Jones v. United States District Court of Delaware
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 2 Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/19/2015. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MATTHEW N. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 15-731-RGA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE,
Defendant.
Matthew N. Jones, Greenwood, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
~
, 2015
November {
Wilmington, belaware
~~~~
ANDREWS,
u.s/ District Judge:
Plaintiff Matthew N. Jones, who appears pro se and has paid the filing fee, filed
this action against the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August
24, 2015. (D.I. 2).
Plaintiff has filed several civil lawsuits in this court. In each case he sought leave
to proceed in forma pauperis and, in all cases, the motions were denied based upon his
annual income. Plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee owed for each case and
advised in each case that the case would be closed should he fail to timely pay the
filing fee. He did not pay the filing fee in most cases, and the cases were closed. 1
Plaintiff complains that he should have been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. He alleges that, because his motions were denied, he was unable to treat his
medical needs, he is stuck in a false identity given to him by his kidnapper, and he is in
the custody of a "horribly violent, insane serial-killer who has murdered several family
members and attempted to take [his] life several times for many years." (D.I. 2 at 7).
Plaintiff seeks one million dollars in damages. Defendant was served on November 12,
2015. (D.I. 6).
The court has broad discretion in deciding whether to dismiss an action pursuant
to its inherent authority to manage its docket. Lee v. Krieg, 227 F. App'x 146, 148 (3d
Cir. 2007); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991) (the court has inherent
authority "to manage [its] own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
1
Plaintiff paid the filing fee in one case, Civ. No. 15-204-RGA, which was
dismissed on July 6, 2015, upon defendant's motion. (Civ. No. 15-204-RGA, D.I. 24,
25).
disposition of cases."). In addition, the court may curtail amendment of the complaint
where there is "futility of amendment." See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement for asserting a claim in
federal court. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998). A
court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the court sua
sponte. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at anytime that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").
Plaintiff's lawsuit must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As a
unit of the judicial branch of the federal government, Defendant is entitled to sovereign
immunity. See F.0.1.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The United States "may
not be sued without its consent ... the existence of which is a prerequisite for
jurisdiction." United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983).
For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims, amendment would be futile.
An appropriate order will be entered.
2
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?