No. 20-6056

Matthew Jones v. Jose Capiro

Lower Court: Delaware
Docketed: 2020-10-16
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 8th-amendment abuse-of-process civil-procedure civil-rights court-appointed-psychiatrist due-process judicial-process legal-frivolity malicious-prosecution medical-misdiagnosis section-1983-claim standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Punishment
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the lower Courts correctly use the 10-delaware-code-subsection-8803

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the lower Courts correctly use the law 10 Delaware Code Subsection 8803? The Delaware Superior Court, Judge Neil Eason Primos, decided that my complaint is “factually frivolous” and my allegations are “baseless, of little or no weight, value or importance, [or] not worthy of serious attention or trivial.” He decided that my claims are “legally frivolous” and are “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” He decided that my claims were “malicious” and that they were “designed to , vex, injure or harass, or which are otherwise abusive of the judicial ee process or which realleges pending or previously litigated claims.” He : cited 10 Delaware Code Subsection 8803. The Supreme Court of Delaware Affirmed. . --|+-++ 2..Were my complaints previously decided in Jones v. Dr. M. Hay (2019) Del. Superior Court K19C-11-029 NEP , and Jones v. Commissioner A. ; Howard (2018) U.S. District Court of Delaware 18-1207 RGA as the Superior Court judged? The Supreme Court of Delaware Affirmed, 3. Isa 42 US.C. Section 1983 claim correctly made when a Court appointed . psychiatrist misdiagnoses a victim as illiterate, unable to control his body, ' hallucinating, delusional, and or having aversion and negative symptoms? 4. Isa 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim correctly made when a Court appointed psychiatrist forces a patient to take medications that damage his heart, and continues to prescribe the heart damaging medications as the heart damage persists, and becomes possibly life ending? 5. Is an 8th Amendment to the U.S.A. Constitution claim correctly made when a Court appointed psychiatrist misdiagnoses a victim as illiterate, unable to control his body, hallucinating, delusional, and or having aversion and negative symptoms? 6. Is an 8th Amendment to the U.S.A. Constitution claim correctly made when a Court appointed psychiatrist forces a patient to take medications ee ee that damage his heart, and continues to prescribe the heart damaging medications as the heart damage persists, and becomes possibly life ending? an .7.. Should a medical affidavit of merit signed by an expert witness be . required to make these claims? .

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2020-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-10-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)

Attorneys

Matthew Jones
Matthew Jones — Petitioner
Matthew Jones — Petitioner