Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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. Ahmed

United States District Court, D. Delaware

February 11, 2019

MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ANIS AHMED and FELLOWSHIP HEALTH RESOURCES, Defendants.

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

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Matthew Jones, who appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed this action on September 5, 2018. (D.I. 2). He asserts jurisdiction by reason of a federal question. The Court screens the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition, Plaintiff moves for my recusal. (D.I. 5).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges the acts complained of occurred from 2007 through 2010 and in 2018, but provides no specific dates. (D.I. 2 at 2). The allegations are similar to those raised in Civ. No. 17-394-RGA. Plaintiff spent four years (presumably 2007 through 2010) in a court-ordered program, administered by Defendant Fellowship Health Resources, and under the care of Defendant Dr. Ahmed. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff alleges that trials are held every month for court-ordered patients, and during those four years he never received a trial date to plead for his release. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges his civil rights were violated because he was deprived of his right to trial under the Sixth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 9502, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (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. § 95011 (C) i-vi. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that his "condition was maliciously made," "a known falsehood, schizophrenia. Symptoms of the disease were that [Plaintiff] 'delusionally' believe[s] that Linda C. Jones is not [Plaintiff's] 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. at 6). 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 of speech and religion. (Id.). Plaintiff invokes his Seventh Amendment right to trial. (Id.).

         Plaintiff alleges he has been injured from head to toe. (Id. at 8). The antipsychotics given him have poisoned his body and brain. (Id.). The reputation of a schizophrenic man hinders his work and ability to find work. (Id.). He seeks two billion dollars in damages. (Id. at 8).

         RECUSAL

         Plaintiff moves for my recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). (D.I. 5). He claims that I have been abusive in denying him in forma pauperis status and refusing to issue U.S. Marshal service of summons and complaint in cases where he was granted in forma pauperis status. Jones contends that I set and hold him to deadlines, but do not hold his opponents to any deadlines, including deadlines of default judgment. He contends that even after evidence has been provided, I have taken no action on his behalf. Thus, Plaintiff contends that he remains kidnapped, raped, and poisoned under a false identity, all in violation of his First, Second, Eighth, and Thirteenth Amendment rights.

         A judge is required to recuse himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The test for recusal under § 455(a) is whether a "reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," In re Kensington Int'l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004), not "whether a judge actually harbors bias against a party," United States v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244, 258 (3d Cir. 2012). Under § 455(b)(1), a judge is required to recuse himself "[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party."

         Under either subsection, the bias necessary to require recusal generally "must stem from a source outside of the official proceedings." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994); Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 155, 167 (3d Cir. 2004) (beliefs or opinions which merit recusal must involve an extrajudicial factor). Hence, "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.

         It is evident that Plaintiff takes exception to my prior rulings and this serves as his basis to seek recusal. A reasonable, well-informed observer could not believe that the rulings were based on impartiality, bias, or actual prejudice by me. Nor do my rulings demonstrate the Court acting in such manner when ruling in the cases wherein Jones is a party. After careful and deliberate consideration, the undersigned concludes that the Court has no actual bias or prejudice towards Jones and that a reasonable, well- informed observer would not question the Court's impartiality. Considering the foregoing standard and after considering Plaintiff's assertions, I conclude that there are no grounds for my recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Therefore, I will deny the motion.

         SCREENING ...


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.