 A.2d at 211.
Darby, 336 A.2d at 211.
Del. Code Ann. Tit. 10, § 564; Clough, 686 A.2d at159.
4. Here, since petitioner has not provided any demonstration that he has a clear legal right to a non-discretionary duty, the Petitioner's request for writ of mandamus does not stand.
5. Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED , and the case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.