Opinion
C.A. No. S07C-08-023.
August 20, 2008.
ORDER
1) On July 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants which stated:
ON 3/22/08 DEF. REMOVED (STOLE) MY CHEV. MALIBU PARKED AT LOT 35, AN EMPTY LOT A W/P MHP TO MAKE ROOM FOR NEIGHBOR RON DAVIS LOT C-21 TO MOVE INTO HIS M.H. HE NEEDED SPACE FOR 2 OF HIS CARS AND 2 FRIENDS CARS TO UNLOAD.
DEF. HAD 2 POLICE OFFICERS, TROOPER LONG AND 2 CARS WATCH AT LOT C-35/C-37 WHILE PLAINTIFFS CAR WAS TAKEN.
UNDER THREAT OF CRIMINAL POLICE ACTIONS — GRAND THEFT-AUTO. DEF. RETURNED OUR CAR TO 7 LOTS N. OF WHERE PLAINTIFF PARKED CAR ORIGINALLY — AT NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS C-27 VANESSA, AND LOTS — 31 DICKERSON. HOWEVER PARKED OPPOSITE DIRECTION. DAMAGE WAS EXTENSIVE TO IGNITION LOCK/CYLINDER + HOUSING OF OUR CAR.
2) On July 22, 2008, this Court entered an order which granted plaintiff Earl H. Simmons' ("plaintiff") motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The order also ruled as follows:
A complaint must contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which the party deems itself entitled." Super. Ct. Civ. 8(a). Plaintiff's complaint does not meet that threshold requirement. Plaintiff does not establish that his vehicle was lawfully or rightfully on the vacant lot and that defendants did not have any right to move it. Furthermore, the complaint does not set forth a demand for judgment for the relief to which plaintiff deems himself entitled.
3) Plaintiff retrieved his file from the Prothonotary's Office and did the following: wrote on the original documents, adding a defendant to the complaint; scratched through the word "stolen" in the complaint as well as the Court's order; added "Easter Day" and crossed out "originally" on the complaint; and added "($639.) in removal and damages" at the end of the complaint. He also crossed out the original clock-in dates and re-clocked in the documents on August 6, 2008. For these egregious actions, which he also performed in the cases of Simmons v. WSFS Bank, C.A. No. S07C-08-022 and Simmons v. Wachovia Bank, C.A. No. S07C-08-039, the Court enters the following order:
i) Earl H. Simmons never shall be allowed to handle a Superior Court file without direct supervision by an employee of the Superior Court during the entire period he is reviewing the file; and
ii) Should Earl H. Simmons again mark upon an file or any document in any file of this Court, this Court will deem him in contempt of Court and shall impose sanctions on him.
4) Plaintiff also filed, on August 6, 2008, a document which set forth an alleged duty of the defendants "to preserve and protect all property of their tenants."
5) This addition to the complaint does not establish that plaintiff's vehicle was lawfully or rightfully on the vacant lot and that defendants did not have any right to move it.
6) Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's order of July 22, 2008. Thus, the complaint is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008.