Hart v. Lewis

Background

Eugene Hart, Jr. filed this civil action and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that he filed the action on June 16, 2026. Hart alleged that the defendants falsely claimed that he was not his daughter’s legal father, used an altered birth certificate, and obtained child-support payments. He also alleged that someone claimed to be his adoptive parent even though he did not know that person and had never recognized anyone else as his parent. The complaint asserted claims described as fraud and a human-rights violation.

Screening and jurisdiction

The court granted Hart’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Under the federal statute governing such cases, the court must dismiss a case if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from suit. The court explained that a complaint may be considered frivolous when the federal court lacks authority to hear it.

The court found no federal-question jurisdiction because Hart did not identify a federal statute or constitutional right underlying his claims. Although he said he was suing the United States government, a federal agency, or a federal official acting in an official capacity, the court found no showing that any defendant was a federal official. The court also concluded that Hart had not pleaded facts establishing a legally recognizable claim. It described the allegation that previously unknown adoptive parents owed him past child support as reaching the level of a clearly baseless or irrational factual allegation.

The court further stated that Hart had filed more than 50 cases in the district, including approximately 20 cases against Lynette Lewis, and that none appeared to have merit. It concluded that the complaint did not provide the short and plain statement required by the federal pleading rules.

Ruling and next steps

The magistrate judge reassigned the case to a district judge and recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. This opinion grants the fee-waiver application and makes the dismissal recommendation; it does not state that the district judge had entered a final dismissal. Any party may file objections with the district judge within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation. The opinion warns that failing to object within that period may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.