Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

· e**‘·— · ’":" c' •· V i "• IO I *‘ ;‘=~‘··~ "‘% E rvin •‘i'* ".i';’ • ‘ ‘ ’
Daniel L. Moore
22 Ryan Avenue E @ E H W E
Rose Hill Gardens
New Castle, De. 19720 l _ _
J JL 6
July 6, 2005 ..
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
United States District Court for the UE
District of Delaware
Lock Box 27
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, De. 19801
Re: Daniel L. Moore, et. al. v. State of Delaware, et. al.
C.A. N0. 04-1396-JJF
Dear Judge Faman,
I received the copies of the Defendants Motion to Strike via the U.S. Postal
Service on June 8, 2005.
Attached along with this letter is my response to their motion which I pray the
Court will review favorably and allow all of the Plaintiffs to receive Justice for the
wrongs that were done to them.
l thank you in advance for your anticipated assistance and cooperation in this
matter.
Sincerely,
ala ·.. 3
Daniel L. Moore
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DANIEL L. MOORE, et. al. )
Plaintiffs T
v. l C. A. N0. 04-1396 JJF
STATE OF DELAWARE, l
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al. l
Defendants l
)
PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO DEF ENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE
1. In addressing Defendants Motion to Strike, (paragraph 3): the entitlement ofthe Eighth
(8m) Amendment rights is a broad spectrum ofthe Constitution and of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, reaching as far back as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.
1n LEE v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, C.A. 9 (Cal. 2001); at 250 F. 3d 668, (page (
18) states:
The Eighth (Su`) Amendmenfs prohibition of "eruel and unusual punishments", R
applies only "a1°ter conviction and sentence." GRAHAM v. CONNOR, 109 S.Ct. 1865
(1989), citing INGRAHAM v. WYRIGHT, 97 S.Ct. 140 (1971).
2. Furthermore, "The Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth (14m) Amendment
commands that no state shall deny to any person within itsjuiisdiction the equal
protection ofthe laws; which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated
should be treated alike." CITY OF CLEBURNE v. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, 105
S.Ct. 3249 (1985) citing PLYER v. DOE, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (1982).
l`
l

Case 1:04-cv-01396-JJF Document 22 Filed 07/06/2005 Page 3 of 4
3. Though a series of events have taken place over the course of this action, at this point
paragraph 3 of the Defendants motion is irrelevant; in fact, it is without merit because this
Court has been apprised of the content involved therein. The issues at hand are whether
the Plaintiffs have complied with the rules of the Court, as to which has been done in a
timely matter effective as to the original complaint.
4. As to Rule l2 in conjunction to D.Del L.R. 7.1.2, in relevance to;
(b). Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive
pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of
the pleader be made by motion:
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: See; GATTIS v, CITY OF
WILMINGTON, A.2d. , (Del. Super.Ct. Mar. 17, 2003). ZOREN v. GENESIS
ENERGY, L.P., 836 A.2d. 52l (Del. Ch. 2003).
In respect to this Court, Plaintiffs seek to have this Court to continue in a manner
designed so as to afford them the relief and entitlements due {rom the original course of
action.
_ _lt _ I L CM C s
. oore
22 Ryan Avenue p
Rose Hill Gardens l
New Castle, De. 19720 '
July 6, 2005
l

Case 1:04-cv-01396-JJF Document 22 Filed 07/06/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I did hand deliver two (2) tme copies of the, "Plaintiffs’ Response
To The Defendants Motion to Strike" to the attomey of record Richard W. Hubbard at
820 N. French Street, 6th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware on July 6, 2005.
F "t' L .
____ ... _\_. S KL
I
Daniel L. Moore
22 Ryan Avenue
Rose Hill Gardens
New Castle, De. 19720
July 6, 2005