Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00341-JJF Document 3 Filed 06/10/2008 Page1 of2
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOHN S. SHIPLEY, ROCHELLE D. :
SHIPLEY, :
Plaintiffs, ;
v. E Civil Action No. 08-341 JJF
NEW CASTLE COUNTY, HERSHAL E
PUROHIT, DONNA THOMPSON, :
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs, John S. Shipley and Rochelle D. Shipley
filed a prg sg Complaint on June 9, 2008, requesting “The Federal
Court stay the Sheriff Sale and give the Shipleys' [a]
opportunity to be heard [and] in the District Court",(Complaint,
11 in
The Complaint states, in paragraph two, it was filed
pursuant to “42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 (3) and 1986 -
Article 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment and Thirteenth Amendment"
based on acts of discrimination related to race.
In paragraph nine of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs
assert that the discriminatory acts alleged in this suit concern
the Superior Court’s denial of Shipley Plaintiffs’ trial or
hearing on the merits concerning their property. Additionally,
Plaintiffs assert they have been denied due process rights under
the United States Constitution and the County has filed false
statements claiming Shipleys' taxes are not paid which is false.

Case 1:08-cv-00341-JJF Document 3 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 2 of 2
Attached to the Complaint is a warning of a possible
tax monition sale issued on October 11, 2007 and posted on
October 18, 2007 by the Sheriff of New Castle County, Delaware
for property located at 609 Wildel Avenue, which according to the
Complaint is the residence of Plaintiffs.
The Defendants named by Plaintiffs are New Castle
County, Herschal Purohit and Donna Thompson.
The Court construes Plaintiffs' request for a stay as a
motion for a temporary restraining order and applies the four
prong test for the extraordinary relief which lacks notice to the
Defendants.
Considering Plaintiffs' allegations as set forth in
their Complaint the Court finds that: 1) Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim
of race discrimination; 2) Plaintiffs have not demonstrated
irreparable injury because state law allows for objections to a
monition sale to be filed and heard by the Superior Court post
sale; and 3) In the circumstances of a monition sale, challenges
to the premises of the sale and procedure of the sale alleging a
constitutional violation are more appropriately litigated after
completion of the state court process.
For these reasons, the Motion For Temporary Restraining
Order is DENIED.
June 10, 2008 `i%’
DATE STA&S DISTRICT J%G»E
2

Case 1:08-cv-00341-JJF

Document 3

Filed 06/10/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00341-JJF

Document 3

Filed 06/10/2008

Page 2 of 2