May 13, 2015
State of Delaware Dept. of Corrections, et al.
Dear Mr. Jackson:
I have received your letter dated May 4, 2015, which I am interpreting as exceptions to my draft report dated April 24, 2015. Although your exceptions were not received by the Court until after the exceptions period, I will accept the exceptions as timely because you assert the delay was caused by the Department of Corrections' mail system.
In my draft report, I recommended that the Court deny your petition to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss your complaint because this Court lacks jurisdiction over your claims. As I understand your exceptions, you contend I erred in that conclusion because (1) this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of your claim for equitable relief, and (2) even if the Court lacks jurisdiction, I should have dismissed the complaint not because it is legally frivolous, but because it "plainly appears from the face of the complaint" that you are not entitled to relief.
As to the first point, although the complaint seeks a "mandatory injunction ordering Defendants to provide a substitute autoimmune disorder doctor pursuant to [the] Medical [T]reatment provision in the [Settlement] Agreement, " a review of the settlement agreement indicates that relief is not available. The settlement agreement allows the parties to agree on "a substitute auto-immune disorders doctor within twenty (20) days of learning of the unavailability of Dr. Aponte." Your complaint does not allege Dr. Aponte is not available; to the contrary, you concede that Dr. Aponte examined you and provided a recommended course of treatment, but you disagree with Dr. Aponte's conclusion and contend he did not have all your records at the time he reached that conclusion. Because there is no reasonably conceivable set of circumstances under which the Court could provide the injunction you seek, there is no effective claim for equitable relief in your complaint.
As to your second contention, I concluded that your complaint was legally frivolous, rather than concluding that you were not entitled to the relief you seek, because you may be entitled to the relief you seek in a court of competent jurisdiction. The order was worded in that way to foreclose any argument that this Court's order barred you from bringing your claims in another court.
For the foregoing reasons, your exceptions are denied and I am adopting my draft report as a final report. Exceptions may be taken in accordance with Court of Chancery Rule 144.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
Abigail M. LeGrow Master in Chancery