United States District Court, D. Delaware
MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Plaintiff,
ALICIA HOWARD, etal., Defendants.
Matthew N.P. Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Clement Handlon, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department
of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants.
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 8, 2018. (D.I. 2). Jones asserts
jurisdiction by reason of a United States government
defendant 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.
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
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.).
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.).
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
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.).
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).
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 ...