United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
WILLIAM G. YOUNG, DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
11, 2017, the Plaintiff Safron Huot, a resident of Anaconda,
Montana, filed a complaint seeking review of a Montana family
court proceeding in which her parent rights were terminated.
Complaint ("Compl."), ECF No. 1. With the
complaint, Huot filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, ECF No. 2; a motion to appoint
counsel, ECF No. 3; a motion to consent to jurisdiction, ECF
No. 4; a motion for service, ECF No. 5, and a motion to set
aside adoption and reinstate full parental rights, ECF No. 6.
case caption of the complaint states that she is filing in
the federal courts for "the District of Columbia and all
fifty states." See Compl. The case caption for
each motion is identical to the complaint's case caption.
A search of the federal Judiciary's Public Access to
Court Electronic Records (PACER) service reveals that
plaintiff filed 44 cases against the Montana State Department
of Child and Family Services in 38 federal district courts.
Plaintiff clearly intended to file her complaint in all of
these districts simultaneously.
named defendants are various individuals and institutions
apparently involved in Plaintiff's family court matter.
The named defendants include a prosecutor, a judge, a private
attorney, a family doctor, a family development specialist, a
clinical psychologist, a medical center, a state social
service agency and two state courts, all located in Montana.
complaint does not contain a specific legal cause of action,
but rather a list of grievances. Plaintiff seeks damages from
the defendants and various forms of injunctive relief,
including the reinstatement of her parental rights.
has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own
subject matter jurisdiction. See McCulloch v. Velez,
364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). Federal courts are
"'courts of limited jurisdiction.'"
Picciotto v. Cont'1 Cas. Co., 512 F.3d 9, 17
(1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). Such courts may
adjudicate only those cases authorized by the Constitution
and by Congress. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
"[T]he party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal
court carries the burden of proving its existence."
Calderon-Serra v. Wilmington Trust Co., 715 F.3d 14,
17 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Murphy v. United States,
45 F.3d 520, 522 (1st Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks
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); see Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644
F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2011) ("A court is duty-bound to
notice, and act upon, defects in its subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte.").
reviewing the complaint, the Court recognizes that pro
se pleadings are read with "an extra degree of
solicitude, " Rodi v. Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22,
23 (1st Cir.1991), due to plaintiff's pro se
status, see id.; see also Strahan v. Coxe,
127 F.3d 155, 158 n. 1 (1st Cir. 1997) (noting obligation to
construe pro se pleadings liberally) (citing
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
Generally, a pro se plaintiff is afforded an
opportunity to cure a deficient complaint. However, when
"it is crystal clear that the plaintiff cannot prevail
and that amending the complaint would be futile, " a
dismissal sua sponte is appropriate.
Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina, 747
F.3d 15, 23, (1st Cir. 2014) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
instant case is subject to summary dismissal because the
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate federal jurisdiction over this
matter. There is no diversity of citizenship as required by
the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because all
of the parties are Montana residents or entities.
federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
the allegations do not assert that the defendants violated a
federal statute or constitutional provision, nor is any
source of federal question ...