HUTCHINS et al v. BROADWAY VETERINARY CLINIC et al

Filing 30

ORDER construing 26 Objection as motions to show cause why the complaints should not be dismissed; denying 27 Motion To Proceed To Settlement ; denying 28 Motion to Fax, and dismissing complaint By JUDGE PAUL J. BARBADORO. (jwr)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?