Ortega v. Otero County Detention Center
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez DISMISSING 1 Complaint; and DENYING AS MOOT 5 MOTION to Amend/Correct. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudi ce pursuant to 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may granted; and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 5 ) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 90 days of entry of this order. (gr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RAYMOND J ORTEGA,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:16-cv-1188 MV/LF
OTERO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint. (Doc. 1). Also before
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff is incarcerated, appears pro se, and
is proceeding in forma pauperis. After reviewing the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court will dismiss the complaint and grant Plaintiff
ninety (90) days from the entry of this Order to file an amended complaint.
Standards Governing Sua Sponte Review
The Court has discretion to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte under §
1915(e)(2) “at any time if … the action … is frivolous or malicious; [or] fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.” The Court may also dismiss a complaint sua sponte under Rule
12(b)(6) if “it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and
allowing [plaintiff] an opportunity to amend [the] complaint would be futile.” Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotations omitted). The plaintiff must frame a complaint
that contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id.
Because Plaintiff is pro se, his “pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. If the court
can “reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it
should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, … confusion of various
legal theories, … poor syntax and sentence construction, or … unfamiliarity with pleading
requirements.” Id. Further, if the initial pleading is defective, pro se plaintiffs should be given a
reasonable opportunity to file an amended pleading, unless amendment would be futile.
Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109.
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff asserts the Otero County Detention Center (OCDC) was deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
He alleges that on or about September 26, 2013, a correctional officer at OCDC placed him in a
dirty cell without socks or shoes. The cell had a hole in the floor that was used as a toilet. The
hole contained exposed urine, excrement, and vomit. As a result, Plaintiff contracted an infection
in his right leg. The OCDC medical staff left him laying on the floor of the cell for three days.
When OCDC finally transported Plaintiff to the hospital, his right leg was amputated. The wound
never healed properly because he is diabetic.
Analysis
The scenario Plaintiff describes would ordinarily survive initial review under § 1915(e).
However, the complaint does not name a defendant who is subject to liability. “A cause of action
under section 1983 requires the deprivation of a civil right by a ‘person’ acting under color of state
2
law.” McLaughlin v. Bd. of Trustees, 215 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2000). “[S]tate-operated
detention facilities do not have a separate legal identity from the state, and therefore are not
‘persons’ who have the capacity to be sued under §1983.” Buchanan v. Okla., 398 Fed. App’x
339, 342 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). Consequently, the complaint against OCDC will be
dismissed. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63-64 (1989).
The Court will permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 90 days of entry of this
order. When naming the defendants, Plaintiff should “make clear exactly who is alleged to have
done what to whom, to provide each individual with fair notice as to the basis of the claim against
him or her.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in the
original). Each defendant must have had some personal involvement in the alleged deprivation of
medical care. See Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008). Further, there
must be a connection between the official conduct and the violation of a constitutional right. See
Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1046 (10th Cir. 1998). To proceed against supervisory
personnel, Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating: “(1) the defendant promulgated, created,
implemented or possessed responsibility for the continued operation of a policy that (2) caused the
complained of constitutional harm, and (3) acted with the state of mind required to establish the
alleged constitutional deprivation.” Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1199 (10th Cir. 2010).
If Plaintiff declines to timely file an amended complaint or files an amended complaint that
similarly fails to state a claim, the Court may dismiss the case with prejudice and without further
notice.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint is moot. To the extent
the Motion to Amend contains a request to conduct discovery, such relief is premature. In cases
where a civil rights complaint survives screening, the record may, if appropriate, be developed
3
through a Martinez Report, which is “a court-authorized investigation and report by prison
officials.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991). See also Abdulhaseeb v.
Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1310 (10th Cir. 2010) (courts may delay “discovery pending an
evaluation of the [Martinez] report”). The Court will therefore deny the Motion to Amend.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which
relief may granted; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 5) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 90 days of
entry of this order.
____________________________________
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?