Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

l
Case 1 :08-cv-00295—GI\/IS Docum • 30 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 1 of 3 m
{tag-?TA2‘€° -
° ;$.· `“¢
at rt8 r§; %r ;, K; l_
0. W J`. l
"°·=- m·¤·“l` cnvu. DIVISION 4;-mz; 577-8400
FAX (sez) srv-asso
DEPARTMENT or JUSTICE CR'“”"?k>[€'§8£l°¥$i$il§7?`B5°°
JOSEPH R. BTDEN, m 820NNE(9é'lQ:i-LIEENEBUSNFLJEET FW°F.?lVl?$$lJ5$:E€l3S7`86°°
ATTORNEY GENERAL wu.NuNeroN, DELAWARE mam rw (sez) an-me.
l
Please respond to: Civil Division
August ll, 2008 l
By Electronic Filing
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Chief Judge
United States District Court for the District of Delaware {
Caleb Boggs Federal Courthouse
844 N. King Street! Lock Box 18
Wilmington, DE 1980l _
Re: Shahin v. Darling, et al.
C.A. No. 08-295 GMS j
Dear Chief Judge Sleet:
Please accept this correspondence as my reply to Ms. Shahin’s Brief in Opposition to my
_ Motion to Dismiss.
lt is Ms. Shahin’s contention that because she has pursued her action exclusively under
Title 18 of the United States Code referencing "Crimes and Criminal Procedure", the State i
judicial defendants’ legal arguments are “completely irrelevant and inapplicable to the analysis
of the case the Plaintiff filed with the Federal District Court." (Plaintiff s Brief at page 2-3)(D.l.
29). It is her contention that the acts of the State judicial defendants are "cri1nes" and not subject
to the protections of judicial immunity. ld. E
As the State judicial defendants have contended (Argument VH in State Judicial
Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint)[D.1. 22), and as ,
defendants Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor and Liguori, Morris & Yiengst have more fully
set forth in their briefs in support of their own motions to dismiss, Ms. Shahin has no private
right of action under any of the provisions of Title 18 she has cited or utilized to allege
i jurisdiction in this matter.
Because Ms. Shahin does not concede that Title 18 is inapplicable, and that she does not
have a cause of action thereunder, she has chosen not to address any of the State judicial
defendants’ arguments on their merits. Regrettably, however, Ms. Shahin has brought a civil
action against the various defendants in this case, and she is seeking civil damages against the _ 1
defendants. The State judicial defendants’ bases for dismissal in this matter, therefore, are l
relevant in such a civil action seeking damages. With regard to these arguments, the State
judicial defendants stand by their contentions in the memorandum supporting their motion to 1
J dismiss. j

-
r Case 1:08-cv-00295—GI\/IS Document 30 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 3
Hon. Gregory Sleet ’
August ll, 2008 j
Page 2
Ms. Shahin also contends that undersigned counsel has "falsitied the basic fact[s] of this
case .... " (Plaintiffs Brief at pp. 1, 3, 13, 20, 41)(D.I. 29). As it appears that Ms. Shahin
considers the July 24, 2008 corrections to the State judicial defendants memorandum
"inadequate", and intends to pursue her Rule 11 motion for sanctions, counsel for the State
judicial defendants will provide a separate response to that motion apart from this reply.
I
Finally, Ms. Shahin suggests that your Honor should recuse himself from this matter due
to decisions rendered in civil action no.s 06-289 and 07-373. In your place, she is requesting a
three—judge district court pursuant to local mle 9.2 and 28 U.S.C. §2284.
As to Ms. Shahin’s "strong belief ’ that your Honor should recuse himself raising this
contention in the last two pages of an answering brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss is not
the proper procedure. A "strong belief’ is not a motion requesting a recusal. If Ms. Shahin is
seeking such reliet, she should not simply make a suggestion based upon a strong belief but
rather she should tile a proper motion and pennit not just the State judicial defendants, but all the
defendants the opportunity to respond in due course.
Ms. Shahin is certainly not entitled to have a three—judge district court designated to hear
her case. Even prior to the enactment of the current version of 28 U.S.C. §2284, such three- `
judge district courts were "not to be utilized freely, but only and strictly as Congress has
prescribed? Nixon v. Richey, 513 F.2d 430, 446 (D.C. Cir. 1975). Having to designate a three-
judge district court "places a burden on our federal court system. . .." A.B. Fort v. Mitchell, 333
F. Supp. 1199, l20l (N .D. Miss. 1971). As amended, 28 U.S.C. §2284 requires a three-judge
district court to be convened only "when otherwise required by Congress, or when an action is
filed challenging the constitutionality ofthe apportionment of congressional districts or the
apportionment of any statewide legislative body." 28 U.S.C. §2284. Ms. Shahin is not .
challenging an apportionment, and she has cited to no congressional act that would permit the ?
convening of a three—judge district court in her case. When enacting the present 28 U.S.C. ;
§2284, “Congress intended to reduce sharply the class of cases requiring the convening of a _
three-judge court." City 0fP/iiirrrie/,12/iici v. Kiutzriick, 503 F. Supp. 657, 658 (E.D. Pa. 1980). ~
Ms. Shah;in’s case is not among the class of cases where a three-judge district court is required. Z
Should the court require further briefing on the suggestion of a recusal, counsel for the
State judicial defendants is available to participate in such a request.
Respectfully yours,
{sg KBTJEITT, Q. Slizttegy ·
Kevin R. Slattery, No. 2297 i
Deputy Attorney General ·
Xe. Nina Shahin (via U.S. Mail) g

· Case 1 :08-cv-00295—GI\/IS Document 30 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 3 of 3
Hon. Gregory Sleet I
August ll, 2008 1
Page 3 l;
1 .
Richard H. Morse, Esq. (by U.S. Mail)
Norman H. Brooks, Jr., Esq. (by U.S. Mail)
Theodore J. Segletes, IH, Esq. (by U.S. Mail)
File ‘
I:/Kevin,Slattery/Litigntizm/Sha/zz“1z/Rqpahe to Opposing Bricfdoc
V
E
l
I

Case 1:08-cv-00295-GMS

Document 30

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00295-GMS

Document 30

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00295-GMS

Document 30

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 3 of 3