Michael Critchfield v. Lee Engfer

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: May 9, 2016
• Docket: 11729-VCMR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES New Castle County Courthouse VICE CHANCELLOR 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. 11729-VCMR

Dear Mr. Critchfield,

Plaintiff Michael Vernon Critchfield brings this action against Defendants

Lee Engfer, a Wisconsin investigator; C. Michael Chambers, a Wisconsin attorney;

James 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.

Critchfield’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 child 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 subject 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 Court may exercise

subject 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 words.”), 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 justice in the at-law courts” when a court in Wisconsin dismissed his

claims without prejudice.9 Mr. Critchfield’s Wisconsin complaint 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, the dismissal without prejudice implies

that Mr. Critchfield had an adequate legal remedy in Wisconsin before he

commenced this action. Regardless, no 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 located in Wisconsin and Illinois.