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.

Buzzell v. Skowhegan Saving Bank

United States District Court, D. Maine

January 13, 2017

Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell
v.
Skowhegan Saving Bank et al. Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell
v.
Kirk R. House et al. Bonny L. Hutchins Buzzell et al.
v.
Broadway Veterinary Clinic et al.

          ORDER

          PAUL BARBADORO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Bonny 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, 10).[2] 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. 15).

         Background

         Plaintiff's 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 marijuana.
• 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 terrorizing her.
• 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.

         Discussion

         I. Preliminary Review

         In 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 ...

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.