Williams v. State of Delaware

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/20/14. (cla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SHERMAN B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
C.A. No. 14-258-LPS

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
Presently pending before the Court is a document filed by Petitioner Sherman B.

Williams entitled "Notice of Appeal Denial of Writ of Error/Sentencing Transcripts," which has
been docketed as "Motion for Writ of Mandamus" ("Petition"). (D.I. 1) Petitioner is an inmate
at St. Mary's Correctional Center in St. Mary's, West Virginia, and the Motion names the State
of Delaware as the Respondent.
As set forth by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia:
On December 4, 1997, petitioner was convicted on one count of
second degree kidnapping in Sussex County, Delaware and
sentenced to a term of incarceration for six years. Additionally,
Petitioner was required to register as a sex offender under
Delaware law. Petitioner subsequently lived in Maryland and,
according to the State of West Virginia, then moved to Berkely
County, West Virginia. On May 22,2012, a Berkely County
Grand Jury indicted Petitioner on a single count of felony failure to
register as a sex offender in violation of West Virginia Code § 1512-8(c). The indictment was based upon allegations that Petitioner
failed to register with the West Virginia State Police within ten
business days of moving to the State of West Virginia. Following
a three-day trial, Petitioner was convicted of one count of failure to
register as a sex offender and sentenced to a term of incarceration
of one to five years.

State v. Williams, 2013 WL 5708440, at *1 (W.Va. Oct. 21, 2013). Petitioner appealed his

conviction in West Virginia on the grounds that the State failed to prove he was a resident of
West Virginia. He argued that he resided in the State of Maryland and merely traveled back and
forth between Maryland and Martinsburg, West Virginia, where he was receiving medical
treatment at the Veterans Administration Hospital. !d. at *2. On October 21, 2013, the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia rejected that argument and affirmed the Circuit Court's
judgment of conviction and sentence. !d.

II.

DISCUSSION
Under the All Writs Act, a federal court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus only

"in aid" of its jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As such, a federal court may issue a writ of

f
I

mandamus only if there is an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See United States

Federal courts have jurisdiction "in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of

!
l
I
I

the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff."' 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

f

v. Christian, 660 F .2d 892, 894 (3d Cir. 1981) ("Before entertaining [a petition for a writ of

mandamus, the court] "must identify a jurisdiction that the issuance of the writ might assist.").

Here, Petitioner does not allege any action or omission by a federal officer, employee, or
agency that this Court might have jurisdiction to address in the first instance. Instead, Petitioner
asks this Court "to direct the lower [Delaware] court to deliver the records in this case for

I

t

I

r

1

To be eligible for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, a petitioner must satisfy
three conditions: (1) he has "no other adequate means to attain the reliefhe desires;" (2) he
demonstrates that "his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable;" and (3) the
issuing court is satisfied that "the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." Hollingsworth v.
Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010).

2

l
i
!

I
l
l

!

review." (D.I. 1 at 2) He asserts that he has diligently sought to obtain his sentencing transcripts
for the purpose of appeal, and that his requests have been denied. !d. Petitioner does not
identify any Delaware case presently pending before the Delaware courts, and the Court notes
that his time to file a direct appeal from his 1997 conviction in Delaware expired long ago.
Aside from the instant proceeding, Petitioner does not have any case presently pending before
this Court.
The Court does not have jurisdiction to grant Petitioner's request. See In re Wolenski,
324 F.2d 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (per curiam) (stating District Court "had no jurisdiction" to "issue a
writ of mandamus compelling action by a state official"). As recently explained by the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, "[s]tate courts are not 'lower courts' from this Court's perspective,
and principles of comity and federalism ensure that a federal court ordinarily may not issue a writ
of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to it." In re Whiteford,
2013 WL 979413, at *1 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2013) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

III.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court concludes that it must dismiss the instant

Petition for Writ of Mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. A separate Order will be entered.

Dated: March 20, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3