United States District Court, D. Delaware
MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Plaintiff,
DR. DONALD HAZLETT, 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 on August 9, 2018. (D.I. 2). Plaintiff asserts
jurisdiction by reason of a federal question. The Court
proceeds to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
alleges that in 2007, it was decided at a court hearing that
he should be released by Dover Behavioral Health Systems
Hospital and freed on his own recognizance. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant, Dr. Hazlett, and Dover Behavioral Health
disobeyed court orders and transferred him to the Delaware
Psychiatric Center. Plaintiff discusses his mental health
condition and alleges he was forced to take medications. He
also alleges misdiagnosis and intolerable poisonings in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant's actions have prevented him from owing a
firearm in violation of the Second Amendment and that
Defendant falsified Plaintiff's records in violation of
the Thirteenth Amendment.
alleges he has sustained injuries from head to toe. He seeks
two billion dollars in damages.
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). 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 claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v.
City of Shelby, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint
may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of
the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See
Id. at 346.
reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint, a court should
follow a three-step process: (1) consider the elements
necessary to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that are
merely conclusions and are therefore are not well-pleaded
factual allegations; and (3) accept any well-pleaded factual
allegations as true and determine whether they plausibly
state a claim. See Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp.,
809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016); Williams v. BASF
Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014).
Deciding whether a claim is plausible will depend on the
facts and circumstances alleged, and requires the court to
draw on its common sense.
Court liberally construes the complaint as attempting to
raise claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 given that Plaintiff
refers to various amendments of the United States
Constitution. Plaintiff alleges the wrongful actions took
place in 2007.
purposes of the statute of limitations, § 1983 claims
are characterized as personal injury actions. Wilson v.
Garcia,471 U.S. 261, 275 (1985). In Delaware, §
1983 claims are subject to a two-year limitations period.
See 10 Del. C. § 8119; Johnson v.
Cullen,925 F.Supp. 244, 248 (D. Del. 1996). Section
1983 claims accrue "when the plaintiff knew or should
have known of the injury upon ...