United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
REBECCA F. DOHERTY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICK J. HANNA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
se plaintiff Safron Huot filed the instant complaint on
July 12, 2017. Plaintiff, a citizen of Montana, asserts
claims that evidently arise out of child custody matters
conducted in Montana state courts, against the following
defendants: (1) MT State Dept of Child & Family Services;
(2) MT Supreme Court; (3) Deer Lodge County MT District
Court; (4) Ray Dayon; (5) Cal Boyal; (6) Cindy Johnson; (7)
Deer Lodge Medical Center; (8) Wayne R. Martin; (9) Susanne
M. Clague; (10) Ben Krakowka; (11) Susan Day; (12) Dave
Fenchak; (13) Mary Jo Fortner; and (14) Roger Fortner, all
Montana residents. [Rec. Doc. 1, pp. 1-4] Plaintiff asserts
that her lawsuit involves a “federal question”
[Id. at 4], yet enumerates twelve claims related to
the judicial termination of her parental rights. Plaintiff
asserts that she has filed or attempted to file her lawsuit
in fifty other federal district courts throughout the
country. [Rec. Doc. 1-3]
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court may dismiss a case if
the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Additionally, the
court is required to dismiss an action if the court
determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P.
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
lawsuit. "[F]ederal courts are duty-bound to examine the
basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte." See Union Planters Bank Nat'l
Ass'n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004).
See also In re Bass, 171 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir.
1999) ("Federal courts must be assured of their subject
matter jurisdiction at all times and may question it sua
sponte at any stage of judicial proceedings.").
"It is incumbent on all federal courts to dismiss an
action whenever it appears that subject matter jurisdiction
is lacking." See Stockman v. Federal Election
Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998).
federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over civil
cases "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties
of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In this
case, Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific cause of
action that would allow the Court to exercise federal
question jurisdiction over her lawsuit.
federal court also has subject matter jurisdiction over civil
cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000.00,
exclusive of interest and costs, and in which diversity of
citizenship exists between the parties. 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Because Plaintiff identifies herself and each defendant
as citizens of Montana, diversity jurisdiction is lacking.
the Court retained subject matter jurisdiction over
plaintiff's lawsuit, dismissal is appropriate pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for improper venue. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b):
A civil action may be brought in-
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise
be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district
in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
that plaintiff is a resident of Montana, each defendant is a
resident of Montana and the subject matter of the complaint
took place in Montana, the proper venue for ...