Case Caption: In Re: Eliston F. GeorgeCase Number: S. Ct. Civ. No. 2019-0094Date: 09/11/2020Author: Swan, Ive Arlington Citation: 2020 VI 19Summary: In a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition by an inmate convicted in the District Court of the Virgin Islands of first-degree murder and possession of a deadly weapon on September 8, 1978, the history of direct appeals and at least seven prior habeas corpus petitions are recounted in this Court’s prior opinion, George v. Wilson, 9 V.I. 984, 986-88 (V.I. 2013). In this proceeding, a review of the record reveals that the messenger for the Superior Court signed the return receipt for delivery of the petition, which will be deemed to have been filed with the Superior Court on that date. Because this petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Virgin Islands law, the Virgin Islands Superior Court has jurisdiction over his petition for writ of habeas corpus. A petitioner possesses a clear and indisputable right to mandamus when the relief sought constitutes a specific ministerial act, devoid of the exercise of judgment or discretion, and here the duty of the failure of the Superior Court clerk to process the case in a timely manner, after learning of the facts surrounding the circumstances, rises to the level of a breach of a ministerial duty. In addition, petitioner has no means other than to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain relief against actual restraint upon his liberty. However, the decision to issue a writ of mandamus is ultimately a matter of discretion, and mandamus relief is not appropriate in this case, since the petition states no facts to support any claims for writ of habeas corpus, and petitioner’s claims have been exhaustively considered in his prior litigation. Accordingly because mandamus is not appropriate under the circumstances, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion