Free Notice of Appeal - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07—cv—00687-GIVIS Document 21 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 3
Q 0 R IG I N AL
. "" Dm
UNITED STATES Distinct Count §
District ofbelaware $
—·—-—-——-—-——-———-——————-——~ it
.-—····I ’
Dennis Shipman, Plaintiff; Pro Se Ez? igijéim
CASE NUMBER; 1:07-CV-00687 Q
V, AMENDED NOHCE OF APPEAL :Â¥~
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
LEAVE FOR PERMISSION T0 APPEAL
The State of Delaware; Delaware State Police;
Corporal Vincent Terranova, individtraltjy and in his ojicial ccqcrocinq
Trooper John Doe, individuaI{v and in his qyicial c@acigv; Reynolds Towing
Defendants,
Dennis Shipman hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit hom the Order of Chief Judge Sue L, Robinson, United State District Court,
District of Delaware, denying a-temporary restraining order against Delaware State Police
who fiaudulently obtained an arrest warrant from a sympathetic Justice ofthe Peace
Court Magistrate against plaintiftiappellant for extremely dubious disorderly persons
offenses for the sole purpose of besmirching plairrti&" s character and reputation with a
permanent arrest record - i.e., fingerprints, photogaphs and biographical data - 1 day
after he tiled a formal assault complaint against a member of the agency, Judge
Robinsorfs decision relied heavily on an inartfirlly constructed application by a
frightened out-otihis-wits pro se litigant — ie, informed layman —— that neglected to detail
all of the elements required for an aiiirrrnative factual showing "0f irreparable harm, and
1 immediate danger" to deny plaintiff s requested relief entered in this action on the 21st
day of November 2007,
In the event that this form was not received in the Clerk's Otlice within the required time,
Plaintiff respectiirlly requests that the Court grant plaintiif permission to amend Notice of
Appeal, grant an extension of time in which to appeal, and permission for leave to appeal
to United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit in accordance with Rule 4(a)(5); Rule 5
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. ”`“""`··
In mpport of this request, plaintiff states that this ' e was received by
downloading Judge Robiq‘son’s decision off of P" _ __a,n_d_that rm was mailed to
h Cou on D 2 7. i
t e rt ecemher 2 00 { {eq.,
Dennis liiprnan
231-27 Merrick Blvd, Queens, New York 11413
347-25 1-6140
DATED; January 28, 2008
Rev. 05/2007

Case 1 :07—cv—00687-GIVIS Document 21 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 3
Unrreo STATES Dtsrrucr Comm
District of Delaware
Dennis Shipman, Plaintiff; Pro Se
v.
The State of Delaware; Delaware State Police;
Corporal Wncent Terranova, individmliv and in his qjicial capacity;
Trooper John Doe, individually and in his qfiicial capacity; Reynolds Towing
Defendants,
Petitionfor Pem{{ssinntoAppealfr¤mtbeU1nted States Disn·i¤tCcurt
for the District of Delaware
1:07-CV-00687 —-Sue ChiefJudge.
PETITION FOR PERMISSION T0 APPEAL
Petitioneeappellant, Dennis Shipman, respectiiilly request permission to appeal from that
order.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1) Petitioner-appellant has by virtue ofthe underlying civil rights complaint made an
afhrmative factual showing “- . .of irreparable harm, and immediate danger" as
what professional law enforcement agency calls an alleged “defenda1tt"’ not
residing in their jurisdiction l0-20 times per day (and cellular telephone records
will bear this fact out if the Court requires proof) to answer a fraudulently
obtained arrest warrant for relatively minor disorderly persons offenses; an arrest
warrant for relatively minor but also clearly trumped up charges when petitioner-
appellant has already shown that he has been physically assaulted without either
provocation or arrest at the hands of a member ofthe very sans agency swearing
out the arrest warrant; or, one, that harasses his ex-wife, herself a supervisory
peace officer, to the degree she was forced to contact a heretofore unresponsive
Delaware State Police Superintendent, Col. Thomas Mac Leish, in her official
capacity and ask him to restrain his troopers from harassing her. A crucial fact
that alone ought to mitigate against an arrest warrant by an impartial court.
2) It is positively terrifying demonstrating a hidden agenda that may have at its core
a scenario in which petitioner is taken into custody and then is either injured or
killed by Delaware State Troopers, whom are confederates of defendant, Vincent
Terranova under the guise of justifiable use of force or homicide.

Case 1 :07—cv—00687-GIVIS Document 21 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 3
ARGUMEN T
3) The complained about warrants are for clearly trumped up- i.e., obscene language,
littering, vandalism, destruction of property, and criminal mischief- charges that
cannot survive either a vigorous defense or review by an impartial court. They are
predicated on a defective arrest warrant that was sworn out to 1 day after
petitioner lodged a formal criminal complaint against a member of the agency for
assault. The retaliatory warrant(s) are not for felonies.
4) The arrest warrant was predicated on misleading information sworn out to by
aliiant before an accommodating State of Delaware Justice of the Peace Court
Magistrate.
5) Therefore, petitioner respectlirlly submits the Younger abstention (Younger v.
Harris, 401 US at 37, 45 (1971) employed by the Court was the wrong legal
standard. Petitioner is not seeking to challenge the underlying criminal charges as
the Court implied but the process by which the arrest warrant for those charges
were obtained. Moreover, Franks v. Delaware (438 US 154 (1978) governs
challenges to ex parte processes generally and warrants in Delaware particularly.
Franks clearly establishes the Court’s jurisdiction to issue this extraordinary relief
being a United State Supreme Court precedent, which supercedes Younger and,
more importantly, overturned the Supreme Court of Delaware in a strikingly
similar matter to petitioner’s complaint.
6) In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to less stringent pleading standards than duly
licensed attorneys (see Haines v Kerner, 404 U.S. 519). Regardless ofthe
deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the opportunity to
submit [additional] evidence in support of their claims. In re Platsky et al; the
court errs if court dismisses the pro se litigant’s pleading(s) without instruction of
how pleading(s) are deficient and how to repair pleadings (see Platsky v. C.I.A.
953 F .2d. 25). In re Anastasoft? litigants’ constitutional rights are violated when
courts depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated. All litigants
have a constitutional right to have their claims adjudicated according the rule of
precedent. (see Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).
Statements of counsel, in their briefs or their arguments are not sufficient for a
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, (see Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa.
1964, 229 F. Supp. 647).
CONCLUSION
7) It is therefore respectiirlly requested that this petition for J - -—·. __sion to appeal be
granted.
submitted,
·~ -·e- ennis Shipman
231-27 Merrick Boulevard
Queens, New York 11413
Dated: January 28, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 21

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 21

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00687-GMS

Document 21

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 3 of 3