Boone & Trevor v. Dept. of Health & Social Services ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TODD BOONE and TREVOR §
WIBERG, §
§ No. 112, 2016
Petitioners Below- §
Appellants, §
§ Court Below—Superior Court
v. § of the State of Delaware
§
STATE OF DELAWARE § C.A. No. S15M-09-039
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND §
SOCIAL SERVICES, §
§
Respondent Below- §
Appellee. §
Submitted: May 27, 2016
Decided: July 22, 2016
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
ORDER
This 22nd day of July 2016, upon consideration of the opening brief
and the motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellants, Todd Boone and Trevor Wiberg (“the
Appellants”), filed this appeal from the Superior Court’s dismissal of their
petition for a writ of mandamus. The State Department of Health and Social
Services (“DHSS”) has filed a motion to affirm the Superior Court’s
judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the Appellants’
opening brief that their appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) The Appellants each have a debilitating medical condition and
are registered medical marijuana cardholders.1 In September 2015, they
filed a petition in the Superior Court2 requesting that a writ of mandamus be
issued directing DHSS to issue compassion center registration certificates to
the highest scoring applicants in Kent County and Sussex County as required
by Sections 4914A(c) and (d) of the Medical Marijuana Act.3 The
Appellants asserted that DHSS had a duty to issue certificates to the highest
scoring applicant in each county by January 1, 2013 and to issue three
additional certificates to the highest scoring candidates in each county by
January 1, 2014. Although DHSS issued a compassion center registration
certificate to an applicant in New Castle County, it failed to do so in either
Kent County or Sussex County. The Appellants are residents of Sussex
County.
(3) DHSS filed a motion for summary judgment in the Superior
Court. At a hearing, the Superior Court denied summary judgment but
dismissed the Appellants’ complaint without prejudice because the duty that
the Appellants sought to have DHSS perform was discretionary in nature,
1
16 Del. C. § 4902A(1), (3) (Supp. 2014) (defining “cardholder” and “debilitating
medical condition”).
2
See 16 Del. C. § 4924A (Supp. 2014) (providing that “any citizen may commence an
action in Superior Court to compel [DHSS] to perform the actions mandated pursuant to
the provisions of this chapter.”).
3
16 Del. C. § 4914(c)-(d) (Supp. 2014).
2
and a writ of mandamus will be issued only to perform a nondiscretionary
duty.
(4) We agree with that conclusion. The Superior Court has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a State officer, tribunal, board or
agency to compel the performance of an official duty.4 A writ of mandamus,
however, is not issued as a matter of right but only in the exercise of sound
judicial discretion.5 Moreover, a writ of mandamus is appropriate only if the
petitioner can establish a clear legal right to the performance of a
nondiscretionary duty.6
(5) In this case, the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the Appellants’ petition for a writ of mandamus. Although
Section 4914A(c) and (d) establish DHSS’ duty to seek applicants for
compassion center registration certificates and to issue those certificates to
qualified applicants, 11 Del. C. § 4914A(e)(2) makes it clear that,
notwithstanding the other provisions of the statute, DHSS must exercise
discretion in evaluating applications and must deny applications that fail to
satisfy the statutory requirements and regulatory requirements established by
DHSS. Thus, the Appellants could not establish that DHSS had arbitrarily
4
10 Del. C. § 564 (2013).
5
Schagrin Gas Co. v. Evans, 418 A.2d 997, 998 (Del. 1980).
6
Semick v. Dep’t of Corr., 477 A.2d 707, 708 (Del. 1984).
3
refused to perform a nondiscretionary duty owed to them. Finally, we note
that the Superior Court dismissed the mandamus petition without prejudice,
which left the door open for the Appellants to bring a direct action under 16
Del. C. § 4924A as contemplated by the statute. Appellants are thus not
without a remedy, if warranted, for violations of the statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
Justice
4