CLARENCE S. HARRISON JR. Plaintiff,
CITY OR TOWN OF SMYRNA and OFFICER K. FOX, Defendants.
Submitted: November 15, 2017
EASON PRIMPS JUDGE.
the Court is Officer K. Fox's and the Town of
Smyrna's (hereinafter "Defendants"
collectively) motion to dismiss the complaint of Mr. Clarence
Harrison. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on
November 15, 2017.
argue that Mr. Harrison's complaint must be dismissed
because it fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, and because Defendants are immune from suit pursuant
to the Delaware Tort Claims Act. Mr. Harrison's amended
complaint reads, in full, as follows:
Illegal stop. Groping my persons. Illegal search of my
vehicle. Theft by deception. Profiling discrimnatory [sic]
actions. In clear violation of 1977 human rights act.
Threatening to do physial [sic] harm. Continuing to call me a
terrorist. The Plaintiff will be seeking punitive and
pensatory [sic] damages. Also property damage Rachel Ruysch
In Full Bloom (Dutch 1664 - 1750) my painting valued at 1.5
review of a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations
in the complaint are accepted as true. However, the
Court will not "accept conclusory allegations
unsupported by specific facts." "[A]t a minimum, the
pleading must be adequate so the Court may conduct a
meaningful consideration of the merits of [the plaintiffs]
claims." A complaint that is "merely a
recitation of conclusory charges totally lacking in
specificity . . . [is] properly dismissed under Superior
Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6)." Cognizant of the
difficulties faced by pro se Plaintiffs, this Court
holds a. pro se Plaintiff s complaint to a less
demanding standard of review. However, "there is no
different set of rules fox pro se plaintiffs,
" and the Court's leniency cannot go so
far as to affect the substantive rights of the
upon review of the complaint, the Court can form no idea of
what Mr. Harrison alleges to have happened, where or when it
occurred, or who was involved other than the plaintiff. The
complaint lacks any specificity whatsoever and contains only
vague, conclusory allegations, and a puzzling assertion of
$1.5 million dollars of damage to a painting by a prominent
Dutch Golden Age painter, Rachel Ruysch.
similar case was decided by this Court in Johnson v.
Taylor. In Johnson, the complaint consisted of a
one-half page list of various vague and conclusory phrases
such as "[h]arassment, prejudice, bias, and
personalizing, " "[arbitrarily treated unfairly,
" and "[l]oss of personal property." The Court
found that the complaint contained "absolutely no
substance for the Court to conduct any . . . 'meaningful
consideration.'" The Johnson court
concluded that in light of the complaint's serious
deficiencies, dismissal was merited.
complaint here similarly contains insufficient information to
permit analysis by this Court. Therefore, dismissal is
appropriate. Mr. Harrison is free to refile and provide
allegations of specific conduct by particular persons and how
this entitles him to relief.
Defendants' motion to dismiss also raises the defense of
sovereign immunity, the Court need not, and indeed cannot,
address the issue. Absent adequate factual allegations, it is
impossible to determine whether such a defense would be
applicable to this case.
the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Mr. Harrison's
complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
IS SO ORDERED.