Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Howard

United States District Court, D. Delaware

November 19, 2018

MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Plaintiff,
ALICIA HOWARD, etal., Defendants.

          Matthew N.P. Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.

          Joseph Clement Handlon, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants.



         Plaintiff Matthew Jones, who appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed this action on August 8, 2018. (D.I. 2). Jones asserts jurisdiction by reason of a United States government defendant[1] and a federal question. Defendants move for dismissal, prior to screening of the Complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (D.I. 5). In addition, Plaintiff moves for my recusal.


         Defendants are Alicia Howard, a Superior Court Commissioner, and Valerie Farnan, a Deputy Attorney General. It appears that the event complained of involves a trial for involuntary civil commitment.

         The allegations in the instant Complaint are similar to those in the amended complaint Plaintiff filed in Jones v. Dover Behavioral Health System, Civ. No. 17-394 at D.I. 17. The Complaint does not provide the exact date for any of the actions complained of by Plaintiff, although he alleges that in 2018 he was deprived of his right to trial and parts of the trial were held without his presence in the courtroom. (D.I. 2 at 3). He alleges that on more than one occasion a trial was held without notice. He alleges Defendant Commissioner Alice Howard claimed the Court did not have Jones' telephone number. (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges that he was denied the right to choose his own psychiatrist and health care provider; Defendants named them. (Id.). When Plaintiff protested, he was removed from the Courtroom and Commissioner Howard told him she was "not going to take the time to find the law and show it to" him. (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges that he is forced to take medications that are unhealthy for his body. (Id.). He alleges this violates federal criminal statutes. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that the side effects of the medications and injections he was forced to take were not discussed with him, and he was not provided with literature or alternative options in violation of 42 U.S.C. 9501 (1)(C)(i-vi). (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that his "condition was maliciously made. A known falsehood, schizophrenia. Symptoms of the disease are that [Plaintiff] 'delusionally' believe[s] that Linda C. Jones is not [his] birth mother" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that schizophrenia can be detected by a brain scan, but Defendants did not conduct a scan. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that "on his own," he paid to scan his brain for schizophrenia and other mental illness. (Id.). The results indicate that he has a disease free and healthy brain. (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges that the misdiagnosis and intolerable poisonings constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.). He alleges the mental health mistreatment coincide with life-long abuse, assault, attempted murder and rape by the Sussex County Court System and Delaware Attorney General's Office. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges Defendants' actions have prevented him from owning a firearm in violation of the Second Amendment, and Defendants falsified Plaintiff's records in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. (Id.). He alleges the illegal activity of supervision and diagnosis of illiteracy and insanity hinder his First Amendment rights to freedom to speech and religion. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff invokes his Seventh Amendment right to trial. (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges he has been injured from head to toe. (Id. at 6). The antipsychotics given him have poisoned his body and brain. (Id.). The reputation as a schizophrenic man hinders his work and ability to find work. (Id.). He seeks two billion dollars in damages. (Id. at 7).


         A 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).

         An 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 ...

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.