Evans v. Delaware Division of Substance Abuse & Mental Health

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

AUGUSTUS HEBREW EVANS, )
JR., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N26M-02-090 CLS
)
DELAWARE DIVISION OF )
SUBSTANCE ABUSE & )
MENTAL HEALTH, )
)
Respondent. )

Date Submitted: April 9, 2026
Date Decided: June 10, 2026

Upon Consideration of the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, GRANTED.

ORDER

Having considered the Delaware Division of Substance Abuse & Mental

Health’s (“Respondent”) Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus,1 and

Augustus Hebrew Evans, Jr.’s (“Petitioner”) Response in Opposition,2 it appears to

the Court that:

1. This case stems from Petitioner’s assertions that he is entitled to a share of the

settlement from the Delaware opioid litigation.3 On February 12, 2026, Petitioner

1
Mot. to Dismiss Pet. For Writ of Mandamus, D.I. 26 (“Mot. to Dismiss”).
2
Pro se Pet’r Resp. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, D.I. 28 (“Pet’r Resp.”).
3
See generally Pet. for Writ of Mandamus, D.I. 1 (“Pet.”).
filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, asking the Court to order the Respondent to

“create [a] recognizable application and grant the $25,000 request” for the settlement

funds to pursue a lawsuit on behalf of incarcerated individuals effected by the opioid

epidemic.4

2. On March 24, 2026, Respondent filed the instant Motion to Dismiss the

Petition for Writ of Mandamus because Petitioner does not meet the requirements

necessary for the Court to issue a writ of mandamus.5 Petitioner filed a Response in

Opposition on April 9, 2026.6

3. The Court finds that Petitioner may not recover under any reasonably

conceivable set of circumstances7 because Petitioner has not established a clear legal

duty. The Court has “broad discretion” to deny a petition for a writ of mandamus

where the petitioner has not established a clear legal duty.8 “For the performance of

a duty to be clearly owed to a petitioner, it must be nondiscretionary or ministerial,

meaning that it is ‘prescribed with such precision and certainty that nothing is left to

discretion or judgment.’”9

4
Id. § V.
5
See generally Mot. To Dismiss.
6
See generally Pet’r Resp.
7
See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6); ET Aggregator, LLC v. PFJE AssetCo Hldgs. LLC, 2023 WL
8535181, at *6 (Del. Super. Dec. 8, 2023).
8
Brittingham v. Town of Georgetown, 113 A.3d 519, 524 (Del. 2015) (internal citation omitted).
9
Id. (quoting Guy v. Greenhouse, 637 A.2d 827, 1993 WL 557938, at *1 (Del. Dec. 30, 1993)
(TABLE)).
4. The statutory language that controls disbursement of the settlement funds is

plainly discretionary. The Prescription Opioid Settlement Distribution

Commission’s duty as described under 16 Del. C. § 5196(c) is to use its judgment

on how to best disburse opioid settlement funds consistent with the purpose of the

statute. Therefore, Petitioner fails to state a claim for relief as he does not petition

the existence of a clear legal duty.

5. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss

Petition for Writ of Mandamus is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin Scott
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.