United States District Court, D. Maine
BONNY LOU BUZZELL HUTCHINS, Plaintiff, pro se, BANGOR, ME.
John C. Nivison, United States Magistrate Judge.
In this matter, Plaintiff Bonny Lou Buzzell Hutchins, proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendants have engaged in certain unlawful conduct that has caused her harm.
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which application the Court granted. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a preliminary review of Plaintiff's complaint is appropriate.
Following the review, I recommend that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, without requiring service of the complaint.
Standard of review
When a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, " the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines, " inter alia, that the action is " frivolous or malicious" or " fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). " Dismissals [under 28 U.S.C. § 1915] are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989); see also Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1989) (" Section 1915(d), for example, authorizes courts to dismiss a 'frivolous or malicious' action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.").
When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted, courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead " enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). " The relevant question ... in assessing plausibility is not whether the complaint makes any particular factual allegations but, rather, whether 'the complaint warrant[s] dismissal because it failed in toto to render plaintiffs' entitlement to relief plausible.'" Rodrí guez--Reyes v. Molina-- Rodrí guez, 711 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n. 14). Although a pro se plaintiff's complaint is subject to " less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the complaint may not consist entirely of " conclusory allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard, " Young v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013). See also Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980) (explaining that the liberal standard applied to the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs " is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim").
The facts set forth herein are derived from the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, which facts are deemed true when evaluating the Motion to Dismiss. Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1998).
In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges (a) that a tenant of Defendant Forest Goodwin, Jr., entered Plaintiff's home, and stole certain property; (b) that Defendants Teddy and Jeremy Goodwin stalked her; (c) that Defendant Forest Goodwin, Jr., tried to shoot Plaintiff's brother and father; (d) that Defendant Forest Goodwin, Jr., killed wildlife on Plaintiff's property; and (e) that the Goodwin family tortured her and forced her to commit criminal acts.
Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in conduct that could possibly serve as the basis for a civil claim, Plaintiff has asserted no facts to establish this Court's jurisdiction over any such claim. " In questions of federal jurisdiction, 'the party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court carries the burden of proving its existence.'" Satterfield v. F.W. Webb, Inc., 334 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D. Me. 2004) (citing Coventry Sewage Associates v. Dworkin Realty Co., 71 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995)). " Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute...." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide cases that arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331), and state law claims between citizens of different states, provided the amount in issue exceeds the value of $ 75, 000 (28 U.S.C. § 1332). ...