United States District Court, D. Delaware
LEO R. MADDOX, Plaintiff,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
Maddox, Lyndhurst, Virginia. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Leo R. Maddox, who appears pro se and has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
commenced this action on May 16, 2019, raising claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961-68. (D.I. 1). The Court reviews and screens
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
raises § 1983 and civil RICO claims relating to his
arrest, indictment, guilty plea, and attorney representation
spanning a time-frame from September 25, 2009 through June
17, 2014. (See D.I. 1 at 6-13). His sentencing was
on August 9, 2011. (Id. at 12).
Delaware Supreme Court described Plaintiff's criminal
case as follows:
[Plaintiff] was indicted by a grand jury on twenty offenses,
including eleven felony charges. After multiple continuances
and just prior to trial, [Plaintiff] pled guilty to two
felony charges of Possession of a Firearm by a Person
Prohibited ("PFBPP"). In exchange, the State agreed
to nolle prosse all of [Plaintiffs] remaining charges. During
the plea colloquy, [Plaintiff] affirmed that he was satisfied
with his attorney's representation and that he entered
the plea freely and voluntarily. The Superior Court judge
accepted the plea after finding that it was made voluntarily
and with an understanding of the nature of the charges and
the consequences of the plea. A presentence investigation was
Prior to sentencing, [Plaintiff] filed a pro se
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and requested new counsel,
contending that his plea was involuntary, that his counsel
was ineffective, and that he had a basis to assert legal
innocence. The Superior Court denied the motion after a
hearing where [Plaintiff] was represented by new counsel.
[Plaintiff] was sentenced to five years at Level V, given
credit for time served, and the balance of the sentence was
suspended for probation.
Maddox v. State, 2012 WL 385600, at *1, 36 A.3d 360
(Del. 2012) (table).
appealed the Superior Court decision denying his pro
se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. The
Delaware Supreme Court found no merit to the appeal and
affirmed. Id. Plaintiff next sought Rule 61
postconviction relief, but the matter was dismissed by the
Superior Court, and the dismissal affirmed by the Delaware
Supreme Court. Maddox v. State, 2014 WL 644394, 85
A.3d 88 (table) (2014). Plaintiff sought certiorari and his
petition for writ of certiorari was denied on October 6,
2014. See Maddox v. Delaware, 135 S.Ct. 81 (2014).
also filed a civil action against his criminal defense
attorney claiming inadequate representation. See Maddox
v. Collins, 2015 WL 5786349 (Del. Super. Oct. 5, 2015).
The case was dismissed as time-barred and as having been
previously litigated in a criminal proceeding. Id.
at *2. In addition, Plaintiff filed a civil action against
the State of Delaware alleging that he was a victim of fraud
by the State and the Court when the Court denied Plaintiffs
Rule 32(d) and Rule 61 motions to withdraw his guilty plea
relating to the 2009 arrest and later conviction. Maddox
v. State, 2015 WL 7301885 (Del. Super. Nov. 18, 2015).
The action was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable
cause of action against the State and as barred by the
doctrine of sovereign immunity and the doctrines of
collateral estoppel and res judicata. Id. at *1.
Plaintiff was placed on notice that further suits involving
the same allegations would be dismissed sua sponte.
now claims he was a victim of the criminal justice system and
that many of his constitutional rights were violated. He
seeks $300 million 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); Ehckson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro
se, his pleading is liberally construed and ...