Maunsell et al v. Van Benthuysen
Filing
4
OPINION AN ORDER granting 1 and 2 Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 3/3/2014. (law)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
David Francis Maunsell
and Dorothy J. Maunsell,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Judge Van Benthuysen,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:14-cv-00007-wks
OPINION AND ORDER
(Doc. 1)
Pro se plaintiffs David Francis Maunsell and Dorothy J.
Maunsell move to proceed in forma paurperis against Vermont
Superior Court Judge Howard Van Benthuysen (Docs. 1 and 13.)
The Maunsells seek an ex parte writ of manifest error
and an order vacating a judgment of foreclosure issued by
the Orleans Unit of the Civil Division of the Vermont
Superior Court in Docket No. 74-4-11 Oscv. (Doc. 1-3 at 2.)
The Maunsells also request preliminary injunctive relief
against the plaintiffs in the state court foreclosure
matter. Id.
Because the financial affidavits filed in
support of their applications meet the requirements of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a), the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED.
However, for the reasons set forth
1
below, this case is DISMISSED.
Discussion
The Maunsells challenge a May 20, 2013 order of the
Vermont Superior Court confirming judicial sale of the
Maunsells’ property in a foreclosure action. (Doc. 1-3 at
2.)
The Maunsells argue that, “the judgment of the state
court was irregular because of manifest error, purposeful
discrimination and abuse of discretion by Judge Van
Benthuysen presiding in the court.” Id.
They claim Judge
Van Benthuysen improperly “attempted to avoid” their “quo
warranto” challenge to the state court’s jurisdiction,
resulting in a violation of the Maunsells’ due process
rights. Id. at 3.
Fundamentally, the Maunsells seek to have
this Court conduct “appellate review” of the state court
determination by vacating the May 20, 2012 Confirmation
Order and enjoining the state court plaintiffs from
executing the judgment. Id. at 4.
The Maunsells’ claim is familiar to the Court.
On
September 6, 2013, Chief Judge Christina Reiss issued an
order dismissing a petition by the Maunsells which made
virtually the same allegations as those seen here. See In
re: Maunsell, No. 5:13-mc-00058-cr, slip op. (D.Vt. Sept. 9,
2
2013).
In the previous matter, the Maunsells filed an “ex
parte” action alleging that Judge Van Benthuysen improperly
denied their “quo warranto” motion and denied their request
for a new hearing to present evidence on the issue of fraud
by the state court plaintiff. Id. at 1.
The Maunsells
requested that this Court “correct” the May 20, 2013
Confirmation Order by setting a new hearing and assigning
different state court judges to the case. Id. at 2.
Chief Judge Reiss granted the Maunsells’ motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Id. at 4.
As the Chief Judge thoroughly explained in the
previous Opinion and Order, to the extent the Maunsells seek
review of Judge Van Benthuysen’s conduct or his ruling in a
state court case, the federal district court generally lacks
jurisdiction. Id. at 2 (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) and Dist. Of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983)).
Applying
the Rooker-Feldman factors to the Maunsells’ case, the Chief
Judge concluded that despite any claimed constitutional
rights violations, this Court could not review the state
court order or otherwise issue an injunction staying the
proceedings. Id. at 3.
3
Pro se filings are “to be liberally construed, and a
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
However,
a district court may dismiss a case if it determines that
the complaint “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.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
A court also has inherent
authority to dismiss a case that presents no meritorious
issue.
See Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants
Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court
may dismiss frivolous complaint sua sponte even where
plaintiff paid filing fee); Pillay v. Immigration &
Naturalization Serv., 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (court
has “inherent authority” to dismiss petition that presents
“no arguably meritorious issue”).
Here, the Court finds no significant difference between
the allegations made here and those set forth in the earlier
petition.
Furthermore, the doctrine of absolute immunity
bars any claim against Judge Van Benthuysen for declaratory
or injunctive relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or
4
otherwise alleging constitutional violations. See MacPherson
v. Town of Southampton, 664 F. Supp. 2d 203, 211 (E.D.N.Y.
2009); see also Maunsell v. Johnson, et al., 100 Fed. App’x
47, 49 (2d Cir. 2004) (unpublished opinion) (affirming
dismissal of previous action by Maunsell against six past
and present Vermont Supreme Court judges on immunity
grounds).
For substantially the same reasons as those set forth
in the Opinion and Order issued in Docket Number 5:13-mc00053-cr, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
grant the relief sought in the present matter.
To the
extent the issue has not already been decided and the Court
does in fact, have subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
concludes that the Maunsells’ petition is frivolous and
fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Therefore, the matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The
court declines to grant leave to amend, as any amendment
would be futile.
See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112
(2d Cir. 2000).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, upon conducting the
review required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and
5
1915(e)(2)(B), the Maunsells’ motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 1) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this
3rd day of March, 2014.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
William K. Sessions III
Judge, United States District Court
6
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?