Thompson v. State Custody of DCYF

US NiStoray | OISTRict Ace} □□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UE VERMONT FOR THE £028 AUR ON pw DISTRICT OF VERMONT J AUG 20 PM 2: 0; REBEKAH THOMPSON ) CLERK and CHESTER THOMPSON, ) By Plaintiffs, ) ) Vv. ) Case No. 5:20-cv-90 ) STATE CUSTODY OF DCYF, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 10) On August 6, 2020, self-represented Plaintiffs Rebekah and Chester Thompson were granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915; however, Plaintiffs’ Complaint was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 8.)

Plaintiffs timely filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), which the court now considers.

Dismissal is warranted for the same reasons as explained in the Court’s July 14, 2020 Order. (See Doc. 4 at 3-8.) Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Buckner v. Shumlin, No. 1:12-cv-90, 2013 WL 6571814, at *9 (D. Vt. Dec. 13, 2013). Because Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a claim for relief over which this court has jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.

The court hereby certifies that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

SO ORDERED.

Dated at Rutland in the District of Vermont, this 20" day of August 2020.

Geoffrey W. Crawford, Chief Judge United States District Court