Huot v. Montana State Department of Child and Family Services et al
Filing
6
ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendations and dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 8/31/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD )
AND FAMILY SERVICES; et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
SAFRON HUOT,
C.A. No. 17-326 S
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Magistrate
Judge
Lincoln
D.
Almond
filed
a
Report
and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on July 27, 2017 (ECF No. 5) recommending
that
the
frivolous,
Court
it
dismiss
fails
to
Plaintiff’s
state
a
Complaint
claim
upon
because
which
relief
it
is
may
be
granted, and it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff
has not filed an objection to the R&R.
After carefully reviewing
the
ACCEPTS
Complaint
and
the
R&R,
this
Court
the
entirety and adopts the reasoning set forth therein.
Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: August 31, 2017
R&R
in
its
Plaintiff’s
Case 1:17-cv-00326-S-LDA Document 5 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
SAFRON HUOT
v.
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CHILD AND FAMILY
SERVICES, et. al.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
C.A. No. 17-326S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Lincoln D. Almond, United States Magistrate Judge
Background
On July 12, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Safron Huot filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP Motion”) along with a proposed Complaint, a Motion for Appointed Counsel and a Motion to
Set Aside Adoption & Reinstate Full Parental Rights. (ECF Doc. Nos. 1-4). The IFP Motion was
referred to me for determination. 28 U.S.C. § 636; LR Cv 72. Based upon the information contained
in Plaintiffs IFP Motion, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. (ECF Doc. No. 2).
Having granted IFP status, I am required by statute to further review Plaintiff’s Complaint
sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and to dismiss if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” For the reasons discussed below, I recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint
be DISMISSED because it is “frivolous,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,”
and/or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
Case 1:17-cv-00326-S-LDA Document 5 Filed 07/27/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 26
I further recommend that Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Adoption & Reinstate full Parental Rights
and Motion for Appointed Counsel be DISMISSED as moot. (ECF Doc. Nos. 3, 4).
Facts
Plaintiff’s proposed Complaint is titled “Out of Date Complaint;” however, the Court will
refer to this document as Plaintiff’s “Complaint.” In the Complaint, Plaintiff, a Montana resident,
named fourteen entities and individuals as Defendants in this matter. Plaintiff identified all
Defendants as citizens of Montana. (ECF Doc. No. 1 at pp. 1-4). Plaintiff lists twelve “claims”
against various Defendants, all of which appear to relate to alleged wrongs committed in connection
with the judicial termination of Plaintiff's parental rights. Id. at pp. 5-8. Plaintiff asserts that her
lawsuit involves a “federal question,” however, Plaintiff does not identify any particular cause of
action upon which her claims are based. Id. at pp. 4-11. Further, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff
has attempted to file a copy of her Complaint and related submissions in fifty other Federal District
Courts throughout the country. See id. (identifying the “United States District Court(s) for the
District of Columbia, and All 50 States” in the case caption); Notice of Service (indicating that
Plaintiff’s Complaint and related documents were mailed to this Court and fifty other Federal District
Courts).
Standard of Review
Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a federal court to dismiss an action brought thereunder if
the court determines that the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim or seeks damages from a
defendant with immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The standard for dismissal of an action filed
in forma pauperis is identical to the standard for dismissal on a motion to dismiss brought under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). In
other words, the court “should not grant the motion unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff
-2-
Case 1:17-cv-00326-S-LDA Document 5 Filed 07/27/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 27
would be unable to recover under any set of facts.” Roma Constr. Co. v. aRusso, 96 F.3d 566, 569
(1st Cir. 1996). Section 1915 also requires dismissal if the court is satisfied that the action is
“frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A claim “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Discussion
This Court is recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be summarily dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In making this recommendation, this Court has taken all of the allegations in
Plaintiff’s Complaint as true and has drawn all reasonable inferences in her favor. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97 (1976). In addition, this Court has liberally reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations and legal
claims since they have been put forth by a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520521 (1972). However, even applying these liberal standards of review to Plaintiff’s Complaint,
dismissal is required.
Dismissal of this action is warranted for a number of reasons. First, it is clear to the Court
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Court has an independent
obligation to inquire, sua sponte, into its subject matter jurisdiction.
See Arroyo v.
Massachusetts, C.A. No. 12-753S, 2013 WL 3288106, at *3 (D.R.I. June 28, 2013) citing
McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). As set forth in Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f 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). Federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning that a federal court is empowered only to consider certain
types of claims. A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil cases “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” (i.e., “federal question jurisdiction”), or over
civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and
-3-
Case 1:17-cv-00326-S-LDA Document 5 Filed 07/27/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 28
costs, and in which diversity of citizenship exists between the parties (i.e., “diversity
jurisdiction”). 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Here, Plaintiff has not identified any particular cause of
action in her Complaint that would allow this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over
this lawsuit. Further, all parties are identified as citizens of Montana, thus eliminating the
applicability of diversity jurisdiction. Even if this Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction
over this action, dismissal would nevertheless be warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Section 1915(e)(2) requires the Court to “dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that...the action...fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
A pro se complaint should survive only when a plaintiff has set forth “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). Here, it is clear to the Court that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not sufficiently state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Finally, it is clear that venue is improper in this Court.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the general venue statute, a civil action may be brought in: (1) a
judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in
which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of
the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as
provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b). Here, none of the
Defendants reside in this judicial district, none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in
this judicial district and there is no indication that any of the Defendants are subject to personal
jurisdiction in this judicial district. Accordingly, venue is clearly improper. When venue is
-4-
Case 1:17-cv-00326-S-LDA Document 5 Filed 07/27/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 29
improper, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) directs the Court to “dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a). Because of the other problems with Plaintiff’s Complaint, as detailed above, the Court
finds that it is not “in the interest of justice” to transfer this case to another district. Instead, I
recommend that this action be dismissed.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (ECF Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. However,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii) and (iii), I further recommend that Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice. In addition, based on this dismissal
recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointed Counsel (ECF Doc. No. 4), and Motion to Set
Aside Adoption & Reinstate Full Parental Rights (ECF Doc. No. 3) are DENIED.
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of its receipt. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR Cv 72.
Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the
District Court and the right to appeal the District Court’s decision. See United States v. ValenciaCopete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 605
(1st Cir. 1980).
/s/ Lincoln D. Almond
LINCOLN D. ALMOND
United States Magistrate Judge
July 27, 2017
-5-
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?