Michael-destry Williams v. United States

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
PATRICIA W. GRIFFIN CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
MASTER IN CHANCERY 34 The Circle
GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
Final Report: July 16, 2018
Date Submitted: July 3, 2018
Michael-destry Family of Williams
Federal Correction Institution
FCI Englewood Prison
BOP# 39714-013
9595 W. Quincy Avenue
Littleton, CO 80123
RE: Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America
C.A. No. 2018-0511-PWG
Dear Mr. Williams:
You previously filed a petition for instructions with this Court, naming the
United States of America, Inc. as defendant, and seeking preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief releasing you from incarceration at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Englewood, in Littleton, Colorado. This was allegedly
because of unlawful presentment and trial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, in which you were found guilty and
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America
Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG
July 16, 2018
incarcerated.1 You also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. In a Final Report
issued on April 30, 2018 (“Final Report”), I recommended that the Court grant
your application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismiss the petition as legally
frivolous for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 With no objections being filed by
the time required in Court of Chancery Rule 144, the Court approved that Final
Report, adopting its findings, on May 17, 2018.3
On June 28, 2018, you filed, substantively, the same petition for instructions
with this Court (with minor changes, such as the date the document was executed),
and added exceptions to the earlier Master’s Report, as well as a petition for a
temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunctive
relief, and a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
First, I refer you to the previous Final Report for the background in this case.
For your convenience, a copy of the previous Final Report is enclosed. And, as
was determined in the previous action, you have met the criteria for prisoners to
proceed in forma pauperis under 10 Del. C. §8804, and I recommend that the
Court grant your application to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter.
1
Michael-destry Williams © Tr. v. United States, 2018 WL 2050363, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr.
30, 2018).
2
Id., at *2.
3
Final Order, Michael-destry Williams © Tr. v. United States, No. 2018-0320-PWG (Del.
Ch. May 17, 2018), Docket Item 4.
2
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America
Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG
July 16, 2018
If the Court grants an inmate’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, then
the Court determines whether the complaint is factually frivolous, malicious or
legally frivolous.4 Delaware’s in forma pauperis statute defines a legally frivolous
complaint as one that is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” 5 When
it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action, the
action must be dismissed.6 I recommend that the Court dismiss your new filings as
legally frivolous for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
With regard to the petition for instructions, the claims contained in that
petition remain the same as were analyzed by the Court in the previous action. I
refer you to that Final Report for the discussion of the analysis and findings with
regard to those matters, which remain applicable to the new petition.
4
10 Del. C. §8803(b).
5
10 Del. C. §8801(7); McCoy v. Taylor, 1998 WL 842322, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 12,
1998).
6
Ct. Ch. R. 12(h)(3); see also Czarninski Baier v. Upper N.Y. Inv. Co. LLC, 2018 WL
1791996, at *5 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2018). For a more in-depth discussion of subject
matter jurisdiction, I direct you to the previous Final Report which states: “The Court of
Chancery is a Delaware state court of limited jurisdiction. It has subject matter
jurisdiction over a case in three ways: (1) the plaintiff asserts an equitable claim; (2) the
plaintiff requests equitable relief for which there is no adequate remedy at law; or (3)
subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by statute. When it appears that the Court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action, the action must be dismissed. Because
subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable, a court has an ‘independent obligation to
satisfy themselves of jurisdiction if it is in doubt.’” Michael-destry Williams © Tr. v.
United States, 2018 WL 2050363, at *2 (internal citations omitted).
3
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America
Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG
July 16, 2018
In this action, you have also filed exceptions to the earlier Master’s Report
and a petition for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and
permanent injunctive relief. I recommend that the exceptions be rejected as
untimely, since exceptions to a Master’s Final Report must be filed within 11 days
of the date of the Final Report.7 That Final Report was issued on April 30, 2018,
so the filing period for exceptions has long since passed.
Even if the claims contained in the exceptions were considered, they would
fail because they relate to actions taken by officers or agents of the United States
federal government in federal criminal matters occurring in Colorado, and have no
demonstrated connection to Delaware or to a Delaware entity, nor do they request
relief that this Court can grant. Similarly, the claims in the petition for a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunctive relief fail for
the same reasons.
In conclusion, I recommend the Court grant your application to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss these new claims as legally frivolous for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. This is a final report and I refer you to Court of
Chancery Rule 144 for the process of taking exception to a Master’s final report. I
also note that, if this final report is adopted by the Court, this action would serve as
the second instance in this Court in which a complaint you filed was dismissed as
7
Ct. Ch. R. 144.
4
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America
Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG
July 16, 2018
frivolous. Under Delaware’s in forma pauperis statute, if a prisoner has, on three
or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an
action in a court that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious
or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, he may not proceed in
forma pauperis in the future, unless he is “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury at the time the complaint is filed.”8
Sincerely,
/s/ Patricia W. Griffin
Master in Chancery
8
10 Del. C. §8804(f).
5