Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Huot v. Montana State Department of Child and Family Services

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

August 31, 2017

SAFRON HUOT, Plaintiff,
v.
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES; et al., Defendants.

          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 Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint because it is frivolous, it fails to state a claim upon which relief 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 Complaint and the R&R, this Court ACCEPTS the R&R in its entirety and adopts the reasoning set forth therein. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         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).

         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 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.