Huot v. Montana State Department of Child and Family Services, et al
Filing
9
Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(PSSA, 5)
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
DISTRICT
COURT
OF MASSACHUSETTS
SAFRON HUOT,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL
V.
NO.
MONTANA
STATE
DEPARTMENT
ACTION
17-11275-WGY
OF
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES,
MONTANA SUPREME COURT,
LODGE
COUNTY
DISTRICT
DEER
COURT
OF MONTANA, JUDGE RAY DAYTON,
CAL BOYAL, CINDY JOHNSON,
DEER LODGE MEDICAL CENTER,
M.D. WAYNE MARTIN, SUSANNE M.
CLAQUE, BEN KRAKOWKA, SUSAN
DAY, DAVE FENCHAK, MARY JO
FORTNER and ROGER FORTNER,
Defendants.
YOUNG,
October^^ 2017
D.J.
MEMORANDUM
& ORDER
For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3)
the
I.
Federal
Rules
of Civil
of
Procedure,
BACKGROUND
On July 11,
Anaconda,
2017,
Montana,
the Plaintiff Safron Huot,
filed a
a resident of
complaint seeking review of a Montana
family court proceeding in which her parent rights were terminated.
Complaint
("Compl.")/
ECF No.
1.
With the complaint,
Huot filed
a motion for leave to proceed ^
motion
to
appoint
jurisdiction,
counsel,
ECF No.
4;
ECF
forma pauperis,
No.
3;
a
ECF No.
motion
a motion for service,
to
2;
consent
ECF No.
5,
a
to
and a
motion to set aside adoption and reinstate full parental rights,
ECF No.
6.
The case caption of the complaint states that she is filing
in the federal courts for ^^the District of Columbia and all fifty
states."
to
the
See Compl.
The case caption for each motion is identical
complaint's
Judiciary's
Public
case
caption.
Access
to
A
Court
search
of
federal
Records
Electronic
the
(PACER)
service reveals that plaintiff filed 44 cases against the Montana
State
Department
district courts.
of
Child
and
Family
Services
in
38
federal
Plaintiff clearly intended to file her complaint
in all of these districts simultaneously.
The
14
named
institutions
defendants
apparently
involved
matter.
The named defendants
private
attorney,
specialist,
a
a
are
family
various
in
Plaintiff's
include a
doctor,
clinical psychologist,
individuals
a
family
and
court
prosecutor,
a
a
development
family
medical
center,
judge,
a
a
state
social service agency and two state courts, all located in Montana.
The
complaint
does
not
contain a
action, but rather a list of grievances.
from
the
defendants
and
various
forms
specific
legal
of
Plaintiff seeks damages
of
injunctive
including the reinstatement of her parental rights.
[2]
cause
relief,
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own
subject matter jurisdiction. See McCulloch v. Velez,
5
(1st
Cir.
2004).
Federal
courts
are
^courts
364 F.3d 1,
of
limited
jurisdiction.'" Picciotto v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 512 F.3d 9, 17 (1st
Cir. 2008)
(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).
Such courts may adjudicate only those cases
authorized by the Constitution and by Congress.
Kokkonen,
511
U.S. at 377. '^MT]he party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal
court carries the burden of proving its existence." Calderon-Serra
V. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d 14, 17 (1st Cir. 2013)
Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995)
(quoting
(internal
quotation marks omitted)).
^^If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 12(h)(3); see Spooner v. EEN,
Cir. 2011)
Inc.,
644 F.3d 62,
67
(1st
("A court is duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects
in its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.").
In reviewing the complaint, the Court recognizes that pro se
pleadings are read with "an extra degree of solicitude," Rodi v.
Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22, 23 (1st Cir.1991), due to plaintiff's pro
se status, see id.; see also Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155, 158 n.
1
(1st Cir. 1997)
liberally)
(noting obligation to construe pro se pleadings
(citing Haines v.
Kerner,
[3]
404 U.S.
519,
520
(1972)).
Generally,
a
a pro se plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to cure
deficient complaint.
However,
when "it is crystal clear that
the plaintiff cannot prevail and that amending the complaint would
be futile," a dismissal sua sponte is appropriate. Garayalde-Rijos
V.
Municipality
of
Carolina,
747
F.3d
15,
23,
(1st
Cir.
2014)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
III.
l^ALYSIS
The instant case is subject to summary dismissal because the
Plaintiff
matter.
fails
to
demonstrate
federal
jurisdiction
over
this
There is no diversity of citizenship as required by the
diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because all of the parties
are Montana residents or entities.
As to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
the
allegations
do
not
assert
that
the
defendants
violated
a
federal statute or constitutional provision, nor is any source of
federal question jurisdiction otherwise evident from the face of
the complaint.
Even
if this
Court
had
jurisdiction,
any request
for
this
Court to interfere with an ongoing state proceeding is precluded
under Younger v.
under
the
586
401 U.S.
Rooker-Feldman
jurisdiction to
Nichols,
Harris,
review a
F.3d 53,
59
37,
doctrine,
state court
(1st Cir.
[4]
46
(1971).
this
Additionally,
Court
judgment.
is
without
See Miller v.
2009) (affirming dismissal of
action relating to
custody of child for
lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
IV
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
1.
This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 12(h)(3)
2.
a
final
i t is hereby ORDERED:
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk shall terminate the pending motions and enter
order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM
DISTRICT
[5]
G.
Y
JUD
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?