COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

PATRICIA W. GRIFFIN

MASTER IN CHANCERY

CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 The Circle

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Final Report: July 16, 2018

Date Submitted: July 3, 2018

Michael-destry Family of Williams

Federal Correction Institution

FCI Englewood Prison

BOP# 39714-013

9595 W. Quincy Avenue

Littleton, CO 80123

RE: Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America

C.A. No. 2018-0511-PWG

Dear Mr. Williams:

You previously filed a petition for instructions with this Court, naming the 

United States of America, Inc. as defendant, and seeking preliminary and 

permanent injunctive relief releasing you from incarceration at the Federal 

Correctional Institution at Englewood, in Littleton, Colorado. This was allegedly 

because of unlawful presentment and trial proceedings in the United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado, in which you were found guilty and 
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America

Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG

July 16, 2018

2

incarcerated.1 You also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. In a Final Report 

issued on April 30, 2018 (“Final Report”), I recommended that the Court grant 

your application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismiss the petition as legally 

frivolous for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 With no objections being filed by 

the time required in Court of Chancery Rule 144, the Court approved that Final 

Report, adopting its findings, on May 17, 2018.3

On June 28, 2018, you filed, substantively, the same petition for instructions 

with this Court (with minor changes, such as the date the document was executed), 

and added exceptions to the earlier Master’s Report, as well as a petition for a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunctive 

relief, and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

First, I refer you to the previous Final Report for the background in this case. 

For your convenience, a copy of the previous Final Report is enclosed. And, as 

was determined in the previous action, you have met the criteria for prisoners to 

proceed in forma pauperis under 10 Del. C. §8804, and I recommend that the 

Court grant your application to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter. 

 

1 Michael-destry Williams © Tr. v. United States, 2018 WL 2050363, at *1 (Del. Ch. Apr. 

30, 2018).

2

Id., at *2.

3 Final Order, Michael-destry Williams © Tr. v. United States, No. 2018-0320-PWG (Del. 

Ch. May 17, 2018), Docket Item 4.
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America

Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG

July 16, 2018

3

If the Court grants an inmate’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, then 

the Court determines whether the complaint is factually frivolous, malicious or 

legally frivolous.4 Delaware’s in forma pauperis statute defines a legally frivolous 

complaint as one that is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”5 When 

it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action, the 

action must be dismissed.6 I recommend that the Court dismiss your new filings as 

legally frivolous for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

With regard to the petition for instructions, the claims contained in that 

petition remain the same as were analyzed by the Court in the previous action. I 

refer you to that Final Report for the discussion of the analysis and findings with 

regard to those matters, which remain applicable to the new petition. 

 

4 10 Del. C. §8803(b).

5 10 Del. C. §8801(7); McCoy v. Taylor, 1998 WL 842322, at *2 (Del. Ch. Nov. 12, 

1998).

6 Ct. Ch. R. 12(h)(3); see also Czarninski Baier v. Upper N.Y. Inv. Co. LLC, 2018 WL 

1791996, at *5 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2018). For a more in-depth discussion of subject 

matter jurisdiction, I direct you to the previous Final Report which states: “The Court of 

Chancery is a Delaware state court of limited jurisdiction. It has subject matter 

jurisdiction over a case in three ways: (1) the plaintiff asserts an equitable claim; (2) the 

plaintiff requests equitable relief for which there is no adequate remedy at law; or (3) 

subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by statute. When it appears that the Court lacks 

jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action, the action must be dismissed. Because 

subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable, a court has an ‘independent obligation to 

satisfy themselves of jurisdiction if it is in doubt.’” Michael-destry Williams © Tr. v. 

United States, 2018 WL 2050363, at *2 (internal citations omitted).
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America

Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG

July 16, 2018

4

In this action, you have also filed exceptions to the earlier Master’s Report 

and a petition for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and 

permanent injunctive relief. I recommend that the exceptions be rejected as 

untimely, since exceptions to a Master’s Final Report must be filed within 11 days 

of the date of the Final Report.7 That Final Report was issued on April 30, 2018, 

so the filing period for exceptions has long since passed. 

Even if the claims contained in the exceptions were considered, they would 

fail because they relate to actions taken by officers or agents of the United States 

federal government in federal criminal matters occurring in Colorado, and have no 

demonstrated connection to Delaware or to a Delaware entity, nor do they request 

relief that this Court can grant. Similarly, the claims in the petition for a temporary 

restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunctive relief fail for 

the same reasons. 

In conclusion, I recommend the Court grant your application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss these new claims as legally frivolous for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. This is a final report and I refer you to Court of 

Chancery Rule 144 for the process of taking exception to a Master’s final report. I 

also note that, if this final report is adopted by the Court, this action would serve as 

the second instance in this Court in which a complaint you filed was dismissed as 

 

7 Ct. Ch. R. 144.
Michael-destry Williams © Trust v. United States of America

Civil Action No. 2018-0511-PWG

July 16, 2018

5

frivolous. Under Delaware’s in forma pauperis statute, if a prisoner has, on three 

or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an 

action in a court that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious 

or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, he may not proceed in 

forma pauperis in the future, unless he is “under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury at the time the complaint is filed.”8

Sincerely,

/s/ Patricia W. Griffin

Master in Chancery

 

8 10 Del. C. §8804(f).