Opinion
C. A. K24C-12-025 NEP
12-30-2024
MARVIN LEE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY, CAMPUS COMMUNITY SCHOOL, THE EXCHANGE, ARMED FORCES MEDICAL EXAMINERS SYSTEM, CAESAR RODNEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, LAKE FOREST SCHOOL DISTRICT, BALLY'S CORPORATION, GAMING AND LEISURE PROPERTIES, and SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, LLC (SMI),[1] Defendants.
Submitted: December 16, 2024.
ORDER
Noel Eason Primos, Judge.
Upon Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis GRANTED
Upon Court's Consideration of Complaint DISMISSED
Upon consideration of Plaintiff s complaints and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds as follows:
1. On December 16, 2024, Mr. Brown filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The affidavit attached indicated that Mr. Brown had no assets or income and was presently unemployed. The affidavit alleged facts sufficient to convince the Court that Mr. Brown is unable to pay the filing costs and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore GRANTED.
2. Upon review of Plaintiffs manifold complaints, the Court finds that they are legally frivolous and malicious. They are therefore DISMISSED.
3. The Court views pro se in forma pauperis civil suits generously. "All well-pled matters are accepted as true to determine whether ... [a plaintiff] can recover under any conceivable circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint." Nonetheless, the Court will not allow itself or prospective defendants "to become the victim[s] of frivolous or malicious claims which on their face are clearly, [sic] subject to a motion to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) or subject to a defense of immunity or subject to some other defect." After granting an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss the underlying complaint if it is legally frivolous, factually frivolous, or malicious. "If a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, then it is deemed legally frivolous." "A claim is malicious when 'designed to vex, injure, or harass, or one which is otherwise abusive of the judicial process or which realleges pending or previously litigated claims.'"
Parsons v. Dushuttle, 2019 WL 1131956, at * 1 (Del. Super. Mar. 8, 2019) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
Fatir v. Records, 2023 WL 6622214, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 11, 2023) (quoting Johnson v. Howard, 1999 WL 743902, at *1 (Del. Aug. 12, 1999)).
Lee v. Johnson, 1996 WL 944868, at * I (Del. Super. June 4, 1996) (emphasis in original).
Sanders v. Dep't cf Just., 2020 WL 1171045, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 11, 2020) (citing 10 Del. C. § 8803(b)).
Fatir, 2023 WL 6622214, at *4 (quoting Johnson, 1999 WL 743902, at *1); Marvel v. State, 2014 WL 7009516, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 8, 2014) (citing Cannon v. McCreanor, 2003 WL 943247, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 6, 2003)).
Jones v. Dover Behavioral Health Sys., 2017 WL 3493118, at * 1 (Del. Super. Aug. 9, 2017) (quoting 10 Del. C. § 8801(8)).
4. Plaintiff s affidavit in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis indicates that the nature of his claim is "Inditment [sic] Number: 126753." Included in his filings are handwritten complaints against each Defendant, using the following template:
1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Delaware.
2. Defendant is a citizen of the state of Delaware residing at [address].
3. On or about 18 Nov 24 [sic] Defendant is requested to respond to Plaintiffs affidavit per inditment [sic] number 126753.
4. Defendant did not transfer ownership of the [property/house or facility].
5. Plaintiff, therefore, asks the court to award the Plaintiff with ownership of the [property/house or facility].
5. Plaintiff attached an additional handwritten page pertaining to each named Defendant, reciting as follows:
I, Marvin Lee Brown the Plaintiff is [sic] requesting the above Defendant to respond to this affidavit per inditment [sic] number 126753 in ownership of the Defendant's [property/house or facilities],
6. On the page addressed to Defendants Bally's Corporation and Gaming and Leisure Properties, Plaintiff requested a response to the same purported indictment "in ownership of the Defendant's facilities and itemized Corporation."
7. Plaintiffs complaints fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and dismissal is therefore appropriate under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6). As such, Plaintiffs complaints are legally frivolous. Neither Plaintiffs complaints nor his appended affidavits indicate any legal theory under which he may recover from any Defendant. Plaintiff names no cause of action and alleges no damages. The indictment to which Plaintiff refers was not attached to his complaint, nor could the Court locate any other litigation to which Plaintiff is or was a party. Even a pro se plaintiff "must, at a minimum, provide the Court with enough information to conduct a meaningful consideration of the merits." Plaintiff falls short of this bar. It appears reasonably certain that the Plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle him to relief.
Harrison v. Hodgson Vocational Tech. High Sch., 2007 WL 3112479, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 3, 2007) (accordingly dismissing the plaintiffs complaint).
See Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 458 (Del. Oct. 5, 2005) (citing Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029, 1034 (Del. 1998)) (reciting the standard for dismissal for failure to state a claim); accord Windsori, LLC v. CW Capital Asset Mgmt. LLC, 238 A.3d 863, 871-72 (Del. 2020) (stating that it is appropriate to dismiss a claim when the "plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof.") (internal quotation and citation omitted).
8. Plaintiff's complaints are also malicious. To the extent that it is discernable, Plaintiff's apparent intent is to obtain ownership of Bally's Casino, Dover Motor Speedway, Dover High School, and his own self-reported domicile (which he somewhat implausibly describes as the "residence" of the Delaware State Housing Authority), among other pieces of real estate. Given the rote nature of the complaints' recitals, the lack of any supporting facts, and the nature of Plaintiff's claim-effectively challenging Defendants to show cause why their property should not be transferred to him-it is plain that Plaintiff intends either to vex and harass Defendants or to obtain their assets by default judgment (notwithstanding his suits' lack of merit) if they do not respond. Both aims would be an abuse of the judicial process.
WHEREFORE, in light of the preceding considerations, Plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.