United States District Court, D. Delaware
Matthew Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Meyerhoff, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Nanticoke Memorial
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). He asserts
jurisdiction by reason of a federal question. The Court
proceeds to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for default
judgment, opposed by Defendant Nanticoke Memorial Hospital.
(D.I. 5, 6).
are Nanticoke Memorial Hospital, Dr. Bauer, Dr. Hay, RN
Seipp, and Ms. Workman. At some unspecified time, according
to the Complaint, "Dr. Bauer and other Defendants
confessed that they are 'going to murder
[Plaintiff]." (D.I. 2 at 5). Other than that reference
to Dr. Bauer, Defendants are not mentioned by name except in
the case caption.
Complaint, Plaintiff raises claims similar to those in other
cases he filed in this Court against different defendants.
Plaintiff complains of actions between 2015 through 2017.
(D.I. 2 at 3). Plaintiff alleges "misdiagnosis and
intolerable poisonings constituting] cruel and unusual
punishment," and "mental health mistreatment
coincid[ing] with [lifelong] abuse, assault, attempted murder
and rape by the medical staff, state actors, and
agents." (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
"diagnosis of illiteracy and insanity hinder" his
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion.
(Id.). Plaintiff invokes his Seventh Amendment right
to a jury trial. (Id.).
provides his biography beginning in the first grade through
adulthood. (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff alleges that his
"condition was maliciously made[, a] known falsehood,
schizophrenia. Symptoms of the disease were that [Plaintiff]
'delusionally' believefs] that Linda C. Jones is not
[Plaintiff's] birth mother," in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1035. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff alleges
that schizophrenia can be detected by a brain scan, but
Defendants did not conduct a scan. (Id.). 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
Defendants were provided with this evidence and expert
testimony from a psychiatrist but continue with their
diagnosis and medications. (Id. at 6-7).
alleges Defendants attempted to murder him and assaulted him
on three or more occasions. (Id. at 12). He alleges
they have hindered his "ability to speak freely, work,
and have a reputation," in violation of his First
Amendment rights. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges
Defendants have violated numerous federal criminal statutes.
(Id. at 13-15). He seeks two billion dollars in
damages. (Id. at 17).
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. Tourscherv. 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 amended 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.'" Daw's 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