Cringle v. State
Issues
There were three key issues at play in the application. The first was the allegation that the charges proffered against the plaintiff were false. The plaintiff, Crangle, alleged that neither he nor his wife committed any of the crimes alleged. In that, they should not have been charged in the first place. Secondly, the plaintiff contends mistreatment and the denial of fundamental rights. He states that the state machinery in Berkeley County conspired to keep him in what he calls illegal detention. The conspiracy allegedly brought together all criminal justice and judicial organs in the jurisdiction. Finally, the plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to cruel and unusual treatment in the form of violent interrogation. He asserts that state agents and contractors threatened his wife with physical harm and stopped him from contacting a lawyer. These three issues are at the center of what the plaintiff calls a miscarriage of justice.
Rule
Perhaps the primary rule in use in the original case would be the Fifth Amendment. This amendment to the American Constitution outlines the protections accorded to citizens when they are accused of a crime. The law’s goal is to shield the people from an overzealous state or rogue law enforcement agencies and agents. The Sixth Amendment, on its part, should have guaranteed the plaintiff an unbiased jury and a speedy trial. Finally, the Eighth Amendment should have protected the plaintiff from cruel and unusual punishment. That said, it is critical to note that the court was ruling on the case’s admissibility. It thus relied on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in “Twombly in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009).” A case brought by an inmate had to pass specific tests, with one of them being the provision of a basis for the claims.
Application
The court found that one, it did not have jurisdiction over the matter of the “false” charges and “unfairness” in the criminal justice system. It explained that its area of administration did not extend to Berkeley County, where the alleged events occurred. In so ruling, the court declined to rule on the said matters. Secondly, the court found that the information provided did not contain enough facts to support the claims. In fact, it stated that there were no facts in the plaintiff’s case. What he had was a series of complaints with no supporting evidence underneath. The court noted that the plaintiff had the opportunity to gather and present evidence. The two findings meant that the plaintiff would not get any relief from the said court. He either had to go back to the Northern District or drop the claim altogether. The plaintiff’s case fails.
Conclusion
The court, in so ruling, extended the precedence set by the Supreme Court. It clarified that no amount of pleading would force a court to rule on matters outside its jurisdiction. Jurisdictions exist for a reason, and the courts should, at the very least, support their structures. Just as importantly, the court reestablished the high standards a case against the state has to meet for it to reach the trial stage. The Supreme Court has explained that the high standards exist for a reason. The decision reaffirms the court’s stand that its time and resources will not be wasted on frivolous suits.