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. Bauer

United States District Court, D. Delaware

November 19, 2018

DR. FREDERICK V. BAUER, etal., Defendants.

          Matthew Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.

          Joshua Meyerhoff, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Nanticoke Memorial Hospital.



         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). 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).


         Defendants 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.

         In the 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.).

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff 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).


         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 327-28; Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774 (3d Cir. 1989).

         The 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).

         Plaintiff 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 that ...

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.