Jones v. Town of Bridgeville Delaware
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding MOTION to Dismiss (D.I. 12 ). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/6/2015. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
C.A. No.: 1:15-CV-00204-RGA
TOWN OF BRIDGEVILLE,
Matthew Jones, Greenwood, DE. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Roger D. Landon, Esq. and Lauren A. Cirrinicione, Esq., Murphy & Landon, Wilmington, DE.
Attorneys for Defendant.
July ~ , 2015
Plaintiff Matthew Jones filed this action against Defendant Town of Bridgeville,
Delaware, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Plaintiff proceeds prose. Before the Court is
Defendant's motion to dismiss. (D.I. 12).
Plaintiff alleges a series of wrongs committed by Troop 5 of the Delaware State Police.
(D.I. 2). He alleges that after Troop 5 arrested him for felony assault and felony terroristic
threatening, he spent over ten days in jail before his hearing. (Id. at 9). He then alleges that he
was held for an additional ten hours after posting bail. (Id. at 9-10). In addition, he alleges that
Troop 5 failed to investigate the abuse he suffered from Linda C. Jones, the woman he believes
kidnapped him at birth. (Id.at 10-11; D.I. 13 at 71-72). Plaintiffs basis for suing the Town of
Bridgeville stems from Troop 5's location in Bridgeville and his attendance of school in
Bridgeville while allegedly remaining kidnapped. (D.I. 13 at 71-72).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendant seeks dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (D.I. 12). 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). "To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir.
2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
Because Plaintiff proceeds prose, 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) (internal quotation marks
Defendant argues Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to
make any allegations against the Town of Bridgeville. (D.I. 12, i-!i-11-6). Even when liberally
construing Plaintiff's Complaint, as the Court must, Defendant is correct. Plaintiff's Complaint
consists of alleged wrongs committed by the Delaware State Police, an entity not under
Bridgeville's control. Bridgeville's Town Charter does not provide for any power over the
Delaware State Police. See Bridgeville, Del., C. (Charter)§§ 1-47. Rather, the Delaware State
Police finds its origination in 11 Del. C. § 8301, et seq., and the Delaware Code contains the
state police's powers and duties. The case Plaintiff cites, Johnson v. City of Seaford, No. 1: 12cv-01680, does not serve as precedent in this case. Unlike the situation here, that case involved
the City of Seaford's own police force, not the Delaware State Police.
Plaintiffs Complaint, interpreted liberally, could be read to state that he is suing the
United States government. However, Plaintiff makes no allegations connecting the Delaware
State Police to the United States government. Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be
granted because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the Town
of Bridgeville, Delaware, or the United States.
Because Plaintiff fails to make any allegations against the Town of Bridgeville or the
United States government, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to dismiss. (D.I. 12).
An appropriate order will be entered.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?