Archuleta v. Martinez

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez GRANTING 2 MOTION to Proceed under 28 U.S.C. 1915 and DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 Complaint. See Order for Specifics. (gr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BENJAMIN ARCHULETA,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17cv353 MV/SCY

LEONARD MARTINEZ et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed March 20, 2017 (“Complaint”) and on his Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed March 20, 2017
(“Application”). For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Application,
and DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 21 days from entry
of this Order to file an amended complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint may
result in dismissal of this case without prejudice.
Application to Proceed in forma pauperis
The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), provides that the
Court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who
submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person possesses and that the person
is unable to pay such fees.
When a district court receives an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
it should examine the papers and determine if the requirements of
[28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted. Thereafter,
if the court finds that the allegations of poverty are untrue or that the action is
frivolous or malicious, it may dismiss the case[.]

Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed.Appx. 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58,
60 (10th Cir. 1962). “[A]n application to proceed in forma pauperis should be evaluated in light
of the applicant's present financial status.” Scherer v. Kansas, 263 Fed.Appx. 667, 669 (10th Cir.
2008) (citing Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir.1988)). “The statute [allowing a
litigant to proceed in forma pauperis ] was intended for the benefit of those too poor to pay or give
security for costs....” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344 (1948).
While a litigant need not be “absolutely destitute,” “an affidavit is sufficient which states that one
cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself
and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339.
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit declaring that he is unable to pay the costs of these
proceedings and provided the following information: (i) his average monthly income during the
past 12 months was $0.00 and his income amount expected next month is $0.00;1 (ii) he owns no
assets; (iii) his monthly expenses are $887.00; and (iv) he has no cash and no money in bank
accounts. Because of his low monthly income during the past year with no income expected next
month, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to prepay the fees to initiate this action.
Dismissal of Proceedings In Forma Pauperis
The statute governing proceedings in forma pauperis requires federal courts to dismiss an
in forma pauperis proceeding that “is frivolous or malicious; ... fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; ... or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is
1

He states he is a “Social Security Pauper” but did not indicate how much he receives monthly.
2

proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it
would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th
Cir. 2007). “In determining whether a dismissal is proper, we must accept the allegations of the
complaint as true and construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be
drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d at 1217.
The Court looks to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly
support a legal claim for relief, i.e. the factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level. See id. at 1218 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007)). Dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous is not an abuse of discretion
based on a determination that the pro se litigant did not state a viable legal claim and that the
complaint consisted of little more than unintelligible ramblings.

Triplett v. Triplett, 166

Fed.Appx. 338, 339-340 (10th Cir. 2006). However, “pro se litigants are to be given reasonable
opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n.3
(10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff states the following background of his case:
Mr. Martinez is not a “Archuleta” to the Ancient Title and topo of the “Aragon”
seal. further via Udall and Hienrich the Royal Seal was Altered and Adulterized
“Changed” the Original Vestment of “Archuleta” and adding 40 names likened to
geneva. further to topo has been greatly reduced from its Original state and our
“Archuleta’s” are not even recieving Royalties nor do we have designation and
Political Security from the alienation and Commerce of the British U.S.A. and our
Castille Tolteca Jubille Allodial. Our Queen’s are “Pocahauntess” and “Eden” via
the nomatic chacos and Pyramid Kingdom. Repeal “La Merced de San note: the
40 names entered in Black ink do not match the Royal Parchment and the topo’s 10
million acres.
[sic] Complaint at 2. Plaintiff asserts various vague claims such as “Bill of Rights violation:
Security, Due Process, Slavery, Cruel Punishment,” and “Conspiracy and terror wilful error
3

transcend to breach of Trust and Victom of the World Habeas Corpus Political Refugee Asylum
Status.”

[sic] Complaint at 2-3.

Plaintiff states the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 351 (relating to complaints that a judge has engaged in prejudicial conduct),
28 U.S.C. § 1365 (relating to Senate actions), 42 U.S.C. § 1980 (reserved for future legislation),
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (relating to equal rights under the law), 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (relating to property
rights of citizens), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (relating to civil action for deprivation of rights),
42 U.S.C. § 1984 (omitted), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (relating to conspiracy to interfere with civil rights),
and “Fed Civ. R. P. 80.10 and 80.13,” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 80 relates to Stenographic Transcript as
Evidence, and does not have any subparts). Complaint at 2. Plaintiff states the following
supporting facts in his Complaint:
Mr. Martinez is not a Devine rite right “Archuleta” of the “Aragon” Seal. Further
the enactment of “La Merced De Pueblo Del San Joaquin Del Rio Chama. I am
the grandson of Rayos and Guadelupe Archuleta via nicodemus, Benjamin,
Alejandro and me Benjamin Archuleta. Mr. Augustine could not have men. See:
Bible and Quran
The Angalo British U.S.A. Angalos are not our we Executives and Judicial
administration to adjudicate imply or “Lobby” thier Commerial Market and
Political Body on Our Explicit and Devine rite Immune and Sovereign (“Private
Crown Democracy”.)
Complaint at 3-4. Plaintiff seeks the following relief: “Repeal of Enactment ‘La Merced Del
Pueblo Del San Joaquin Del Rio Chama’ to be recognised ‘Crown of Eden’ and turned over the
rightful title Topo and Congressional funds. ‘Potus Reprimand.’” Complaint at 5.
The Complaint fails to state a claim and does not allege sufficient facts to support
jurisdiction. As the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff bears the
burden of alleging facts that support jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985
(10th Cir. 2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no
4

jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”). The
Complaint is largely unintelligible and it is not clear what claims Plaintiff is asserting or whether
the relief he seeks can be granted. Although Plaintiff cites several federal statutes, there are no
factual allegations that support federal jurisdiction over this matter.
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: “If the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” However, “pro se
litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
without prejudice because Plaintiff did not meet his burden of alleging facts that support
jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days of entry of this Order.
Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case without prejudice.
Service on Defendants
Section 1915 provides that the “officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and
perform all duties in [proceedings in forma pauperis]”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Rule 4 provides
that:
At the plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by a United
States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court.
The court must so order if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. § 1916.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).
The Court will not order service of Summons and Complaint on Defendants at this time.
The Court will order service if Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint which states a claim,
alleges sufficient facts to support jurisdiction, and includes the addresses of each Defendant named
in the Amended Complaint.
5

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed March 20, 2017, is GRANTED.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed March 20, 2017, is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff
may file an amended complaint within 21 days of entry of this Order.

__________________________________
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6