Huot v. Montana State Department of Child and Family Services, et al
Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER(PSSA, 5)
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES,
MONTANA SUPREME 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,
For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3)
On July 11,
the Plaintiff Safron Huot,
a resident of
complaint seeking review of a Montana
family court proceeding in which her parent rights were terminated.
With the complaint,
a motion for leave to proceed ^
a motion for service,
motion to set aside adoption and reinstate full parental rights,
The case caption of the complaint states that she is filing
in the federal courts for ^^the District of Columbia and all fifty
The case caption for each motion is identical
service reveals that plaintiff filed 44 cases against the Montana
Plaintiff clearly intended to file her complaint
in all of these districts simultaneously.
The named defendants
social service agency and two state courts, all located in Montana.
action, but rather a list of grievances.
Plaintiff seeks damages
including the reinstatement of her parental rights.
A court has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own
subject matter jurisdiction. See McCulloch v. Velez,
364 F.3d 1,
jurisdiction.'" Picciotto v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 512 F.3d 9, 17 (1st
(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.
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)
quotation marks omitted)).
^^If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R.
P. 12(h)(3); see Spooner v. EEN,
644 F.3d 62,
("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.
(1st Cir. 1997)
(noting obligation to construe pro se pleadings
(citing Haines v.
a pro se plaintiff is afforded an opportunity to cure
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
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The instant case is subject to summary dismissal because the
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,
federal statute or constitutional provision, nor is any source of
federal question jurisdiction otherwise evident from the face of
Court to interfere with an ongoing state proceeding is precluded
under Younger v.
See Miller v.
2009) (affirming dismissal of
action relating to
custody of child for
lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
For the foregoing reasons,
This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
i t is hereby ORDERED:
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk shall terminate the pending motions and enter
order of dismissal.
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?