United States District Court, D. Delaware
MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Plaintiff,
BRIDGEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT Defendant.
Matthew Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Matthew Jones, who appears pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed
this action in July 2017 in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia. The matter was transferred to
this Court in September 2017. (D.I. 5, 6). Jones asserts
jurisdiction by reason of a United States government
defendant, a federal question, and diversity. The Court
proceeds to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
alleges that from September 17, 2015 to the present, long
standing enslavement, malicious prosecution, fraudulent
medical diagnosis, sexual slavery, forced labor, identity
theft, larceny, forgery, assault, attempted murder, rape,
pedophilia, and other felonious acts were committed. (D.I. 1
at 4). Jones alleges the acts are a result of a September 17,
2015 traffic stop when he was stopped and ticketed for using
his cell phone while driving.
time of the traffic stop, Jones told the officer, "Over
100 kids died this month on their first day of school at
Woodbridge. They were raped to death by you, the police
force, black men, and others." (Id. at 5). The
officer replied, "It is a sad occurrence. You should try
not to think about it," handed Plaintiff a ticket, and
drove away. (Id.). Jones alleges that this was the
third time that the Police Department has followed him
through the town of Bridgeville, Delaware. (Id.).
Plaintiff has received two other traffic citations from
Defendant Bridgeville Police Department, both more than eight
years earlier -- on September 9, 2007 for speeding and on
February 12, 2004, for no seatbelt. (Id. at 7). He
received fines for both citations and was found guilty of
was offered a plea bargain by Defendant that involved
"guilt and a fine." (Id. at 5) The
arresting officer did not appear at trial, and
Plaintiff's case was dismissed. (Id.). At the
time, Plaintiff told the presiding judge that the Justice of
the Peace Court 4 knows that he has been kidnapped his entire
life and used as a sex slave. (Id. at 6). He also
told the judge that the JP Court knew of the many attempts to
end Plaintiff's life ("sexually through disease and
rape"), and that police officers from different barracks
could not understand why "their violent rape had not
killed" him. (Id.). The judge told Plaintiff
that a full investigation would have to be made. Plaintiff
alleges there was no investigation. (Id.)
alleges that in the past, he told Defendant that he was
kidnaped, imprisoned, enslaved, maimed, injured, wounded, a
victim of sexual assault, poisoning, violent assault, theft,
larceny, slander, harassment, stalking, rape and attempted
murder. (Id.). He alleges there were also traffic
incidents and police contacts in other jurisdictions and
relates his history of unspeakable acts of violence against
him beginning in kindergarten and continuing through high
school. (Id. at 10-12). Plaintiff alleges the police
murdered his girlfriend when he was the 9th grade
and murdered another girlfriend when he was in the
11th grade. (Id. at 11).
alleges numerous violations of federal criminal law and
amendments of the United States Constitution. (Id.
at 12-15). He seeks ten billion dollars in damages, to have
his actual identity restored, justice to be served on his
assailants, his actual name and birth date to be
authenticated, his background history to be appropriately
amended, the police to be disbanded, fired, and unemployed,
and the State and local police to close.
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if "the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio, 726
F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The
Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as
true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro
se plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008).
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as
frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or
"fantastic or delusional" factual scenario.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; Wilson v.
Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).
legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule
12(b)(6) motions. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d
236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)
standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint
or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, the Court must grant Plaintiff leave to amend
his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d
103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
proceeds pro se and, therefore, his pleading is
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). Under 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.'" Daws 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 ...