HUTCHINS v. SKOWHEGAN SAVING BANK et al

Filing 24

ORDER By JUDGE PAUL J. BARBADORO. (mjlt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell
v.

Civil No. 16-cv-280-PJB

Skowhegan Saving Bank et al.

Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell
v.

Civil No. 16-cv-281-PJB

Kirk R. House et al.
Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell et al.1
v.

Civil No. 16-cv-282-PJB

Broadway Veterinary Clinic et al.
O R D E R
Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell, a pro se litigant proceeding in
forma pauperis, has filed a complaint and complaint addenda in
each of the above-captioned cases, naming dozens of defendants
in each case.

1The

See Hutchins Buzzell v. Skowhegan Saving Bank,

complaint in Hutchins Buzzell v. Broadway Veterinary
Clinic, No. 16-cv-282-PJB, names both Hutchins Buzzell and her
dog, Foxy Wogills Prancie, as plaintiffs. Dogs may not bring
federal lawsuits, and the complaint is construed to be filed
only by Hutchins Buzzell.

No. 16-cv-280-PJB (Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 10, 11); Hutchins Buzzell v.
House, No. 16-cv-281-PJB (Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 10, 11); Hutchins
Buzzell v. Broadway Veterinary Clinic, No. 16-cv-282-PJB (Doc.
Nos. 1, 6, 9, 10).2

These cases are before this court for

preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Also

before the court, in two of the cases, are plaintiff’s motions
to amend the complaint.

See Hutchins Buzzell v. House, No. 16-

cv-281-PJB (Doc. No. 15); Hutchins Buzzell v. Broadway
Veterinary Clinic, No. 16-cv-282-PJB (Doc. No. 15).

Background
Plaintiff’s filings are convoluted and follow no single
narrative path.

Construed liberally in light of plaintiff’s pro

se status, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam), the complaint documents generally allege that the named
defendants in each action have persecuted, harassed, threatened,
and otherwise abused plaintiff, her family members, and her
service dog; and that defendants have subjected her, her family
members, and her service dog, to mental, sexual, financial, and
physical harm.

While far from exhaustive, some examples of

2In

each case captioned above, the court construes the
complaint to include the assertions contained in the complaint
addenda filed in that case.
2

these wrongs and harms, alleged in each of the complaints, are:


Unspecified defendants have attempted to murder
plaintiff by orchestrating dog attacks on her while
she was walking to the federal courthouse to file
civil actions, and police agencies and a counselling
center have failed to act on her reports of those
attacks.



Unspecified defendants, driving orange cars and black
trucks, vehicles whose make, model, and color have a
coded meaning, have tried to run her over numerous
times, while one or more of the operators of those
vehicles was using medical marijuana.



Both of plaintiff’s ex-husbands secretly had children
with other women before they were married to
plaintiff, and the mothers of those children have
prevented plaintiff from receiving pastoral care at a
number of churches and otherwise stalked and harassed
her.



On multiple occasions, unnamed defendants have caused
plaintiff to be stranded in a public place, sometimes
by causing taxis and public transportation not to pick
her up, so that those defendants can stalk and abuse
plaintiff when she is alone.



Unspecified defendants have sabotaged plaintiff’s
efforts to obtain employment, medical, and mental
health records, government benefits, and safe housing,
over many years, utilizing harassment and abuse and by
otherwise terrorizing her.



On more than one occasion, plaintiff’s service dog was
restrained and abused physically and sexually at a
veterinary clinic where clinic staff had faked
injuries and alleged that those injuries had been
inflicted by her dog to justify their treatment of the
dog.

3

Discussion
I.

Preliminary Review
In conducting a preliminary review of a complaint filed in

forma pauperis, this court may dismiss the case before
defendants appear, if the court determines that the complaint
fails to state a claim, or that the action is frivolous.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).

See 28

To survive preliminary review,

the complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’”

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007));
see also Sepúlveda-Villarini v. Dep’t of Educ., 628 F.3d 25, 29
(1st Cir. 2010).
[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only
if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” a category
encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,”
and “delusional.” As those words suggest, a finding of
factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable
facts available to contradict them.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327-28 (1989)).
Plaintiff’s allegations are disjointed and largely
conclusory, and frequently fail to identify who she alleges is
liable to her for the harms claimed.

4

Further, none of the

allegations give rise to any cause of action cognizable here,
even those that are stated with sufficient specificity to allow
the court to understand what wrongs plaintiff claims have been
committed against her, and by whom.

Accordingly, each of the

above-captioned cases are subject to being dismissed as
frivolous.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Denton, 504 U.S.

at 32-33.
II.

Motions to Amend3
In plaintiff’s motions to amend, she seeks to add new

defendants to two of her cases, but does not otherwise include
further factual assertions.

In general, under Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(a), leave to amend the complaint in a civil case is to be
“freely given.”

Leave to amend may be denied, however, if the

proposed complaint amendment would be futile.

See Morgan v.

Town of Lexington, 823 F.3d 737, 742 (1st Cir. 2016).

Because

the court finds that plaintiff has failed to state any
nonfrivolous claims upon which relief could be granted, the
motions to amend are denied, as amending a complaint to add
defendants to noncognizable claims would be futile.

3See

Hutchins Buzzell v. House, No. 16-cv-281-PJB (Doc. No.
15); Hutchins Buzzell v. Broadway Veterinary Clinic, No. 16-cv282-PJB (Doc. No. 15).
5

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court directs as follows:
1.

The complaint and complaint addenda in each of the

above-captioned cases is frivolous, and each case will be
dismissed in fourteen days on that ground, unless plaintiff
files a motion to reconsider this Order, prior to that deadline,
showing cause why any of the cases should not be dismissed.
2.

The motions to amend filed in Hutchins Buzzell v.

House, No. 16-cv-281-PJB (Doc. No. 15), and Hutchins Buzzell v.
Broadway Veterinary Clinic, No. 16-cv-282-PJB (Doc. No. 15), are
denied.
SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
January 13, 2017
cc:

Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell, pro se

6