Morgan-Buechner v. Buechner

Background

Mercedes Nightingale Morgan-Buechner filed a civil-rights complaint against James Edward Buechner concerning the treatment of her children. She applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without paying the filing fee. The complaint was reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires screening of an IFP complaint and dismissal if it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

The opinion was issued as a Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. The supplied case information identifies Donovan Frank as the district judge. The recommendation was not itself a final order or judgment of the District Court.

Reasons for the Recommendation

The court concluded that the complaint did not plead a viable federal claim for several reasons:

- Section 1983 claim: Morgan-Buechner invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a claim for deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under state law. The complaint did not allege that Buechner was a state actor. The opinion stated that he appeared to be either a relative or former husband. The complaint sought a different child-custody arrangement and damages for alleged tortious conduct, but it did not allege that Buechner took the challenged actions while acting under state authority. - Other federal claims: The court found no other apparent federal claims on the face of the complaint. - Diversity jurisdiction: Although Morgan-Buechner checked the diversity-jurisdiction box, the pleaded facts did not satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The opinion stated that both parties were Minnesota citizens and that the amount in controversy was $12,000, so neither requirement was met. - Supplemental jurisdiction: Because there were no viable federal claims, the court concluded that it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.

Disposition

The Report and Recommendation states that the matter should be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It also recommends that Morgan-Buechner’s IFP application be denied as moot.

The notice explains that the Report and Recommendation was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit because it was not a final order or judgment. It provided 14 days for a party to file specific written objections under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1).