Maddox v. The State of Delaware et al, No. 5:2018cv00140 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 11/19/2018. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN T H E U N ITE D STATES D ISTRICT COU M ERK'SoFFlcE FORTHEWESTERN DISTRICT OFW RGINIA ATRT u tJK jt un 'V l s Axcour H ARRISO N BU RG D IW SION ED Nûy j! 2212 LE O R.M AD D OX , JU BY; Plaintiffy .U Case N o.5:18cv00140 L Rx CLERK V. By: M ichaelF.U rbansld STATE O F D EIA W ARR , ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge MlI-L, D efendants. M EM O R AN D U M O PIN ION Proceeding ptq sq,plaintiffLeoR.Maddox flled theinstantComplainttthe - - ffcomplaint''or<TComp1.''),ECF No.2.In theaccompanyingorderenteredv4:1, 1tlzis m em orandum opinion,the courtwillgrantM addox leave to proceed in form a au erisdue tohisindkence.AfterreviewingtheComplaint,thecout'tconcludes'thattheactbnmustbe dismissed forlackofjurisdicdon,putsuanttoFederalRuleofCivilPzocedlzre129$(1)-(2). Under28U.S.C.j1915,disttictcourtshaveadutytoscreeniniéalfilingsand dismiss a com plaintfied in form a au eris<fatany tim eifthe courtdete- inesthat...the acdon ...isfrivolousozmalicious...gor)failsto stateacllim on wllich reliefmaybe granted.''28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-$);seealsoErilineCo.S.A.v.lohnson,440F.3d'648, Maddox v. The State of Delaware et al 656(4thCir.2006)(internalquotationsomitted)rfgsectionl1915pe- itsdistrictcouttsto Doc. 3 independently assessthem eritsofin fot'm a au eriscom plaints,and to exclude suitsthat haveno arguablebasisinlaw orfact.'). The cotutconsttues zo secom plaintsEberally,im posing fflesssttingentstandards than formalpleadingsdraftedbylawyers.''Ericksonv.Pardus,551U.S.89,94(2007) Dockets.Justia.com (quoéngEstellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,104-05(1976)).Nonetheless,f<acomplaintmust contain sufficientfactualm attez,accepted asttue,to fstatea clnim ofteliefthatisplausible onitsface.'''Ashcroftv.Ibal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quoéngBellAtl.Co .v. Twombl,550U.S.544,,570 (2007). TllisisnottheflzsttimethatM addox hasraised nearlyidenécalclnimsin frontofthis court.lSeeComplaint,M addoxv.Brown (W .D.Va.5:17-cv-00010),ECF No.2;Complaint, Maddoxv.Brown (M addox II)(W .D.Va.5:17-cv-00055),ECF No.2.In theReportand RecommendadoninMaddoxII,themagistratejudgewêote: It is w orth noting at the outset that M addox's fllings ate ffso riddled with various gram m atical and syntactical errors,'' Cadm us v. W illiam son, N o. 5:15cv45,2016W L 1047087,at*11 (W.D.Va.V ar.10,2016),and contain so m any conclusory,often urlintelligible statem ents thatitis alm ostim possible Tfto determ ine precisely the natlzre ofthe com plaintand the reliefrequested'' againsteach nam ed defendant,Beaudettv.Ci ofH am ton,775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir.1985).Those fferrorsare only compounded by (llislV tchen sink'approach to pleading and hisfailure to m ake cleatwhatspecific conduct and parées are encom passed in each count.''zCadm us,2016 W L 1047087,at *11.W hat is very clear,however,is that M addox is convinced he w as not legally a fffelon''w hen D elaware charged him wit.h the fuearm s offenses and he believes thatthe D efendants ffconspired''to artest,prosecute,and convict him on those fffalse''or fffraudulent''chargesin violation of a whole hostof llisfederalconstitazdonalrights. R&R rfM addox 11R&R?')at3-4,Maddox ll,ECF No.42 (alteradonsand footnotein orkinal)(docketcitationsomitted).ThesamesittzationfullyappliestothisComplaint. MaddoxnamestheStateofDelaware,theDoverPoliceDepartmentttheV'DPD?), andtheLaw Firm ofPatrickl.CollinsrfcollinsLaw''and collectivelyfr efendants?).Asfar asthe courtcan gather,M addox raisesm yriad clnim sagainstD efendants,including clnim s 1Ptusuantto28U.S.C.j1915,thecout'thasalsorecentlyclisnaissedoneother,unrelated rosecompbintftledby Maddox.SeeOrder,Maddoxv.Cie inancialMortg.Co.,5:18-cv-00041(W.D.Va.Mar.29,2018),ECFNo.4. 2InfactMaddox'sallegaéonsarenotbrokenoutintoseparatecllimsorcotmtsatall.Fed.R.Civ.P.8(d),'1099. 2 azising outoftheFifth and Fotuteenth Am endm entsto theU .S.Constim don,42 U .S.C. j1983,TitlesVIand VIIoftheCivilmghtsActof1964,federalantitrustandRICO statutes,and the SecuritiesA ctof1933. TheComplaintfailsto establish jurisdicdon overany ofthedefendants,mandating disnnissal.TheEleventhAmendmentdiveststhecouttofjudsdicdontoheartheclaims agninstthe StateofD elaware.SeeU .S.Const.am end.X I;SeminoleTribe ofFla.v.Florida, 517U.S.44,54(1996).BecausefederalcourtslackjlzrisdictiontohearcasesagainsttheState ofDelaware,thecourtwl 'lldismisstheclnimsagainsttheStateofDelawarewithprejudice. NordoesMaddoxpleadfactssufEcienttoestablishpersonaljutisdicdonoverthe DPD orCollins.A courtmayonlyexercisepersonaljurisdiction overanonresident defendantif<<(1)theexerciseofjtzrisdicdon gisqauthorizedunderthestate'slong-at'm statute; and (2)theexerciseofjutisdicdon comportgs)with thedueprocesszequitementsofthe Fourteenth Am endm ent.''CareftrstofM d.Inc.v.CareflzstPre anc Ctrs.,334 F.3d 390, 396(4thCiz.2003).TheVirginialong-atm statuteKfextendgsjjurisdictiontotheextent pe= issibleunderthedueprocessclause.''En lish & Snaithv.M etz er,901F.2d 36,38 (4th Cir.1990). AstheReport& Recom m endadon in M addox 11aptly stated: The Supreme Cotztt has fftecognized two types of personal jurisdiction: rgenetal'(sometimescalledfall-purpose')jllrisdictionand fspecifk'(somedmes called fcase-linked')jlltiscliction.''Bristol-M ersS uibb Co.v.Su r.Ct.ofCal. San Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779-80 (2017) (quoting Good ear Dulalo TiresO erat lons S.A.v.Brown,564U.S.915,919 (2011)).f<A court withgeneraljurisdicdonmayheargs-ycbim againstthatdefendant,evenifall the incidents underlying the clnim occuzzed in a clifferentState.''1d.at 1780. Genetal personal jtuisdiction lies when the defendant has purposefully established ffcondnuous and system atic': contact with the forum state, G ood ear,564 U.S.at919,such aswhen an individuallives or residesthere, ' Bristol-M ers S uibb, 137 S.Ct.at 1780.See J.Mclntyre Mach.,Ltd.v. Nicastro,564 U.S.873,880 (2011).ffspecifc jurisdiction is very different.'' Bristol-M ers S uibb, 137 S.Ct. at 1780.For a court to Tfexercise specific jurisdiction,the suitmustazise outofoz relate to the defendant'scontacts with theforum.''Id.(cleaned up).Putdifferently,f'theremustbeTan afftliation between thefortzm and theunderlying conttoversy,principally,(anjactivityor an occurrence that takes place in the fortzm State.'''Id.at 1781 (quoting Good ear,564U.S.at919). M addox 11R&R 20. Underthe sam e factsasM addox proffered in M addox II,thecout'theld thatitcould notexercisepersonaljtzrisdicdonoverPatrickl.Collins(theatorneywhorepresented M addox in theunderlying D elawarecrim inalacéon and presum ably the principalofCollins Law)and severaloffkersoftheDPD .J-I. L at20-21.Even constraing theCom plaintliberally, asthe courtmust,the Complaintallegesno factssuggesting thatCollinsLaw orthe DPD haspurposely established Tfcondnuousand system aéc''contactwit. h Vitginia,orthatany of CollinsLaw 'sorthe DPD 'Spurported wrongfulactsarose outoftheircontactswith Virgilaia.To the contrary,M addox failsto plead thateitherCollinsLaw ortheD PD ever havehad any contactswith Virginia. Thelackofpezsonaljurisdiction Tfisobviousfrom thefaceoftlzecomplaintand no furtherfacmalrecordisrequired tobedeveloped.''Trtzjillov.W illiams,465F.3d 1210,1217 (10+ Ciz.2006)(quotingFrat'usv.Deland,49F.3d673,674-75(101 Cit.1995)).Assuch, thecout.tfindsthatitcannotexercisepersonaljudsdictionoverCollinsLaw andtheDPD, and thecourtmustdisrnisstheclnimsagainstthem pursuantto28U.S.C.j1915.Seeida (allowing dislnissalunder28U.S.C.j1915when itisclearfrom thefaceofthecompbint thatthereisno personaljtzrisdiction);In am v.Assocs.Fin.Servs.Co.of1+ .,67F.3d 295, 1995WL 559601,at*1 (4th Cir.1995)(pezcuriam)(affirmingdismissalunder28U.S.C. j1915fotlackofpersonaljtuisdiction).ThecourtwilldisnnisstheclnimsagainstCollins Law and theDPD withoutprejudice,however,so thatM addoxmayrefzethem in the United StatesDistdctCourtfortheD isttictofD elaware. Maddox alsoappearsto seekreliefunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure60(a).3 Compl.2.Rule60(a)authorizesacoutttoffcorrectaclericalmistakeoramistakearising from oversightoronnissionwheneveroneisfoundin ajudgment,ordet,orotherpartofthe record.''Fed.R.Civ.P.60(a).Maddox'srequestforRule60(a)reliefmustbedeniedbecause hefailsto(1)referencethejudgment,order,orotherpattoftherpcordfrom thiscout'tthat hebelievescontainsa 'clericalerror;and (2)identifytheffmechanicaladjustmentg...,such ascorrecting transcription eztorsand m iscalculaéonss''thathewishesthecouttto perform . Sarénv.McNairLaw Fit' m PA,756F.3d259,265 (4th Cit.2014). The Clerk isditected to send copiesofthisM em orandum O pinion and the accom panying O rdezto plaintiff. . Enteted:November1j,2018 @ 'k .... a 7 * ' * ( M ichael . rb - . Chie nitedStatesDistdctJudge 3Maddoxasksforreliefff underRule60(b)(a).''Compl.2.ThatsubsecdondoesnotappearinRule60.Maddoxthen referencesffcorrec:onsbasedonClericalMistakes,Oversights,andOmissionsfotmdinaludgementgsic)Orderor otherpartoftheRecords,''whichclearlyzeferencesRule60(a). 5
]]>
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.
