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. Jones

United States District Court, D. Delaware

March 19, 2018

QUENTIN T. JONES Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY L. JONES, et al., Defendants.

          Quentin T. Jones, Sussex Correctional Institution, Georgetown, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

          Michael F. McTaggart, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Jeremy L. Jones.

          Gary H. Kaplan, Esquire, and Jessica Lee Tyler, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Amanda Young.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Quentin T. Jones ("Plaintiff'), an inmate at the Sussex Correctional Institution ("SCI") in Georgetown, Delaware, filed this action alleging constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2, 5) He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 9) Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss.[1] (D.I. 26, 33) Plaintiff did not file oppositions to the motions.

         II. BACKGROUND

         As alleged in the Complaint and its amendment, on February 4, 2015 Plaintiff was questioned about an alleged rape, charged after questioning, and held at the SCI as a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff was arrested by Defendant Jeremy L. Jones ("Jones"), a detective with the Delaware State Police (Troop 4) ("State Police"). Plaintiff was convicted in February 2016 and sentenced in April 2016.

         Plaintiff alleges that he was detained and convicted without any DNA or rape kit testing. He contends that the alleged victim should have been taken into medical custody to have DNA analysis collection kits performed "on the alleged victim and suspect immediately." (D.I. 2 at 6) Plaintiff alleges that Jones had "a duty to see that those steps to a DNA analysis collection kit in any rape 1st sexual assault case have been taken from die alleged victim and suspect." (Id.)

         Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Amanda Young ("Young"), a forensic interview examiner who examined die alleged sexual assault victim, should have sent the patient/client "to an out-patient body exam specialist to be checked out and make sure the alleged victim was not damaged in any way, shape or form in her vaginal and rectum areas." (Id. at 7) Plaintiff wants to be "justified and vindicated of the false alleged accusations." (Id. at 8) He seeks compensatory damages. (Id.)

         In support of his motion to dismiss, Jones submits Court documents from Plaintiffs criminal case and asks the Court to take judicial notice of the documents. The State of Delaware's February 4, 2015 arrest warrant for Plaintiff, sworn to by Jones, sets out the factual basis for Plaintiffs arrest on two counts of rape first degree of a victim less than twelve years old, in violation of 11 Del. C. § 773, and unlawful sexual contact of a victim less than thirteen years old, in violation of 11 Del. C. § 769. (D.I. 28 at A-1, A-2) The arrest warrant indicates that, on January 22, 2015, Jones was assigned to the case, which involved allegations of rape of a young victim who had been sexually assaulted at her house and in an RV parked on the premises sometime in the summer of 2014, by a relative who was living at the house. (Id. at A-3)

         Jones conducted the police investigation after a report had been made to the Delaware Division of Family Services. (Id. at A-240, A-241) He set up a forensic interview for the victim, who was eight at the time of the crime, with the Children's Advocacy Center, in Georgetown, Delaware, and the child was interviewed by Young. (Id. at A-3, A-73) The Delaware State Police do not typically request medical exams as part of their sexual assault protocol after 120 hours. (Id. at A-242) Such an exam is not typically done outside of that period as it is not expected to obtain evidence. (Id. at A-242, A-243) By the time Jones began his investigation, the RV had been sold and could not be found for police inspection. (Id. at A-248)

         The Superior Court docket does not contain any docket entries indicating that Plaintiff filed pretrial or post-trial motions seeking DNA testing. (D.I. 35) The docket contains an entry of a February 4, 2016 letter from Plaintiff (who was represented by counsel in the criminal matter) complaining of his attorney's assistance of counsel, and referring to the absence of DNA as a basis for dismissal of the case, although even then Plaintiff did not request DNA testing. (D.I. 28 at A-330, A-331, A-332)

         Jones moves for dismissal of the instant action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to recover for damages when the police do not conduct DNA testing at the time of arrest or on the reporting victim of the rape offense. (D.I. 26, 27, 28) Young joins Jones' motion and also moves for dismissal for lack of subject matter ...


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.