Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-689-JJF.
May 14, 2002.
Carl R. Power, Plaintiff, pro se, Wilmington, Delaware.
James J. Hanley, Esquire of THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is a Motion To Dismiss (D.I. 10) filed by the Defendants, William Gordon and Roxanna Arsht (hereinafter "Defendants"). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion To Dismiss (D.I. 10) will be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The alleged conduct giving rise to the present claims asserted by Plaintiff, Carl R. Power (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), occurred in the 1970's and involve Plaintiff's appearance in the Family Court of the State of Delaware. From the Complaint and papers Plaintiff has filed, the Court understands Plaintiff believes that judges and employees of the Family Court committed criminal acts against him and, in various ways, violated rights that Plaintiff, like all other citizens, are guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
In 1996, Plaintiff brought similar claims in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. On a similar application by Defendants, the Superior Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims reasoning, on several grounds, that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed by Order dated April 11, 1997.
II. DISCUSSION
By their Motion, Defendants cite several grounds in support of their request for dismissal. In response, Plaintiff opposes dismissal and requests discovery. (D.I. 17).
After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court concludes that two legal principles prohibit Plaintiff's claims from going forward in this Court. They are the two year statute of limitations applicable to claims of the nature pled by Plaintiff, and the doctrine of judicial immunity as it pertains to claims for monetary damages. Because Plaintiff complains about events that occurred far more than two (2) years before the filing date of the Complaint, Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Defendant judges have not performed judicial duties since at least 1983, and therefore, relief other than money damages is clearly not available to Plaintiff.
Because the Court has concluded that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed, and because the Court cannot order discovery if the Complaint is dismissed, the Court will not address Plaintiff's request to permit discovery.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion To Dismiss. (D.I. 10).
An appropriate Order will be entered.
ORDER
At Wilmington this 14th day of May, 2002, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued this date; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion To Dismiss (D.I. 10) is GRANTED.