IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF THE §
PETITION OF DEVIN COLEMAN § No. 253, 2015
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS §
Submitted: May 27, 2015
Decided: June 9, 2015
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 9th day of June 2015, upon consideration of the petition of Devin
Coleman for a writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner, Devin Coleman, seeks to invoke the original
jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of
mandamus reversing the Superior Court Commissioner’s order denying
Coleman’s motion to recuse her from considering his pending motion for
postconviction relief. The State has filed an answer and motion to dismiss
Coleman’s petition. After careful consideration, we find that Coleman’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: (i) the complainant has a clear right to the
performance of the duty; (ii) no other adequate remedy is available; and (iii) the
trial court has arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.1 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.”2 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.3 Moreover, Coleman may raise the
Commissioner’s denial of his motion in any appeal from a final order issued by
the Superior Court in the proceedings below.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance
of an extraordinary writ of mandamus is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
1
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
2
Id.
3
Id.
2