United States District Court, D. Delaware
MATTHEW N. JONES, Plaintiff,
CRISIS INTERVENTION SERVICES, Defendant.
Matthew N. Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Clement Handlon, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department
of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Matthew N. Jones, who appears pro se, filed this
action on June 6, 2016. (D.I. 1). Defendant moves to dismiss
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and, in turn,
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment. (D.I. 4, 8). Briefing
on the motions is complete.
Complaint alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and
§ 1035, as well as violations of the First and Eighth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, from September
2015 through December 2015. The Complaint asserts
jurisdiction by reason of a " U.S. Government
Defendant." The civil cover sheet states that the nature
of claim is assault, libel, and slander. Plaintiff alleges
that he was falsely diagnosed with mental illness, that he
was medicated and injected against his will, and there was an
attempt to commit, or hospitalize, him long-term. Plaintiff
alleges that his medical records are shared without his
consent and are communicated without his authority. The
Complaint also references Plaintiffs birth mother. Plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages.
moves for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction,
and the Complaint fails to state any plausible claims.
Defendant notes that this action appears to be largely
identical to Jones v. Mirza, Civ. No. 15-1017-RGA,
as well as other cases filed by Plaintiff.
opposes the motion to dismiss and moves for summary judgment,
noting that he has sued for personal injury, assault, libel,
and slander and that Defendant is a government agency. In his
motion for summary judgment, plaintiff describes his claims
as arising under: (1)18 U.S.C. § 1035, false statements
relating to health care matters; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 242,
deprivation of rights under color of law; (3) 18 U.S.C.
§ 249, hate crimes prevention act; and (4) 18 U.S.C.
§ 241, conspiracy against rights. (See D.I. 8 at
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