Background - Plaintiff Marcus Johnson, a detainee, sued Connections Community Support Programs, several named employees, and two fictitious "Jane Doe" defendants alleging failure to schedule medical appointments for sleep apnea, sinus issues, and allergies after grievances in Feb. and May 2016. - Plaintiff asserted negligence under 18 Del. C. § 6801(4) and invoked civil medical malpractice procedures; he also sought injunctive relief and later filed a separate motion for protective order/restraining order. - Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of improper service, failure to state a claim (no affidavit of merit for medical malpractice; insufficient facts for negligent supervision or deliberate indifference), and lack of jurisdiction for injunctive relief. - The grievance board ultimately upheld Plaintiff’s grievance and recommended timely scheduling; Plaintiff alleged scheduled appointments never occurred. - The Court dismissed claims against the two "Jane Doe" defendants because fictitious-name pleading is not permitted in Delaware and service cannot be effected on nonexistent parties. - The Court found Plaintiff failed to file the required affidavit of merit for medical negligence claims and failed to plead facts sufficient for negligent supervision or deliberate indifference; it also dismissed requests for injunctive relief for lack of jurisdiction. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Validity of suing "Jane Doe" defendants | Could identify unknown staff later; permitted to name unknowns now | Fictitious-name practice not permitted; service impossible | Dismissed — fictitious-name claims have no legal effect in Delaware | | Medical malpractice claim (affidavit of merit) | Claims arise from negligence in administration; Plaintiff labeled claim as ordinary negligence but within Chapter 68 | Chapter 68 malpractice claims require affidavit of merit under 18 Del. C. § 6853(a); absent one, claim defective | Dismissed — affidavit of merit required and none was filed | | Request for injunctive relief | Sought injunctive relief to obtain treatment | Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in these circumstances | Dismissed — injunctive relief unavailable in this Court | | Negligent supervision / deliberate indifference | Defendants failed to schedule appointments and provide treatment; negligent administration/supervision; deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | Allegations insufficiently particularized; no facts showing employer failed to exercise due care or that officials knew of and disregarded a substantial risk | Dismissed — complaint lacks facts to state negligent supervision or deliberate indifference claims | ### Key Cases Cited Spence v. Funk, 396 A.2d 967 (Del. 1978) (standard for sufficiency of complaint under motion to dismiss) Ramunno v. Cawley, 705 A.2d 1029 (Del. 1998) (pleading rules: accept well-pleaded allegations and draw inferences for nonmoving party) Diamond State Telephone Co. v. University of Delaware, 269 A.2d 52 (Del. 1970) (pleading must be without merit as fact or law to be dismissed) Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference standard for serious medical needs of prisoners)