HUTCHINS v. HOUSE et al

Filing 29

ORDER construing 25 Objection as motions to show cause why the complaints should not be dismissed; denying 26 Motion To Proceed To Settlement ; denying 27 Motion to Fax, and dismissing complaint By JUDGE PAUL J. BARBADORO. (jwr)

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
v.

Civil No. 16-cv-282-PJB

Broadway Veterinary Clinic et al.
O R D E R
On January 13, 2017, this Court conducted a preliminary
review of the complaints filed in the above-captioned cases,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and issued an Order (Doc.
No. 24) (“January 13 Order”) finding that the allegations in the
complaints, complaint addenda, and other filings, failed to
assert any cognizable cause of action.

In the January 13 Order,

the court directed that all three of plaintiff’s pending cases
be dismissed unless plaintiff was able to show cause why any of

the cases should not be dismissed.
Before the court are plaintiff’s filings in response to the
January 13 Order, each of which has been docketed in each of the
above-captioned cases.1

Those filings are each construed as

motions to show cause why the complaints in this matter should
not be dismissed.

Additionally, in the instant filings,

plaintiff makes the following requests: mediation of these
cases, permission to file documents in these cases by fax, an
evidentiary hearing, and that the court docket an appeal of this
case.
The factual assertions in the motions to show cause are, as
were the complaint documents, disjointed, convoluted, and
largely conclusory.

Stripped of legal conclusions, none of the

factual assertions in the motions before the court give rise to
any cognizable claim for relief.

Accordingly, the court finds

that plaintiff has failed to show cause why the above-captioned
actions should not be dismissed, and directs that each case be
dismissed, and that the clerk enter judgment in and close each
case.

Further, plaintiff’s additional requests for relief are

1See

Hutchins
280-PJB (Doc. Nos.
281-PJB (Doc. Nos.
Veterinary Clinic,

Buzzell v. Skowhegan Saving Bank, No. 16-cv25-27); Hutchins Buzzell v. House, No. 16-cv25-27); Hutchins Buzzell v. Broadway
No. 16-cv-282-PJB (Doc. Nos. 26-28).
2

denied, without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to file a
proper appeal after judgment enters in the above-captioned
cases.

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

Each of the above-captioned cases is dismissed.

clerk is directed to enter judgment and close each case.
2.

Any additional relief plaintiff has sought in her

motions to show cause is denied, without prejudice to
plaintiff’s ability to file a proper appeal after judgment
enters in the above-captioned cases.
SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
Sitting By Designation
April 20, 2017
cc:

Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell, pro se

3

The