The appellant, Michael A. Clough (“Clough”), filed this appeal from an order of the Superior Court denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. The State of Delaware (“State”) has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The State asserts that it is manifest on the face of Clough’s opening brief that the appeal is without merit. Supr.Ct.R. 25(a). This Court has concluded that the State’s motion should be granted.
The record reflects that the Superior Court sentenced Clough in 1980 to a term of life imprisonment for Murder in the Second Degree. Clough was incarcerated at the Sussex Correctional Institution. For several years, Clough had been assigned to a work program outside the perimeters of the correctional facility.
On October 3, 1993, another inmate serving a life sentence escaped while on an unsupervised job assignment. As a consequence of that escape, the Department of Correction (“the Department”) restricted certain classified inmates, including Clough, from further participation in outside programs. Clough’s challenge to that determination was rejected by the Department.
Clough filed for a writ of mandamus contending that the Department’s action violated his due process rights and requesting that the Department be directed to return Clough to his work assignment. Clough asserted that 11 Del.C. § 6537(b) creates a legally cognizable liberty interest or right for an inmate to have contacts outside a correctional facility. The Superior Court dismissed Clough’s mandamus petition. Clough now appeals from that ruling.
A
writ of mandamus
is a command that may be issued by the Superior Court to an inferior court, public official, or agency to compel the performance of a duty to which the petitioner has established a clear legal right.
See Milford 2nd St. Players v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n,
Del.Super.,
No Liberty Interest Prison Classification
This Court has held that the purpose of 11
Del.C.
§ 6537(b)
*
is “to
limit
[the Department’s]
discretion
in allowing contacts outside of a secured institution by a certain categories of persons.”
DiStefano v. Watson,
Del.Supr.,
Conclusion
Clough cannot establish that the Department has a duty to assign him to, or retain him in, a certain institutional status which would allow him to participate in outside work programs.
Sandin v. Conner,
— U.S. —,
Notes
11 Del.C. § 6537(b) provides in pertinent part:
With the exception of the authority granted under § 4205(h) and (1) of this title, the Department shall have no authority to place any person convicted of a class A felony, during the first 10 years of said sentence, or of any class A or B felony sex offense or C felony sex offense, during the first 10 years of said sentence, or any person sentenced pursuant to § 4204(k) of this title on any program or status beyond the confines of a secured institution to which the person must be classified.
