Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Wright

Superior Court of Delaware, Kent

September 26, 2017

MATTHEW JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. CATHERINE WRIGHT and BAYHEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, Defendants.

          Submitted: August 30, 2017

          ORDER

          NOEL EASON PRIMOS JUDGE.

         Upon consideration of the complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis of Plaintiff Matthew Jones (hereinafter "Mr. Jones"), the Court finds as follows.

         On June 8, 2017, Mr. Jones submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and complaint to this Court in a different matter, Jones v. Dover Behavioral Health Systems[1] On August 9, 2017, this Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis in that matter but summarily dismissed the complaint, finding it malicious and abusive of the judicial process. Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(e), this Court enjoined Mr. Jones from filing future claims without leave of court and also required that any such claims be accompanied by an affidavit certifying that:

(1) The claims sought to be litigated have never been raised or disposed of before in any court;
(2) The facts alleged are true and correct;
(3) The affiant has made a diligent and good faith effort to determine what relevant case law controls the legal issues raised;
(4) The affiant has no reason to believe the claims are foreclosed by controlled law; and
(5) The affiant understands that the affidavit is made under penalty of perjury.

         Mr. Jones submitted the complaint in the instant action on July 21, 2017. Because Mr. Jones had filed the complaint prior to the Court's August 9, 2017 order in Jones v. Dover Behavioral Health Systems, the Court, by order dated August 14, 2017, allowed Mr. Jones to provide the required affidavit in this case by August 31, 2017. Mr. Jones filed the affidavit on August 30, 2017.

         Mr. Jones's affidavit in support of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in Jones v. Dovery Behavioral Health Systems alleged that he had no income of any kind during the twelve months prior to June 6, 2017. Mr. Jones filed his motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter on July 19, 2017, and alleges now that he received approximately $1, 200 monthly in regular income during the past twelve months. Due to Mr. Jones's prior false certifications to this Court regarding his income and the fact, of which the Court takes judicial notice, that his current representations regarding his income place well above the national poverty line, [2] Mr. Jones has not established to the Court's satisfaction that he is indigent, or otherwise unable to pay the costs associated with this action. The Court shall now consider the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous or malicious as well as whether the certifications Mr. Jones made concerning the complaint are true.[3]

         According to 10 Del. C. § 8801(7), a claim is legally frivolous when it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." This Court is instructed to dismiss a complaint where "even a pro se litigant, acting with due diligence, should have found well settled law disposing of the issue(s) raised."[4]

         Mr. Jones's complaint alleges that in December of 2015, Dr. Catherine Wright (hereinafter "Dr. Wright") performed surgery on his nose at Milford Memorial Hospital, Bayhealth, in Dover, Delaware. He claims that Dr. Wright botched the surgery: "Dr. Wright cut out all of the flesh on my nose, leaving me only with skin that covers the bone structure." Mr. Jones also included exhibits by appending URL links to pictures of himself that he has uploaded to Facebook. The photographs reveal no visible deformity. Mr. Jones alleges various damages resulting from the surgery, including rendering him "more susceptible to be picked on . . . less desirable to women, my peers, and potential business partners, " and putting him at risk of further injury and death. Mr. Jones seeks "Two Billion United States Dollars" in relief.

         Mr. Jones has cited various inapplicable legal authorities, bespeaking a clear lack of diligence or good faith. In support of his claim, Mr. Jones cites the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, various sections of Title 18 of the United States Code, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, three United States Supreme Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.