Court Opinion

ID: 9897852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:25:56.378944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:45.787172
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPREME COURT                                                      Case No.       23-AP-156
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

                                           ENTRY ORDER

                                     OCTOBER TERM, 2023

M.J.* v. L.C.S.D.                                   }    APPEALED FROM:
                                                    }    Superior Court, Lamoille Unit, Civil Division
                                                    }    CASE NO. 23-CV-00304
                                                         Trial Judge: Daniel Richardson

                                In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

      Plaintiff appeals pro se from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.

        In its dismissal order, the court found that plaintiff was a serial filer from the State of
Delaware who had made similar and repetitive claims in various jurisdictions. Plaintiff had filed
approximately 100 complaints in courts throughout the Northeast, which were all dismissed at an
early stage. Plaintiff had been sanctioned for his behavior. The court described plaintiff’s
allegations as “rambling and often incoherent with odd references to stem cells, death, re-birth,
regrowth of body parts, and viruses.” The court concluded that, putting aside the dubious nature
of his claims, plaintiff’s complaint did not survive a basic legal analysis under Vermont Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

        Plaintiff identifies no discernable or persuasive basis to overturn the trial court’s decision.
See Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Vt. 160, 164 n* (1992) (explaining that Supreme Court will not
address contentions so inadequately briefed as to fail to minimally meet standards of V.R.A.P.
28(a)). Aside from a summary sentence, the statements in his brief do not appear to relate to the
merits of the decision on appeal. As we have often repeated, “[i]t is the burden of the appellant
to demonstrate how the lower court erred warranting reversal” and “[w]e will not comb the
record searching for error.” In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 297 (1988). Plaintiff fails to show any
basis to disturb the court’s dismissal order here.

       Affirmed.

                                             BY THE COURT:

                                             Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

                                             Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

                                             Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

                                                  2