Opinion
No. 235, 2011.
Submitted: May 27, 2011.
Decided: July 11, 2011.
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and JACOBS, Justices.
ORDER
This 11th day of July 2011, upon consideration of the petition of David Quintin Webb for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner, David Webb, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Chancery to: (i) recuse the Master in Chancery from acting in the case below; (ii) find that the respondents in the case below are precluded from arguing that he is not the legal heir of John Webb; and (iii) order that his name be added to the Letters of Administration as a legal heir to the Estate of John L. Webb. We find that Webb's petition manifestly fails to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed.
(2) A writ of mandamus is designed to compel a lower court to perform a duty if it is shown that: the complainant has a clear right to the performance of the duty; that no other adequate remedy is available; and that the trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty. A writ of mandamus will not be issued "to compel a trial court to perform a particular judicial function, to decide a matter in a particular way, or to dictate the control of its docket." A writ of mandamus is not warranted under the present circumstances because recusal is a matter that is within the discretion of the judicial officer whose recusal is sought. Moreover, this Court will not compel the Court of Chancery to rule in Webb's favor on the substantive issues below. These are matters Webb may raise in any appeal from a final order issued by the Court of Chancery in the proceedings below.
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
Id.
Id.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DENIED.