Harrison v. City or Town of Smyrna, K17C-08-038 NEP

Plaintiff Clarence S. Harrison Jr., pro se, filed a short amended complaint alleging an illegal stop, groping, illegal vehicle search, theft by deception, discriminatory profiling in violation of the 1977 Human Rights Act, threats, repeated calls calling him a terrorist, and $1.5 million damage to a painting.
Defendants are Officer K. Fox and the Town of Smyrna, who moved to dismiss under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6) and invoked sovereign immunity under the Delaware Tort Claims Act.
The Court heard oral argument and reviewed written submissions; the parties’ oral statements added little beyond the papers.
The Court accepts well-pleaded facts as true but rejects conclusory allegations lacking specific factual detail required for meaningful review.
The complaint provided no dates, locations, specific conduct by identifiable defendants, or factual context — rendering it wholly conclusory and insufficient to state a claim.
The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, permitting refiling with adequate factual allegations; the Court did not decide sovereign immunity because the factual record was inadequate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)	Harrison alleges civil rights violations, assault/groping, illegal search, theft, discrimination, threats, and property damage	Complaint is conclusory and lacks factual specificity to state a claim	Dismissed for failure to plead sufficient factual detail; may refile with specifics
Applicability of Delaware Tort Claims Act sovereign immunity	Impliedly seeks to hold officer and municipality liable	Smyrna and Officer Fox assert immunity under 10 Del. C. § 4011	Court did not reach immunity issue due to inadequate factual allegations
Standard of review for pro se complaints	Harrison relies on pro se status for leniency	Defendants argue rules of pleading still apply; conclusory claims insufficient	Court applies a forgiving standard but enforces pleading requirements; no special rules for pro se that override substance
Whether prior caselaw supports dismissal of conclusory, one-line complaints	N/A (Harrison offered no controlling mis-specific pleadings)	Defendants cite authority permitting dismissal of conclusory lists	Court follows precedent and dismisses when complaint is a bare recitation of allegations

Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (pleading standard: accept well-pleaded facts as true for motion to dismiss)
Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011) (pleading requirements and evaluation of motions to dismiss)
Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949 (Del. 1990) (complaints that are conclusory and lack specificity may be dismissed)
Draper v. Med. Ctr. of Del., 767 A.2d 796 (Del. 2001) (pro se plaintiffs receive leniency but are still bound by substantive pleading rules)