Gamble v. United States District Court of Delaware Judges, No. 1:2018cv01107 - Document 6 (D. Del. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/21/2019. (nmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gamble v. United States District Court of Delaware Judges Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE WAYNE T. GAMBLE, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 18-1107-LPS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE JUDGES, Defendant. Wayne T. Gamble, Wilmington, Delaware,Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION March 21,2019 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com SXAjUK, U.S. District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Wayne T. Gamble ("Plaintiff') filed this action on July 27,2018. (D.I. 2) He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed informa pauperis. (D.I. 4) The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he has been writing motions for two to three years, and the judges keep breaking the law. He alleges that many of his motions are granted and the judges are "way past the court dates... two years late, no letters, no court date schedules." He is still waiting. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2)(B) if"the action is frivolous or malicious, fads to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief firom a defendant who is immune from such relief." hall V. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448,452(3d Ctr. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(informa pauperis actions). The Court must accept aU factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County ofAllegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberady construed and his Complaint,"however inartfuUy pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted). An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neit^ke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an indisputably meridess legal theory" or a "clearly baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual scenario. Nei^^ke, 490 U.S. at 327-28; see also Wilson v. R' ackmill, 878 F.2d 772, 774(3d Cir. 1989). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions. See Tourschern. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240(3d Cir. 1999)(applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard to dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayvieiv State Hosp., 293 F.3dl03,114(3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Bel/yitl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,558 (2007). Though "detailed factual allegations" are not required, a complaint must do more than simply provide "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Dams v. A.bington Mem'lHosp.,165¥3d2'hC>,2A\ (3d Cir. 2014)(internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Williams v. BASF Catalysts ISLC^ 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) {cvSn^Ashcroft v. Iqhal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Finally, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City ofShelby, ^U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 346. Under the pleading regime established by Tmmbljand Iqbai, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim;(2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, the court should assume theic veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entidement to rehef. See Connelly v. Cane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Elements are sufficiendy alleged when the facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entided to relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requites the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. IV. DISCUSSION The aUegarions in the Complaint are both legally and factually frivolous and do not rise to the level of any constimtional violations. As pled, there is no legal basis for Plaintiffs claims. Further,"[a] judicial officer in the performance of his duties has absolute immunity from suit and win not be liable for his judicial acts." Capo^sso v. The Supreme Court ofNew Jersey, 588 F.3d 180, 184(3d Cir. 2009)(c^o^^yit^ubuko v. Royal, 443 F.3d 302, 303(3d Cir. 2006)). "A judge wiU not be deprived ofimmunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted 'in the clear absence of all jurisdiction."'. Id. (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff complains of court delays and the absence of schedules. He has not set forth any facts to show that any judge acted in the absence of jurisdiction. The judges of this Court have judicial immunity. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)and(iii). V. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court wiE dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (hi). The Court finds amendment futile. An appropriate Order follows.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
