Jones v. Justice of Peace Court Number 4, 080917 FED3, 17-1848

Docket Nº:17-1848
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:MATTHEW JONES, Appellant v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT NUMBER 4, in Sussex County, Delaware
Judge Panel:Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 09, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MATTHEW JONES, Appellant

v.

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT NUMBER 4, in Sussex County, Delaware

No. 17-1848

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

August 9, 2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 June 29, 2017

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 1-16-cv-01306) District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION [*]

PER CURIAM.

Proceeding pro se, Matthew Jones appeals the District Court's dismissal of his lawsuit alleging various criminal and constitutional violations against Justice of the Peace Court No. 4, in Sussex County, Delaware ("Justice of the Peace Court"). We will affirm.

Jones alleged in his complaint that "a long standing enslavement, malicious prosecution, fraudulent medical diagnosis, sexual slavery, forced labor, identity theft, larceny, forgery, assault, attempted murder, rape, pedophilia, and other felonious acts were committed" as a result of a September 17, 2015 traffic stop when he was ticketed for using a cell phone while driving. The traffic case was heard in the Justice of the Peace Court, and was dismissed when the arresting officer did not appear. The complaint additionally referred to a number of other traffic incidents that occurred between 2002 and 2010, and Jones requested two billion dollars in damages.

The District Court dismissed Jones's case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) on the grounds that his complaint sought money damages from a defendant who is immune from suit, did not state a claim, and was also frivolous. The District Court concluded that the complaint could not be amended to correct its deficiencies, and Jones timely appealed.1 We will summarily affirm because the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

We agree with the District Court's dismissal of the suit on the basis that the Justice of the Peace Court is a Delaware state entity. The Eleventh Amendment provides that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP