Huot v. Montana State Department of Child and Family Services et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-terminating 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; terminating 6 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 9 Report and Recommendations.; ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Because the court lacks jurisdiction and because venue is improper, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Case Closed.See Order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 3/5/18. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SAFRON HUOT,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER

v.
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-cv-773-CW
District Judge Clark Waddoups

Plaintiff Safron Huot, proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se, brings this civil rights
action against the Montana State Department of Child and Family Services and others, seeking
“[t]he rights to [her] children.” (Complaint, ECF No. 3.) This action was assigned to United
States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, who then referred it to United States Magistrate
Judge Evelyn J. Furse under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 8. w) The matter is now before
the court on a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Furse, dated February 5,
2018, in which she recommends that the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and because venue does not lie in the District of Utah. (ECF No. 9.) The
Report and Recommendation is incorporated by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b).
Twenty-four days have passed since Magistrate Judge Furse entered her
recommendation, and it remains unopposed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (permitting a party,
within fourteen days of being served, to file written objections). Therefore, the court “may
review [her] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165,

1167 (10th Cir. 1991). Because Ms. Huot is proceeding pro se, the court must liberally construe
her pleadings, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972), but it cannot advocate for her,
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
After careful review of the record, applying a de novo standard of review, the court
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Furse’s recommendation that Ms. Huot’s complaint
be dismissed without prejudice. First, the Complaint alleges no facts that would support this
court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Rather, on the face of the Complaint, Ms. Huot fails to meet the
complete diversity requirement or to identify a federal question upon which her claims are based.
Second, the Complaint appears to challenge a state-court judgment and this court’s exercise of
jurisdiction over such a challenge would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Finally, the
Complaint alleges no facts that indicate Utah is the proper venue for this action. Because the
court lacks jurisdiction and because venue is improper, this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
DATED this 5th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge

2