United States District Court, D. Maine
Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell
Skowhegan Saving Bank et al. Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell
Kirk R. House et al. Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell et al.
Broadway Veterinary Clinic et al.
BARBADORO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
L. Hutchins Buzzell, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a complaint and complaint addenda in each
of the above-captioned cases, naming dozens of defendants in
each case. See Hutchins Buzzell v. Skowhegan Saving
Bank, No. 16-cv-280-PJB (Doc. Nos. 1, 7, 10, 11);
Hutchins Buzzell v. House, No. 16-cv-281-PJB (Doc.
Nos. 1, 7, 10, 11); Hutchins Buzzell v. Broadway
Veterinary Clinic, No. 16-cv-282-PJB (Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 9,
These cases are before this court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Also before the
court, in two of the cases, are plaintiff's motions to
amend the complaint. See Hutchins Buzzell v. House,
No. 16-cv-281-PJB (Doc. No. 15); Hutchins Buzzell v.
Broadway Veterinary Clinic, No. 16-cv-282-PJB (Doc. No.
filings are convoluted and follow no single narrative path.
Construed liberally in light of plaintiff's pro se
status, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam), the complaint documents generally allege
that the named defendants in each action have persecuted,
harassed, threatened, and otherwise abused plaintiff, her
family members, and her service dog; and that defendants have
subjected her, her family members, and her service dog, to
mental, sexual, financial, and physical harm. While far from
exhaustive, some examples of these wrongs and harms, alleged
in each of the complaints, are:
• Unspecified defendants have attempted to murder
plaintiff by orchestrating dog attacks on her while she was
walking to the federal courthouse to file civil actions, and
police agencies and a counselling center have failed to act
on her reports of those attacks.
• Unspecified defendants, driving orange cars and black
trucks, vehicles whose make, model, and color have a coded
meaning, have tried to run her over numerous times, while one
or more of the operators of those vehicles was using medical
• Both of plaintiff's ex-husbands secretly had
children with other women before they were married to
plaintiff, and the mothers of those children have prevented
plaintiff from receiving pastoral care at a number of
churches and otherwise stalked and harassed her.
• On multiple occasions, unnamed defendants have caused
plaintiff to be stranded in a public place, sometimes by
causing taxis and public transportation not to pick her up,
so that those defendants can stalk and abuse plaintiff when
she is alone.
• Unspecified defendants have sabotaged plaintiff's
efforts to obtain employment, medical, and mental health
records, government benefits, and safe housing, over many
years, utilizing harassment and abuse and by otherwise
• On more than one occasion, plaintiff's service dog
was restrained and abused physically and sexually at a
veterinary clinic where clinic staff had faked injuries and
alleged that those injuries had been inflicted by her dog to
justify their treatment of the dog.
conducting a preliminary review of a complaint filed in forma
pauperis, this court may dismiss the case before defendants
appear, if the court determines that the complaint fails to
state a claim, or that the action is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). To survive preliminary review,
the complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also
Sepúlveda-Villarini v. Dep't of Educ.,
628 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2010).
[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if
the facts alleged are “clearly baseless, ” a
category encompassing allegations that are “fanciful,
” “fantastic, ” and
“delusional.” As those words suggest, a finding
of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly