United States District Court, D. Delaware
MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Plaintiff,
U.S VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, Defendant.
Matthew N.P. Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Matthew N.P. Jones appears pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He
commenced this action on September 5, 2018. (D.I. 2). Jones
asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal question and the
United States government as a defendant. The Court proceeds
to screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
has named former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden as the sole
defendant. In the Complaint, Jones provides his biography
beginning at birth. Many of the allegations are similar to
those found in another case filed by Plaintiff, Civ. No.
17-1837-RGA and Civ. No. 18-1383-RGA. Plaintiff alleges
rapes, beatings and abuse.
allegations directed towards Defendant are raised pursuant to
federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3, as an accessory
after the fact. Plaintiff alleges that he met Defendant in
1994 while in the custody his father. Plaintiff alleges his
father was in regular contact with Defendant until 2003.
Plaintiff also met Defendant in the 1990's during the
Clinton/Dole campaign and at the Delaware State Fair "on
multiple days in multiple years." In addition, Plaintiff
heard Defendant speak at the University of Delaware in the
early 2000's. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was
present at Halloween parties he attended in 2000 and 2001 and
participated in unlawful acts. Finally, Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant is responsible for the spread of poison water
seeks ten 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. 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 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 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 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 be a
"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court
to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
allegations in the complaint are legally and factually
frivolous. As pled, there is no legal basis for
Plaintiff's claim against Defendant for multiple reasons.
To the extent the claims are raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 or as a Bivens claims for ...