COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

T AMIKA R. M ONTGOMERY

- R EEVES

V ICE C HANCELLOR New Castle County Courthouse 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801

- 3734
May 9 , 2016

Mr. Michael Vernon Critchfield P.O. Box 11 Mondovi, WI 54755

RE: Michael Vernon Critchfield v. Lee Engfer, et al. Civil Action No. 117 29

- VCMR

Dear Mr. Critchfield,
Plaintiff Michael Vernon Critchfield brings this action against Defendants
Lee Engfer, a Wisconsin investigator; C. Michael Chambers, a Wiscon sin attorney;

Ja m es Duvall, Chief Judge of the Wisconsin Circuit Court located in Buffalo/Pepin
counties, Wisconsin; and Anthony W. Castillo, an agent with the Department of
Homeland Security located in Chicago, Illinois (together, “Defendants”)

. 1 Mr.

Cri tchfie ld’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges that Defendants violated his First
and Fourth Amendment rights by conducting or contributing to an improper search

and seizure. 2 Specifically, officers of the Buffalo County Sheriff’s Department and
agents of the Department of Homeland Security allegedly “interrogated” Mr.

1 Compl. at 1.

2 Id. at 2, 4.Critchfield v. Engfer

C.A. No. 11729

- VCMR May 9 , 2016 Page 2 of 3
Critchfield and his family members and “confiscated” his laptop computer

pursuant to an invalid search warrant. 3 This “raid” allegedly was motivated by an
attempt to plant chil d pornography on Mr. Critchfield’s computer and “quash” his
and his family’s rights to free speech

. 4

The burden of establishing the Court’s subjec t matter jurisdiction lies with
the plaintiff. 5 The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is “crucial,” and the Court is
obligated to ensure it exists, even if it must raise the issue sua sponte

. 6 Moreover,

a plaintiff’s desire to litigate in a “court of exclusive equity” 7 is insufficient,
without more, to confer subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying claims. 8

The Complaint fails to state a basis upon which this C ourt may exercise
subj ect matter jurisdiction over this action

. In a section titled “General

3 Id. at 2

- 3.

4 Id. at 4.

5 Prestancia Mgmt. Gp., Inc. v. Virginia Heritage Found., II LLC , 2005 WL 1364616, at *3 (Del. Ch. May 27, 2005).

6 Ct. Ch. R. 12(h)(3); Appoquinimink Educ. Ass’n v. Appoquinimink Sch. Dist. , 2003 WL 1794963, at *3 (Del. Ch. Mar. 31 , 2003), corrected (Apr. 17, 2003), aff’d
, 844 A.2d 991 (Del. 2004).

7 Compl. at 5.

8 See Christiana Town Ctr., LLC v. New Castle Cty

. , 2003 WL 21314499, at *3 (Del. Ch. June 6, 2003) (“Chancery jurisdiction is not conferred by the incantation of magic w ords.”)
, aff’d , 841 A.2d 307 (Del. 2004)

.Critchfield v. Engfer

C.A. No. 11729

- VCMR May 9 , 2016 Page 3 of 3
Jurisdiction,” Mr. Critchfield argues that this Court has jurisdiction because he was
“denied jus tice in the at

- law courts” when a court in Wisconsin dismissed his
claims without prejudice. 9 Mr. Critchfield’s Wi s consin c omplaint was dismissed,

however, because he failed to serve that complaint and a summons upon the
defendants within the statutorily mandated timeframe

. 10 Without suggesting that
Mr. Critchfield’s theories have any merit, t he dismissal without prejudice implies
that Mr. Critchfield had an adequate legal remedy in Wisconsin bef ore he

commenced this action. Regardless , n o facts alleged suffice to grant this Court
jurisdiction. 11 Thus , the Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,

/s/ Tamika Montgomery

- Reeves

Vice Chancellor TMR/jp

9 Compl. at 5.

10 Id. , Ex. 9.

11 The Complaint also makes no reference to Delaware and alleges facts taking place entirely outside Delaware. For example, the allegedly illegal search occurred at Mr. Critchfield’s house in Wisconsin
, and Defendants are loca ted in Wisconsin and Illinois.