Harrison v. Judge Scanlon

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CLARENCE HARRISON, )
)
Plaintiff, ) C.A. No.: K25C-07-003 NEP
)
v. )
)
JUDGE SCANLON, JUDGE SPIROS E. )
1

ANGELOS, MARIA FRANCESCO, ESQ., )
and CAROLINE KEARNS, )
)
Defendants. )

Submitted: July 3, 2025
Decided: July 25, 2025

ORDER

Upon Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
GRANTED

Upon Court’s Consideration of Complaint
DISMISSED

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court finds as follows:
1. On July 3, 2025, Plaintiff Clarence Harrison (“Plaintiff”) filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The affidavit attached indicated that
Plaintiff has limited liquid assets, no present employment, and no income within the
last twelve months. The affidavit alleged facts sufficient to convince the Court that

1
Plaintiff does not otherwise identify Judge Scanlon in the complaint, affidavit, or any other
document.
Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing costs and Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is therefore GRANTED.
2. Upon review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 8803(b),
the Court finds it is legally frivolous. It is therefore DISMISSED.
3. The Court views pro se in forma pauperis civil suits generously.2 “All
well-pled matters are accepted as true to determine whether . . . [a plaintiff] can
recover under any conceivable circumstances susceptible of proof under the
complaint.”3 Nonetheless, the Court will not allow itself or prospective defendants
“to become the victim[s] of frivolous or malicious claims” that are plainly “subject
to a motion to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) or subject to a
defense of immunity or subject to some other defect.”4 After granting an application
to proceed in forma pauperis, Delaware law requires that the Court dismiss the
underlying complaint if it is legally frivolous, factually frivolous, or malicious. 5 “If
a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, then it is deemed
legally frivolous.”6
4. The most intelligible claims in Defendant’s complaint are those
included on its cover page. That page reads, in its entirety, as follows:
This lawsuit 4s [sic] violations of the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution, the 14th Amendment to the Untied [sic] States
Constitution, and common law negligence. The facts underlying the
cause of action were set forth

2
Parsons v. Dushuttle, 2019 WL 1131956, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 8, 2019) (citing Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
3
Fatir v. Records, 2023 WL 6622214, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 11, 2023) (quoting Johnson v.
Howard, 1999 WL 743902, at *1 (Del. Aug. 12, 1999)).
4
Lee v. Johnson, 1996 WL 944868, at *1 (Del. Super. June 4, 1996).
5
Sanders v. Dep’t of Just., 2020 WL 1171045, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 11, 2020) (citing 10 Del.
C. § 8803(b)).
6
Fatir, 2023 WL 6622214, at *4 (quoting Johnson, 1999 WL 743902, at *1); Marvel v. State,
2014 WL 7009516, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 8, 2014) (citing Cannon v. McCreanor, 2003 WL
943247, at *2 (Del. Super. Mar. 6, 2003)).
2
[sic] arguing four points cited below verbatim.
(1) The violet [sic] violation of the plaintiff [sic] civil rights not
mention;
(2) The plaintiff [sic] rights to the Constitution violated;
(3) mention is the plaintiff [sic] individual rights;
(4) mention is the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
For reasons set forth [sic]
5. The balance of Plaintiff’s complaint is made up of five pages of
material seemingly cut and pasted from various sources. None of these sources is
cited or given context, and they are not arranged in any order that would render them
self-explanatory. Among the snippets of text included in the complaint are an
excerpt from what appears to be a judicial opinion (potentially relating to litigation
in which Plaintiff was involved, although there is no indication to this effect);
documents apparently relating to the Constitutional and professional obligations of
judges; the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution; and part of
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Elsewhere, Plaintiff pastes general
definitions of “robbery,” “theft,” “assault,” and “assault and battery.” The only
information self-evidently relating to Plaintiff is the caption “Harrison vs. Smith,”
which is accompanied by a “file number” and “claim number.” Neither is in the
format for a Delaware civil case.
6. Plaintiff fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and
Plaintiff’s claim is therefore legally frivolous. Even a pro se plaintiff “must, at a
minimum, provide the Court with enough information to conduct a meaningful
consideration of the merits.”7 “When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, ‘a trial
court must accept as true all of the well-pleaded allegations of fact,’ but is not

7
Brown v. Delaware State Hous. Auth., 2024 WL 524550, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 30, 2024)
(quoting Harrison v. Hodgson Vocational Tech. High Sch., 2007 WL 3112479, at *2 (Del. Super.
Oct. 3, 2007)) (therefore dismissing in forma pauperis complaint).
3
‘required to accept as true conclusory allegations without specific supporting factual
allegations.’” 8 Plaintiff has provided the Court with—at best—legal conclusions
with no indication of the underlying facts. Other than the cover page, Plaintiff’s
complaint is most fairly characterized as a jumble of text. This falls short of
Plaintiff’s duty to put Defendants on fair notice of the claims against them.
7. Further, because Plaintiff brings a claim of negligence, that allegation
is held to a higher standard. Negligence claims must comply with Superior Court
Civil Rule 9(b), which requires that such claims be pled with particularity.9 Under
Rule 9(b), “a complaint sounding in negligence must ‘specify a duty, a breach of
duty, who breached the duty, what act or failure to act caused the breach, and the
party who acted.’”10 Plaintiff does not do so.
8. As the Court has already determined that Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, it need not evaluate whether Plaintiff’s
complaint is legally frivolous for any other reason—for instance, due to a lack of
jurisdiction or because some of the parties are entitled to immunity. 11

8
Page v. Oath Inc., 270 A.3d 833, 842 (Del. 2022) (quoting In re Gen. Motors (Hughes) S’holder
Litig., 897 A.2d 162, 168 (Del. 2006)).
9
Murray v. Mason, 244 A.3d 187, 192 (Del. Super. 2020) (citing Fox v. Fox, 729A.2d 825, 827
n.2 (Del. 1999)).
10
Bowden v. Pinnacle Rehab. and Health Ctr., 2015 WL 1733753, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 8, 2015)
(quoting Rinaldi v. Iomega Corp., 1999 WL 1442014, at *7 (Del. Super. Sept. 3, 1999)).
11
The Court does, however, note that putative Defendants Judge Scanlon and Judge Angelos
appear to sit in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and that Maria Francesco’s law office is,
according to Plaintiff’s filing, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
4
WHEREFORE, in light of the preceding considerations, Plaintiff’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NEP/tls
Via File & ServeXpress and U.S. Mail
oc: Prothonotary
Clarence Harrison, Pro Se – Via U.S. Mail

5