Opinion
CA. No. 07C-05-068 RRC.
Submitted: July 10, 2007.
Decided: July 19, 2007.
Upon Defendants Pam Minor and Raphael Williams' Motion to Dismiss.
GRANTED.
Gregory Johnson, Chester, Pennsylvania, pro se.
Erika Y. Tross, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants Pam Minor and Raphael Williams.
ORDER
This 19th day of July 2007, upon consideration of Defendants Minor and Williams' ("Moving Defendants") motion to dismiss, it appears to the Court that:
1. On May 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint, pro se, in this Court. The complaint is a one-half page list that states in its entirety:
Claims for Civil Issues
1. Intentional and negligent inflicting emotional distress and mental anguish
2. Unprofessional reasoning
3. Inflicting cruel and unusual punishment
4. Unprofessional conduct with the job functions
5. Harassment, prejudice, bias, and personalizing
6. Retaliatory punishment inflicted towards me
7. Illegally inflicting metal turbulence in my mind
8. Unaccredited teaching, lack of accreditation
9. Malice motivated with vindictiveness
10. Arbitrarily treated unfairly
11. Loss of personal property
Pl. Comp., D.I. 1.
Attached to the complaint is a handwritten page entitled "Certificate of Value," which asserts "this case is value [sic] over 100,000." Also attached to the complaint is a Superior Court Form 30, which for the most part is left blank. Moving Defendants subsequently filed this motion to dismiss on July 10, 2007. The Court understands both movants to be employed by the Department of Correction.
Under the circumstances, the Court did not ask Plaintiff to file a response to this motion.
2. When deciding a motion to dismiss, "all factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true." "Where allegations are merely conclusory, however ( i.e., without specific allegations of fact to support them) they may be deemed insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss." A complaint will not be dismissed under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) "unless it appears to a certainty that under no set of facts which could be proved to support the claim asserted would the plaintiff be entitled to relief." Therefore, the Court must determine "whether a plaintiff may recover under any reasonably conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under the complaint."
Plant v. Catalytic Constr. Co., 287 A.2d 682, 686 (Del.Super.Ct. 1972), aff'd 297 A.2d 37 (Del. 1972).
Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393, 398 (Del. 2000).
Id.
Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967, 968 (Del. 1978).
3. Plaintiff's complaint is nothing more than a list of vague and conclusory phrases. Plaintiff has not asserted any specific allegations of facts whatsoever to support his "claims." While the Court is mindful of the fact that this complaint was filed pro se, nevertheless, "at a minimum, the pleading must be adequate so the Court may conduct a meaningful consideration of the merits of [the plaintiff's] claims." The document styled by Plaintiff as a "complaint" contains absolutely no substance for the Court to conduct any such "meaningful consideration."
See Proctor v. Taylor, 2006 WL 1520085, at *1 (Del.Super.) (granting the defendant's motion to dismiss where the "allegations contained in the complaint were vague and unsubstantiated").
Alston v. Dipasquale, 2002 WL 77116, at *2 (Del.Super.) (dismissing a pro se plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim).
5. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.