Lollis et al v. CPS/DHS et al
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John E Dowdell dismissing plaintiffs' claims without prejudice. ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (SAS, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
FRED C. LOLLIS and ROSEMARY
A. LOLLIS,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CPS/DHS; CHILD WELFARE SERVICE, )
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 15-CV-247-JED-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are the plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2).
The plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated this case against
“CPS/DHS” and “Child Welfare Service.” (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs allege a “failure to make sure the
workers don’t infringe of [sic] the rights of the parents & kids,” “failure to have workers prove
allegations,” “conspiracy to kidnap kids,” and “failure to give us a 72 hr [sic] shelter hearing.”
(Doc. 1 at 1-2).1 They also contend that “the CPS/DHS system needs to be reformed and
investigated.” (Id. at 2).
Plaintiffs seek to commence the action without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), which provides that “any court of the United States may authorize the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit ... without prepayment of fees ... by a person
who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the
1
Plaintiffs have filed 13 separate lawsuits in this District against numerous individuals and
entities, all relating generally to their assertions that their children were improperly removed
after some form of complaint asserting domestic violence or child abuse was lodged. Other of
those actions, pending before other judges, have been dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See Lollis v. Kunzweiler et al., No. 15-CV-245-CVE-PJC (Doc. 3); Lollis v. State of
Okla. et al., No. 15-CV-246-GKF-TLW (Doc. 3); Lollis v. Judge Doris Fransein et al., No. 15CV-280-TCK-PJC (Doc. 3).
person is unable to pay such fees.” Despite the statute’s reference to “prisoner,” it applies to all
persons who apply for in forma pauperis status. Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221, 1229 n.6 (10th
Cir. 2013). In enacting § 1915(a), Congress intended to provide indigent litigants meaningful
access to the federal courts.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
“Congress
recognized, however, that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public,
unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious,
or repetitive lawsuits.” Id. To prevent frivolous filings, the statute authorizes a court to sua
sponte dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis where the action is frivolous or malicious, the
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the defendant is entitled
to immunity, or the plaintiff has included false allegations of poverty.
See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.4 (10th Cir. 2000).
While pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),
a district court should not assume the role of advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009); Garret v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover, even pro se plaintiffs
are required to comply with the “fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and
Appellate Procedure” and substantive law, and the liberal construction to be afforded does not
transform “vague and conclusory arguments” into valid claims for relief. Ogden v. San Juan
County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The court “will not supply additional factual
allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.”
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-1174 (10th Cir. 1997).
2
Plaintiffs assert that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute
does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent that plaintiffs
are attempting to allege a claim for violation of their federal constitutional rights, such claim
could support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However,
plaintiffs’ allegations in this case do not state a colorable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While
they assert generally that their civil rights were violated (see Doc. 1 at 1), the Complaint contains
no factual allegations that would support maintenance of a claim under § 1983. At best, the
allegations may support some assertion of negligence or a violation of a 72 hour notice
provision, both of which implicate only state law.2
Construing the Complaint in this case liberally in light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, the
allegations do not state a colorable claim under § 1983. As a result, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this case. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513, n.10 (2006)
(federal court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over a case absent a colorable claim
arising under federal law). The plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.
ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2015.
2
To the extent that plaintiffs are asserting some claim arising under state law, the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the plaintiffs may have.
See Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1248 (10th Cir. 2011) (“When all federal claims
have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise jurisdiction over any
remaining state claims.”) (quoting Smith v. City of Enid, 149 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 1998)).
3
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?