Happle v. Mears et al, No. 1:2022cv01613 - Document 16 (D. Del. 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/15/2024. (nms)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Happle v. Mears et al Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THOMAS-MARTIN HAPPLE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 22-1613-RGA V. KATRINA MEARS, et al. , Defendants. Thomas-Martin Happle, Millsboro, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff. Scott G. Wilcox, Esq. , Giordano, DelCollo , Werb & Gagne, LLC , Wilmington , Delaware. Counsel for Defendants MEMORANDUM OPINION 1( March 2024 Wilmington, Delaware Dockets.Justia.com A~ , - ln December 2022 , Plaintiff Michael Sweeney, proceeding prose , filed this civil action. (0 .1. 1). Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. (0 .1. 11 ). The motion is fully briefed. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs allegations are as follows . After apparently receiving a tax bill from Sussex County, Delaware , Plaintiff sent the County a letter explaining that he was exempt from paying a "school tax." (0.1. 1 at 5) . Defendant Katrina Mears, a Sussex County employee, made a courtesy call to Plaintiff "warn[ing] [him] of what would happen if [he] didn 't pay. " (Id.) . Defendant Mears was "[v]ery polite and nice - just like the mob!" (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mears "extorted and explained in detail how the county removes our property for non-payment. " (Id. at 3) . Ultimately, Plaintiff paid his taxes, which he characterizes as a "donation" to the County. (Id. at 6). Plaintiff names two other Defendants, but he asserts no allegations against them. The Civil Cover Sheet to the Complaint references the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 241 and 242. (0 .1. 1-1). Plaintiff seeks $250 ,000 in damages and injunctive relief removing his and his wife's names from Sussex County records. II. LEGAL STANDARD In reviewing a motion filed under Fed . R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), I must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89 , 94 (2007) . Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se , his pleading is liberally construed and the Complaint, "however inartfully 1 pleaded , must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. at 94 . A Rule 12(b)(6) motion maybe granted only if, accepting the wellpleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the complainant, a court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 558 (2007) . "Though 'detailed factual allegations' are not required , a complaint must do more than simply provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action ."' Davis v. Abington Mem'I Hosp., 765 F.3d 236 , 241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) . I am "not required to credit bald assertions or legal conclusions improperly alleged in the complaint. " In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed , however, "for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted ." Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 11 (2014) (percuriam). A complainant must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has "substantive plausibility." Id. at 12. That plausibility must be found on the face of the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 678 (2009) . "A claim has facial plausibility when the [complainant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [accused] is liable for the misconduct alleged ." Id. Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679 . Ill. DISCUSSION This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of Plaintiffs invocation of federal law. Plaintiff, however, has failed to state a claim that Defendant 2 Mears violated any of his rights through her courtesy call advising him of the consequences of failing to pay taxes . The complaint is frivolous . Amendment is futile . IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons , I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss. A separate order shall issue. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
