Patchell v. Silva
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera denying 15 Plaintiff Lucian Moon Patchell's letter request for reconsideration, dismissing 1 Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and failure to prosecute, and imposing a strike against Plaintiff Patchell under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (baw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LUCIAN MOON PATCHELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
No. CV 16-00387 JCH/SMV
MAJER LORENZO SILVA,
TAOS COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte on the Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint
filed by Plaintiff Lucian Moon Patchell on May 6, 2016 (“Complaint”) (Doc. 1). The Court
previously dismissed the Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and afforded
Patchell the opportunity to amend to state a claim for relief. (Doc. 12). Patchell has not filed an
amended complaint. The Court will now dismiss Patchell’s Complaint, with prejudice, for
failure to state a claim for relief and failure to prosecute, and will impose a “strike” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
1. Failure to State a Claim: Plaintiff Patchell is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis on civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court many dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under either
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) the Court
accepts well-pled factual allegations, but not conclusory, unsupported allegations, and may not
consider matters outside the pleading.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989). A claim should be dismissed where
it is legally or factually insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570; Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).
Under § 1915(e)(2)(B) the Court may dismiss the complaint if the Court determines the
action fails to state a claim for relief or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 915(e)(2)(B)(2).
The authority granted by § 1915 permits the court the power to pierce the veil of the complaint's
factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). See also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1109. The
Court is not required to accept the truth of the plaintiff's allegations but may go beyond the
pleadings and consider any other materials filed by the parties. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 32-33 (1992).
Although the Court liberally construes the factual allegations, a pro se plaintiff’s
pleadings are judged by the same legal standards that apply to all litigants, and a pro se plaintiff
must abide by the applicable rules of court. Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21
(10th Cir. 1992); Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The Court is not
obligated to craft legal theories for the plaintiff or to supply factual allegations to support the
plaintiff’s claims, nor may the Court assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d at 1110.
2. Patchell’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim for § 1983 Relief: The Court has
previously determined that Patchell’s Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. (Doc. 12). To
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must assert acts by government
officials acting under color of law that result in a deprivation of rights secured by the United
States Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Plaintiff must
allege some personal involvement by an identified official in the alleged constitutional violation
2
to succeed under § 1983. Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008). A
plaintiff’s complaint must “make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom.”
Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in the original).
Generalized allegations against “defendants” or “officers,” without identification of individual
actors and conduct that caused the deprivation of a constitutional right, do not state any claim for
relief. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d at 1249-50.
As the Court has determined, applying the § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
standards, the original Complaint filed by Patchell fails to state a claim for relief under § 1983.
Patchell alleges that on June 17, 2014 at the Taos County Adult Detention Center, he was stripsearched in the presence of female staff, had a mace/pepper ball gun aimed at him, and was
forced to sit “in other peoples snot, spit, and ‘lewgies’” in violation of his 8th and 14th
Amendment rights. (Doc. 1 at 2-3). Patchell does not identify any of the individual detention
facility officers actually involved in the alleged unconstitutional acts. The Complaint does not
name, and fails to state a claim for relief against, any subordinate Taos County Adult Detention
Center official. Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d at 1162.
Patchell does identify “Majer Lorenzo Silva” as a Defendant and appears to claim
supervisory liability on the part of Defendant Silva. (Doc. 1 at 1-2). Patchell alleges Silva is “the
jail commander/chief of operations at the Taos County Adult Correctional Facility” and makes
generalized allegations that the claimed wrongful actions were taken “while under direct order
from Mr. Silva,” “under Mr. Silva’s direct supervision,” and “under direct authority and
instruction of Majer Silva.” (Doc. 1 at 2-3). Patchell fails, however, to allege specific facts
showing personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations by Silva, a causal
connection between Silva’s personal involvement and the constitutional violation, or a culpable
3
state of mind on the part of Defendant Silva. Serna v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 455 F.3d
1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006); Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1194–96 (10th Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff Patchell fails to sufficiently state a plausible claim of supervisory liability against
Defendant Silva. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Last, Patchell also names the Taos County Adult Detention Center as a Defendant. The
Taos County Adult Detention Center is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and, therefore, there is no remedy against the Taos County Adult Detention Center under § 1983.
Therefore, the claims against the Taos County Adult Detention Center fail to state a claim for
relief and will be dismissed. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63-64 (1989).
3. Patchell Failed to Amend his Complaint: The Court granted Patchell a reasonable
opportunity to remedy defects in his pleading. See Doc. 12. See, also, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
at 1109; Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990). The Court also notified
Patchell that, if he failed to file an amended complaint, the Court may dismiss this action with
prejudice and without further notice. (Doc. 12 at 6-7). The Court’s Memorandum Opinion and
Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable. (Doc. 13). Therefore, the Court re-mailed the
Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff Patchell on November 15, 2017. Upon receipt of
the Memorandum Opinion and Order, rather than filing an amended complaint, Patchell chose to
file a letter requesting reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. (Doc. 15).
The Court construes Plaintiff Patchell’s November 27, 2012 request as a motion for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Grounds warranting reconsideration under Rule
59(e) include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Brumark
Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir.1995). A motion for
4
reconsideration is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed in prior filings. See Van
Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991); Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Patchell’s request for reconsideration does not identify any change in controlling law,
new evidence that was previously unavailable, or clear error that must be corrected to prevent
manifest injustice. Instead, Patchell continues to reiterate his vague allegations that Major
Lorenzo Silva “was the actor spoken of in the Complaint.” (Doc. 15). He, again, does not
specify facts sufficient to show not only personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
violations by Silva, but a causal connection between Silva’s personal involvement and the
constitutional violation, or a culpable state of mind on the part of Defendant Silva. Serna v.
Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 455 F.3d at 1151; Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d at 1194–96.
2010). Patchell’s letter request does not establish a basis for reconsideration, nor is it sufficient
to constitute an amended complaint. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d at 1243; Servants of
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1012.
The Court may dismiss an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, to
comply with the rules of civil procedure, or to comply with court orders. See Olsen v. Mapes,
333 F.3d 1199, 1204, n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003). Patchell’s letter request is insufficient to warrant
reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling, nor does it comply with the Court’s order to file an
amended complaint. Therefore, the Court will deny Patchell’s request for reconsideration (Doc.
15) and will dismiss this civil proceeding pursuant to rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute this case.
4. The Court Will Impose a § 1915(g) Strike: When it enacted the in forma pauperis
statute, Congress recognized that a citizen should not be denied an opportunity to commence a
civil action in any court of the United States solely because he is unable to pay or secure the
5
costs. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342 (1948). However, Congress
also recognized that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike
a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or
repetitive lawsuits. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Noting that prisoner suits
represent a disproportionate share of federal filings, Congress enacted a variety of reforms
designed to filter out deficient claims. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202-204 (2007).
Those reforms include the three-strike rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The three-strike rule of § 1915(g) states:
“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in
a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or
more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility,
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was
dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Because the Court concludes that Patchell’s Complaint in this case fails to state a claim for relief
under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court will impose a strike against him under the PLRA § 1915(g).
Patchell is notified that if he accrues three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any
future civil actions before federal courts unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff Lucian Moon Patchell’s letter request for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is
DENIED;
(2) the Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint filed by Plaintiff Lucian Moon Patchell on May
6, 2016 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted and failure to prosecute; and
6
(3) a STRIKE is imposed against Plaintiff Patchell under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?