Jamison v. Wilmington Police Department

Full title: CLARENCE U. JAMISON, Plaintiff, v. WILMINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Delaware

Date published: Mar 3, 2005

Civ. No. 04-033-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 3, 2005)

Opinion

Civ. No. 04-033-SLR.

March 3, 2005

Clarence U. Jamison, Howard R. Young Correctional Facility, Wilmington, Delaware. Pro Se.

Rosamaria Tassone, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Wilmington, Law Department, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE ROBINSON, Chief Judge, District

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Clarence U. Jamison filed this action on January 15, 2004, against defendant Wilmington Police Department. Plaintiff is seeking 20 million dollars in compensation for discrimination based on his disability and race, arising from an alleged illegal search and seizure conducted by police officers. (D.I. 2) The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Currently before the court is defendant's amended motion to dismiss. (D.I. 11) For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion shall be granted.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 15, 2004. (D.I. 2) An order authorizing service was issued on February 4, 2004. (D.I. 5) The copy of the service order sent to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on March 18, 2004. (D.I. 6) Service, nevertheless, was accomplished by May 2004 (D.I. 7), and defendant had filed an amended motion to dismiss by June 2004. (D.I. 11, 12, 13) A briefing schedule was entered by order dated July 1, 2004. (D.I. 16) The copy of the July 1, 2004 order sent to plaintiff once again was returned as undeliverable. By memorandum order dated October 13, 2004, the court directed the parties to supplement the record with respect to the search and seizure at issue in plaintiff's complaint. (D.I. 18) The copy of the October 13, 2004 order sent to plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (D.I. 19) Defendant requested additional time to respond, which was granted. (D.I. 21) A copy of the order granting the motion to extend time was sent to plaintiff, but was returned as undeliverable. Defendant filed its responsive papers to the October 13, 2004 order on December 10, 2004. (D.I. 22) Plaintiff has not responded or filed anything with the court since June 2004. The court's decision, therefore, is based on the record as provided by the defendant.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 15, 2004, Officers Robert Curry and Kurt Crawford, of the defendant Wilmington Police Department, were conducting surveillance in the 600 block of West 5^th Street, Wilmington, Delaware. The focus of the surveillance was a suspected drug house located at 624 West 5^th Street. (D.I. 22 at 2) While conducting the surveillance, Officer Curry observed the occupant of the house engage in two hand-to-hand drug transactions. (Id.)

At approximately 1:36 p.m., Officer Curry observed plaintiff approach the residence under surveillance.¹ The occupant of the residence exited and engaged in a brief discussion with plaintiff. (D.I. 22 at Ex. 1) After the conversation, the occupant re-entered the premises and plaintiff walked to the corner of 5^th and Madison Streets where he remained. About five minutes later, the occupant re-exited 624 West 5^th Street and approached plaintiff. (Id.) Officer Curry then observed plaintiff hand the occupant an unknown amount of money in return for a small item which plaintiff placed in his coat pocket. (Id.)

1 Officer Curry was the reporting officer on the crime report. (D.I. 22 at Ex. 1).

Officer Kurt Crawford immediately stopped plaintiff and conducted a search of plaintiff's person, recovering a plastic "zip lock" bag containing a green plant substance in plaintiff's coat pocket. (D.I. 22 at Ex. 1) The substance was field tested by Officer Crawford and it tested positive for marijuana with an approximate weight of 1.0 gram. Plaintiff was then transported to the Wilmington Police Department where he was issued a summons for possession of a non-narcotic Schedule I controlled substance and released after approximately fifteen minutes. (Id. at Ex. 1, 4).

At about 3:53 p.m. that same day, plaintiff filed the instant complaint against defendant alleging that he was subject to an illegal search and seizure based on discriminatory animus related to his race and disability. (Id.) Plaintiff's criminal trial was scheduled for May 19, 2004, in the New Castle County Court of Pleas. The matter was subsequently dismissed at the request of plaintiff's counsel, for failure of the police officers to appear. (D.I. 22 at Ex. 5).