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