Filed: Mar. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: CLD-109 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3247 _ MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Appellant v. BRIDGEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Sussex County, Delaware _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-17-cv-01350) District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews _ 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 February 21, 2
Summary: CLD-109 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-3247 _ MATTHEW N.P. JONES, Appellant v. BRIDGEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Sussex County, Delaware _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-17-cv-01350) District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews _ 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 February 21, 20..
More
CLD-109 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 18-3247
___________
MATTHEW N.P. JONES,
Appellant
v.
BRIDGEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Sussex County, Delaware
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-17-cv-01350)
District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews
____________________________________
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
February 21, 2019
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 15, 2019)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Matthew Jones filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, complaining primarily about a traffic ticket he received in his home town
for using a cell phone while driving. He also raised, as he often does, myriad allegations
of rape, murder, and kidnapping by members of that town’s police department. The D.C.
District Court transferred his complaint to the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware. After granting Jones’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the
District Court screened the complaint and dismissed it as frivolous.1
Like the District Court, we have an obligation under the IFP screening provisions
to determine if “the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We have determined that there is no merit to this appeal. See Neitzke
v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (explaining that an appeal is frivolous where none
of the legal points have arguable merit). Jones’s allegation that he received a traffic
ticket does not present any basis for a federal claim, and his remaining allegations are
based on fantastic or delusional factual scenarios. Moreover, while generally a plaintiff
should be granted leave to cure the deficiencies of a complaint subject to dismissal, we
agree with the District Court’s determination that such allowance would have been futile
in this case. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
We thus will dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
1
The District Court initially denied Jones’s application to proceed IFP, but Jones
appealed and we directed the District Court to grant his application. See C.A. No. 17-
3712 (order entered July 30, 2018).
2
We warn Jones that filing further meritless appeals in frivolous cases may result in
the imposition of sanctions or filing injunctions. See Brow v. Farrelly,
994 F.2d 1027,
1038 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), permits a court
to issue filing injunctions “to preclude abusive, groundless and vexatious litigation”).
3