IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MATTHEW JONES, ) Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 23-925 (JLH) DR. SYED SHAH, Defendant. MATTHEW JONES, ) Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 23-998 (JLH) DR. FOUAD EL CHIDIAK, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew Jones, Greenwood, Delaware — Pro Se Plaintiff.

May 13, 2024 Wilmington, Delaware

TALL, ES. DISTRIGT JUDGE: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Matthew Jones brings these civil rights actions under

against

two doctors. In both cases, Plaintiff appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaints pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). Il. BACKGROUND Plaintiff is not new to this Court. These two cases represent the thirty-eighth and thirty-

ninth complaints he has filed in this district since 2015. The Complaints in these two cases are

nearly identical. The primary difference s that different defendants are named. The Defendant in

each is a doctor. Plaintiff alleges that they are “private businessm[e]n presently doing business at

Dover Behavioral Health,” where they are, effectively, “State Actor[s] for the State of Delaware.”

(No. 23-925, D.I. 2 at 1; No. 23-998, D.I. 2 at 1.) He alleges that the two Defendant doctors each

misdiagnosed him with schizophrenia and prescribed him unnecessary and damaging medication.

Each of the complaints requests damages. IW. SCREENING OF COMPLAINTS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening provisions

of

(e)(2)(B) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” Ball v. Famiglio,

, 452 Gd Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted); see also

(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions). The Court must accept all factual allegations in

a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v.

County of Allegheny,

(3d Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his

pleadings are liberally construed and his Complaints, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v.

Wetzel,

(3d Cir. 2020). Rather, a claim is deemed frivolous only where it relies

on an “‘indisputably meritless legal theory’ or a ‘clearly baseless’ or ‘fantastic or delusional’ factual scenario.’”

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 ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions.

Tourscher v. McCullough,

(3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded complaint must

contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to

show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City of Shelby,

, 12

(2014) (per curiam). A complaint may not be dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the

legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See

. IV. DISCUSSION Plaintiff's Complaints are both frivolous. Plaintiff has filed many cases in this Court

directly or tangentially challenging his schizophrenia diagnoses over the years. See, ¢.g., Jones v.

Thomas, No. 19-896-RGA,

(D. Del. Sept. 13, 2023); Jones v. Capiro, No. 19-

895-RGA,

(D. Del. Apr. 20, 2020); Jones y. Thompson, No. 19-897-RGA,

(D. Del. Apr. 20, 2020); Jones v. Del. State Police Headquarters, 18-1379-

RGA,

(D. Del. Feb. 11, 2019); Jones v. Ahmed, No. 18-1382-RGA,

(D. Del. Feb. 11, 2019); Jones v. Dover Behavioral Health Sys., No. 17-394-RGA,

(D. Del. Dec. 12, 2018); Jones v. Bauer, No. 18-1208-RGA,

(D. Del. Nov. 19, 2018). Notably, this Court, in dismissing a 2018 case Plaintiff filed against Dover Behavioral Health Systems, stated: Interpreting the Second Amended Complaint liberally, perhaps it means to allege that Dover Behavioral Health System personnel were involved in the schizophrenia diagnosis. Assuming this was some sort of malpractice, it would not be the basis for a federal lawsuit, as there would be no diversity jurisdiction. Jones,

, at *3. The same is true here. Both Complaints will be dismissed. Amendment is futile. Vv. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court will dismiss the Complaints pursuant to

(€)(2)(B)(). An appropriate Order will be entered.