Carole Prevost v. Department of Children & Family.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
22-P-1058
CAROLE PREVOST
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY. 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
The pro se plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of her
amended complaint against the Florida Department of Children and
Families (DCF). 2 A judge of the Essex Superior Court, having
reviewed the complaint, concluded that "[a]s best the court can
tell, the plaintiff is challenging a decision by DCF in Florida
to revoke and/or decrease her public assistance," and dismissed
it based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the
Florida Administrative Procedure Act, Fla. Stat. § 120.68. We
1 We take the caption from the plaintiff's amended complaint, as
is our custom. It is clear from the record that her complaint
refers to the Department of Children and Families for the State
of Florida.
2 The plaintiff has appeared pro se throughout these proceedings.
"Although some leniency is appropriate in determining whether
pro se litigants have complied with rules of procedure, the
rules nevertheless bind pro se litigants as all other
litigants." Brown v. Chicopee Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1710,
IAFF, 408 Mass. 1003, 1004 n.4 (1990).
review a judge's dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction de novo. See Lichoulas v. Lowell, 78 Mass.
App. Ct. 271, 275 (2010).
Here, we discern no error in the judge's decision to
dismiss the complaint. See Fla. Stat. § 120.68 (2). According
to the docket, the defendant filed an amended complaint on June
14, 2022. A written motion, labeled "Amended Complaint" and
dated June 13, states in part "I know since 2016, after that
state of agency had been cut down my food I am a victim of some
crimes by abusing of power, turns people against me." Florida
Statute § 120.68 (2) provides that exclusive jurisdiction for
judicial review of administrative actions by Florida agencies
lies with the courts of appeal in Florida. See Wausau
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Careers USA, Inc., No. 11-80180, 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159039 at *11 (S.D. Fla. June 25, 2011).
Although the plaintiff contends that her original complaint
pertained to other tortious behavior by DCF, her arguments lack
legal citations and therefore do not "rise to the level of
appellate argument." Maroney v. Planning Bd. of Haverhill, 97
Mass. App. Ct. 678, 683 n.8 (2020). See also Mass. R. A. P. 16
(a) (9) (A), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 (2019). Moreover,
the record appendix submitted by the plaintiff contains
handwritten documents which, at times, are difficult to read,
and we are unable to identify which document within it could be
2
the original complaint itself, which we would require to assess
the plaintiff's claim. 3 It is well settled that it is the
appellant's duty to provide this court with legal briefing and a
record appendix required to judge her appeal, and without these,
we are constrained to affirm the judge's decision below. See
Brown v. Chicopee Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 1710, IAFF, 408
Mass. 1003, 1004 n.4 (1990). See also Mass. R. A. P. 18 (a), as
appearing in 481 Mass. 1637 (2019).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Desmond, Hand &
Hodgens, JJ. 4),
Clerk
Entered: November 1, 2023.
3 The docket states that the original complaint was filed on
February 2, 2022. No document with that date is included as
part of the appendix in this appeal.
4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.
3