Matter of Foster

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JOHN E. FOSTER FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. No. 281, 2001 Submitted: July 9, 2001 Decided: July 27, 2001 Before WALSH, HOLLAND and BERGER, Justices. ORDER This 27th day of July 2001, the Court has considered the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by John E. Foster and the answer and motion to dismiss filed by the State of Delaware, and it appears to the Court that: (1) Foster has applied to this Court for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the Warden of the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility. Foster is incarcerated at the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, serving a prison sentence on a number of convictions.1 (2) In his petition in this Court, Foster alleges that the Warden has refused to respond to Foster s written requests for information about a 1998 closed criminal case. It appears that Foster wants the Warden to See State v. Foster, Del. Super., Cr.A.No. IN99-07-1360, Gebelein, J. (April 25, 2001) (sentence); see State v. Foster, Del. Super., Cr.A.No. IN01-02-0402, Toliver, J. (June 11, 2001) (sentence). 1 explain in writing why, in the 1998 case, Foster was allegedly not released from prison until December 20, 1998, when the State had nolle prossed the charges more than 20 days earlier, i.e., on November 17, 1998.2 (3) Foster s petition manifestly fails on its face to invoke the Court s original jurisdiction. [T]his Court s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is limited to instances when a respondent is a court or a judge thereof. 3 The Court s original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus does not extend to the Warden of the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility, who is a prison official.4 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Randy J. Holland Justice State v. Foster, Del. Super., Cr.A.No. N98-11-0582. Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(6); In re Hitchens, Del. Supr., 600 A.2d 37, 38 (1991). 4 Id. 2 3 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.