United States District Court, D. Delaware
MATTHEW N. JONES, Plaintiff,
CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
Matthew N. Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Michael F. McTaggart, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware
Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Matthew N. Jones, who appears pro se, filed this
action on January 7, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (D.I. 1). Defendants Crisis Intervention
Services and Delaware State Police have filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and a
motion to quash subpoenas. (D.I. 18, 26). Plaintiff has filed
a motion for summary judgment and a motion to amend the
complaint. (D.I. 23, 34). Briefing on the matters is
Complaint alleges that on December 12, 2015, Crisis
Intervention workers and Delaware State Police arrived at
Plaintiff's home, handcuffed him, and transported him to
the Crisis Intervention Center in Ellendale, Delaware. From
there, Plaintiff was transported to the Rockford Center.
Plaintiff alleges that Crisis Intervention Center committed
felonies by accepting testimony, getting instructions, and
taking orders from his mother, who was present at the time.
He also alleges that Crisis Intervention Center
"feloniously" diagnosed him with schizophrenia,
which is a disease he "cannot possibly
have." (Id. at p.6). The Complaint
alleges that Plaintiff was taken away for lengths of time and
forced to ingest drugs that made him ill and caused allergic
reactions. Plaintiff alleges attempted murder, wrongful
imprisonment, persecution, and seeks $175, 000, 000 in
damages. (Id. at pp. 6-7). Plaintiff amended the
Complaint to clarify that he does not hold his mother
responsible for her actions and blames Defendants for
ignoring his "injuries, illnesses, and wounds."
(D.I. 11 at p.1).
move for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction,
the Defendants are immune from suit, many of the claims are
time-barred, and the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. (D.I. 18). Plaintiff opposes the
motion to dismiss and moves for summary judgment, arguing,
basically, that he does not have schizophrenia. (D.I. 23).
Plaintiff also seeks to amend and provides a copy of the
proposed amended complaint. (D.I. 34). Finally, Defendants
move to quash subpoenas Plaintiff served upon two physicians.
proceeds pro se and, therefore, his pleadings are
liberally construed and his complaint, "however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the
dismissal of an action for "lack of subject matter
jurisdiction." A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may be treated as
either a facial or factual challenge to the court's
subject matter jurisdiction. See Constitution Party v.
Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 357-58 (3d Cir. 2014). "In
reviewing a facial attack, 'the court must only consider
the allegations of the complaint and documents referenced
therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff.'" Id. at 358 (quoting In
re Schering Plough Corp., 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d Cir.
2012)). In reviewing a factual attack, the court may consider
evidence outside the pleadings. Mortensen v. First Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.
Rule 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if,
accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as
true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations
"could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558
(2007). "Though 'detailed factual allegations'
are not required, a complaint must do more than simply
provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.'"
Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d
236, 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555). In addition, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient
to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See
Johnson v. City of Shelby, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 346,
347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for
imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim
asserted. See Id. at 346.
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court should
follow a three-step process: (1) consider the elements
necessary to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that are
merely conclusions and therefore are not well-pleaded factual
allegations; and (3) accept any well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and determine whether they plausibly
state a claim. See Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.,809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016); Williams v. BASF
Catalysts LLC,765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014).
Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a