Raveen Henderson v. Hamilton County Probate Court

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee overruled objections filed by a non-attorney purporting to represent the plaintiff, denied appointment of a next friend, and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternatively for failure to state a claim, concluding that the requested relief implicated the probate exception and that the complaint did not adequately allege a federal due process claim against the Hamilton County Probate Court.

Holdings

1. A purported next friend may not be appointed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) absent evidence that the plaintiff is a minor or incompetent, and a nonlawyer next friend may not conduct federal litigation for another person without counsel.
2. The petition, as filed, did not establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
3. A plaintiff may not assert a new federal constitutional claim for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
4. A municipality or municipal subdivision cannot be held liable under § 1983 without allegations that an official policy or custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation.
5. The probate exception barred the requested relief because the petition sought to reopen and disturb the administration and distribution of a state probate estate.
6. The action was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, failure to state a claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brynae T. Burney could be appointed as Henderson's next friend and file objections on Henderson's behalf.
2. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Henderson's petition to reopen and alter the administration of a state probate estate.
3. Whether Henderson could assert a new Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for the first time in objections to the Report and Recommendation.
4. Whether Henderson stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Hamilton County or its probate court without alleging a municipal policy or custom causing the alleged constitutional injury.
5. Whether the probate exception barred the requested relief concerning the estate and its assets.

Disposition

dismissed