Note: Decisions of a three

- justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2015

- 187

SEPTEMBER TERM, 20 1 5

John Rishar, Jr. } APPEALED FROM: } } Superior Court, Caledonia Unit

,

v. } Civil Divisio n } } Kinney Drugs, et al. } DOCKET NO. 48

- 2

- 15 Cacv

Trial Judge: Robert R. Bent

In the above

- entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals pro se from a superior court order dismissing his complaint for failure to

state a claim. We affirm.

The record discloses that, in February 2015, plaintiff filed a pro s e pleading styled a s “Motion to Find Kinney Drugs and Northeast Kingdom Human Services in Contempt of an

Order of Non

- Hospitalization.” The body of the pleading also named as defendants The White Market, Rite Aid Pharmacy, Porfido’s Market and Deli, the L ittleton Food Co

- Op, the Town of Saint Johnsbury, the United States Government, the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Children and Families, and the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation. The pleading sought to hold the named defendants “in contempt of his Order of

Non

- Hospitalization for taking active roles in supplying [plaintiff] with defective medication” that he was required to take under the order of non

- hospitalization and that resulted in certain physical symptoms. In late March 2015, the trial court dismissed the motion /complaint for failure to state a cognizable cause of action against the named defendants. In April, in response to a motion for reconsideration, the court granted plai ntiff an additional ten days to file an amended pleading “more specifically setting forth a legal claim.” Thereafter, in early May, the court issued an order noting that plaintiff had filed an additional affidavit “reiterating the previous assertions

, ” fi nding that plaintiff had failed to identify any basis for holding defendants to “any specific duties” relating to the allegations, and therefore reaffirmed the earlier dismissal

order . The court also denied plaintiff’s request to file an interlocutory app eal, although the order of dismissal was plainly a final judgment. This pro se appeal followed. *

Plaintiff’s lengthy brief alleges, in summary, that the trial court violated his due process rights by ignoring facts showing that defendants and others “have flooded the market with defective groceries and water,” that the trial court acted “as an agent for the US Secret Police/Government and State Government” to cover these actions and further “crimes against

* Although plaintiff has styled his appeal as from the “denial of an interlocutory appeal,” the appeal is in, fact, from a final judgment; the cour t’s denial of plaintiff’s request for interlocutory appeal was procedurally superfluous.2

humanity,” and that he should be allowed to pursue his action to promote “wholesome groceri e s and water.”

Although dismissal for failure to state a claim is generally “not favored,” Alger v. De p ’t

of Labor & Indus. , 2006 VT 115, ¶ 12 , 181 Vt. 309 (quotation omitted), it is appropriate where

the facts all eged show beyond doubt that the defendants owed no duty under the order of non

hospitalization, the violation of which could result in an order of contempt. See In re Pannu

, 2010 VT 58, ¶ 19, 188 Vt. 279 (person may not be held in contempt of order unless orde r i s specific and definite as to duties imposed). That was the case here; plaintiff failed to allege any

facts sh owing that the named defendants were in contempt of any applicable court order, in

connection with the order of non

- hospitalization. Acc ordingly, we find no basis to disturb the judgment.

Affirmed

.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________ John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

_______________________________________ Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice