United States District Court, D. Delaware
THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff,
STATE OF DELAWARE, et al., Defendants.
E. Noble, James T. Vaughn Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se
Clement Handlon, Deputy Attorney General Deputy, Delaware
Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for
Defendants State of Delaware, Delaware Attorney General Matt
Denn, Deputy Attorney General Abigail R. Layton, and R.
U.S. District Judge.
Thomas E. Noble ("Plaintiff) filed this action on March
10, 2017 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds
pro se, sought and was denied in forma
pauperis status, and has paid the filing
(See D.I. 2, 8) Plaintiff was not incarcerated when
he commenced this action. His October 11, 2017 letter
indicates that he is currently an inmate at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware. (See
D.I. 24) The Court has jurisdiction by reason of a federal
question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Presently before
the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I.
and numerous motions filed by Plaintiff (D.I. 18, 19, 22, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33). The Court will grant the motion
to dismiss for the reasons discussed below.
noted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Plaintiff "is a serial litigator. He has filed
over five do2en lawsuits in federal district courts,
including over 30 complaints in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware." In re
Noble, 663 Fed.Appx. 188, 189 (3d Cir. Oct. 6, 2016).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, most of whom are
State actors, violated his constitutional rights when he was
wrongfully imprisoned from November 21, 2013 until April 13,
2016, on allegedly false charges of dealing in child
pornography. (D.I. 7) Plaintiff alleges Defendants
worked in a common scheme /conspiracy to misuse the
State's power on the false charges of dealing in child
pornography. Alternatively, he alleges Defendants colluded
with other Defendants. Plaintiff also appears to allege that
he was defamed. He seeks compensator}damages, an order that the
State of Delaware remove all traces of the prosecution and a
petty shoplifting charge, and criminal prosecution of
Court takes judicial notice that on January 6, 2014,
Plaintiff was indicted on 25 counts of dealing in child
pornography. See State of Delaware v. Noble, Grim.
ID No. 1311014361 (Civ. No. 16-406-LPS at D.I. 1 at 53-54).
He was arraigned on February 22, 2014 and pled not guilty.
(See id.) Plaintiff entered into a plea agreement on
April 14, 2016, pursuant to which he pled guilty to one count
of dealing in child pornography and the remaining charges
were nolle prossed. (D.I. 17 at 8) Defendant Layton
represented the State in the case against Plaintiff.
(Id. at 8-9) Defendant Judge Diane C. Streett
("Judge Stteett") entered orders in the criminal
Defendants seek dismissal on the grounds that the complaint
fails to state a plausible federal claim against them, it is
unclear if Plaintiff seeks to raise supplemental State
claims, many of the defendants are immune from suit, and
Plaintiffs claims are precluded by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994).
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 of
Pa. p. Akbele, 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
Sobering Plough Corp. v. Intron, 678 F.3d 235, 243 (3d
Cir. 2012)). In reviewing a factual attack, the court may
consider evidence outside the pleadings. See Mortensen v.
First Fed. Sap. and Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891
(3d Cir. 1977). In addition, the court "is free to weigh
the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its
power to hear the case, " even where disputed material
facts exist. Id. at 891. In a factual challenge, the
plaintiff has the burden of persuasion to show that
jurisdiction exists, Id.
a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) requires the Court to accept as true all material
allegations of the complaint. See Spruill v. Gillis,
372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not
whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the
claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the
claims." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec.
Utig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court may grant such a
motion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and
viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff,
plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Maio v. Aetna,
Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp, v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to
show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See
Johnson p. City ofShelby, ___ U.S. ___, 135
S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not be ...