Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hospital Administration et al
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera denying as moot Plaintiff's Amended Motion in Support for Leave to File Amended Complaint 34 , Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 35 , Motion to Produce Documents 36 , M otion for Temporary Injunction 39 , and Motion for Telephonic Hearing 40 ; and, dismissing without prejudice 37 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court's August 28, 2021 Order and with the rules of procedure. (baw)
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
EARL R. MAYFIELD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
No. CV 17-00398 JCH/KRS
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL [JOHN/JANE DOE (1)(2)],
BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICERS
[JOHN DOES 3-6], METROPOLITAN DETENTION
CENTER MEDICAL STAFF, NURSES, DOCTOR,
AND CORRECTIONAL GUARDS ON DUTY,
[JOHN DOES 7-9],
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) on the Amended
Complaint filed by Plaintiff Earl R. Mayfield (Doc. 37). The Court will dismiss the Amended
Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court Order and with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Earl R. Mayfield filed a rambling, often incoherent, and delusional Prisoner’s
Civil Rights Complaint on May 31, 2017. (Doc. 1). He named, as Defendants, Pres. Hosp. Admin.
(apparently Presbyterian Hospital), BSO Dept. (presumably Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office),
Outside Agency, Albuq Ambulance (presumably Albuquerque Ambulance), Jane/John Doe, and
possible MDC (apparently Metropolitan Detention Center). (Doc. 1 at 1). Mayfield claimed that
1
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 11
the events underlying his Complaint began with a hearing in his New Mexico state criminal case
on May 4, 2016 before the Honorable Stan Whittaker. (Doc. 1 at 1-2, 5).1 Mayfield claimed:
“I was admitted to Emergency Room May 4, 2016 where my
constitutional State and Fed rights Hippa/civil rights state
and Federal medical malpractice, attempted murder, assault,
rape, violation of due process, conspiracy with BSO Albuq
Ambulance and other unknown agency’s overly medicated.
...
I was taken to Pres Hosp by Albuq Ambulance after being
remanded into custody by BSO, while in custody other outside
Jane/John Doe agency was called. . . Violation of Hippa,
Due Process, Equal Process, Cruel & Unusual punishment, Fed.
& State constitutional Civil Rights 1964, Deliberate indifference,
Assault, Medical Malpractice, Abuse of power, Excessive force,
Attempted Murder, Agrivated Assault, Possible sexual assault.”
(Doc. 1 at 1-2). Mayfield requested the Court award him “$20,000,000, for each and every
defendant violation of plaintiffs rights, Monetary, Compensatory, Punitive Damages.” (Doc. 1 at
13).
On January 23, 2018 the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order concluding that
Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a federal claim for relief and declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any possible state law claims. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff Mayfield appealed the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on February 2, 2018. (Doc.
14). The Tenth Circuit affirmed this Court in most respects on May 31, 2019. (Doc. 21-1). In its
Order, the Tenth Circuit affirmed all the Court’s rulings that Plaintiff Mayfield’s Complaint failed
to state a federal claim for relief. (Doc. 21-1 at 6-9). The Tenth Circuit specifically affirmed the
1
The official docket for Plaintiff Mayfield’s criminal case shows that no proceedings took place
in that case on or around May 4, 2016. See New Mexico Secure Court Case Access (SOPA) docket
for D-202-cr-2012-02229; United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n. 5 (10th Cir.2007)
(Court may take judicial notice of publicly filed records in other courts concerning matters that
bear directly upon disposition of the case at hand); Shoulders v. Dinwiddie, 2006 WL 2792671
(W.D.Okla.2006) (court may take judicial notice of state court records available on the world wide
web including docket sheets in district courts).
2
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 11
Court’s ruling that MDC is not a suable entity for purposes of § 1983 and Plaintiff Mayfield’s
Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against MDC. (Doc. 21-1 at 6).
However, the Tenth Circuit questioned whether the Court had considered Mayfield’s
allegation he was deprived of food by MDC in retaliation for alleging grievances against prison
officials. (Doc. 21-1 at 9). The Tenth Circuit characterized his statements as alleging “he was
placed in a maximum security cell . . .[w]hile in maximum security he alleges MDC did not feed
him for the next three to four days.” (Doc. 21 at 3-4). The Tenth Circuit remanded the case “to
the district court to decide in the first instance Mayfield’s claim of unconstitutional prison
conditions and retaliation, including whether Mayfield should be given leave to amend his
complaint.” (Doc. 21-1 at 11). The Circuit Court also vacated the Court’s decision declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. (Doc. 21-1 at 11).
Plaintiff Mayfield has had fifteen civil rights and habeas corpus cases brought as original
proceedings in or removed to this Court.2 Plaintiff has raised claims relating to an alleged
incident involving Presbyterian Hospital in three cases including this case. In Mayfield v.
Garcia, No. CV 16-00805 JB/JHR, Plaintiff claimed that in June 2016, after he left Presbyterian
Hospital, his level of security was raised at MDC and he was not allowed to shower, shave, use
the phone, or seek medical attention. (CV 16-00805/JB/JHR, Doc. 1 at 3). He did not make any
mention of MDC refusing him food.
Mayfield v. Waid, CV 92-00349 JEC/WD; Mayfield v. Bernalillo County Detention, CV 92-00350
JGB/JHG; Mayfield v. New Mexico Department, CV 98-00699 LCS/JHG; Mayfield v. Hackett,
CV 07-00149 JCH/LFG; Mayfield v. Torres, CV 08-413 RB/KBM; Mayfield v. Garcia, CV 1600805 JB/JHR; Mayfield v. Torres, CV 16-00840 MCA/SCY; Mayfield v. Suggs, CV 17-01190
WJ/GBW; Mayfield v. Ruiz, CV 17-00193 JCH/KRS; Mayfield v. LNU, CV 17-00237 JAP/CG;
Mayfield v. Cole, CV 17-00332 WJ/KK; Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hospital, CV 17-00398
JCH/KRS; Mayfield v. Morris, CV 17-00891 MV/SMV; Mayfield v. Presbyterian Hospital, CV
19-00948 KWR/SMV; and Mayfield v. Jackson, CV 20-00952 KG/LF.
2
3
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 4 of 11
Immediately following the Tenth Circuit’s Order of Remand in this case, rather than
seeking leave to amend in this case, Mayfield again filed the same claims in New Mexico state
court. That case was removed to this Court by the Defendants on October 9, 2019. See Mayfield
v. Presbyterian Hospital, No. CV 19-00248 KWR/SMV, Doc. 1. The claims in that case arise
out of the same factual series of occurrences raised in this case, and the named Defendants are
the same as in this case and CV 16-00805, including MDC. (No. CV 19-00948 KWR/SMV,
Doc. 1-1; CV 16-00805, Doc. 1). However, the Complaint in CV 19-00948 did not mention any
allegations regarding MDC not feeding him for a few days. This Court again dismissed all of
Mayfield’s federal claims for failure to state a claim for relief and remanded Mayfield’s state law
claims to New Mexico state court. (CV 19-00948 KWR/SMV, Doc. 18).
On remand, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order on August 25, 2021,
concluding that the allegations of Plaintiff’s original Complaint that “he was placed in a maximum
security cell . . .[w]hile in maximum security he alleges MDC did not feed him for the next three
to four days” (Doc. 21 at 3-4) fail to state a § 1983 claim for relief. (Doc. 28). Plaintiff Mayfield
did not name any individual official as a defendant. The allegations required the Court to speculate
as to a causal connection between his speaking to a classification officer and MDC’s alleged failure
to feed him and, if the failure to feed him actually occurred, whether that failure rose to the level
of a constitutional violation. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. at 48; Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d
at 1249-50. The allegations did not state a plausible §1983 claim for relief against any individual
official. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. (Doc. 28).
The Court also noted that the only entity named was MDC and, because MDC is not a
suable entity, the Court had dismissed all claims against MDC. (Doc. 12 at 4-5; Doc. 28 at 4-8).
A detention facility is not a person or legally created entity capable of being sued in a § 1983
4
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 5 of 11
action. White v. Utah, 5 F. App’x. 852, 853 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished); Apodaca v. New
Mexico Adult Prob. and Parole, 998 F.Supp.2d 1160, 1190 (D.N.M. 2014). This Court’s dismissal
of the original claims against MDC was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. (Doc. 21-1 at 6).
The Tenth Circuit ‘s Order suggested the possibility that MDC could be held liable under
a theory of municipal liability. (Doc. 21-1 at 6-7). See Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436
U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Under Monell, a local public body may be held liable if a constitutional
violation resulted from unconstitutional conduct by an official carrying out a policy or custom
established by the local public body. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Services, 436 U.S.at 690.
Plaintiff Mayfield’s Complaint, however, made no allegations that any unconstitutional conduct
occurred while any official of MDC was carrying out a policy or custom established by Bernalillo
County or that there is a direct causal link between any policy or custom and the alleged injury.
Bryson v. City of Oklahoma City, 627 F.3d at 788; Nielander v. Board of County Comm'rs, 582
F.3d at 1170; Moss v. Kopp, 559 F.3d at 1169.
The Court’s August 25, 2021 Order granted Plaintiff Mayfield the opportunity to amend to
remedy the defects in his pleading and directed him to file an amended complaint within 30 days.
(Doc. 28 at 9-10). The Court cautioned Mayfield that any claim against an individual defendant
must contain specific factual allegations identifying who each individual is, what that individual
did, and how that individual’s actions deprived Mayfield of a constitutional right. Robbins v.
Oklahoma, 519 F.3d at 1249-50. Generalized and conclusory statements would not be sufficient
to state a claim for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In order to state a claim against a county
defendant, Mayfield must establish that, in addition to conduct by an employee or agent of the
defendant in violation of the Constitution, a policy or custom of the defendant was a direct cause
5
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 6 of 11
or moving force for the constitutional violation. Bryson v. City of Oklahoma City, 627 F.3d at 788.
(Doc. 28 at 9-10).
Further, the Court notified Mayfield that any amendment must be limited to the incident
where he claims he told a classification officer at MDC about alleged violations, he was placed in
maximum security, and he was not fed for a few days as alleged in Doc. 1 at 12. He could not
seek to assert any claims that had previously been dismissed by this Court, nor could he attempt
to raise any new claims arising out of incidents or occurrences that he had not previously raised.
(Doc. 28 at 9-10). The Court also notified Mayfield that failure to file an amended complaint
consistent with the Court’s directions would result in final dismissal of this action without further
notice. (Doc. 28 at 10).
II. Mayfield’s Amended Complaint Does Not Comply with the Court’s
Order and the Rules of Procedure
Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within 30 days. Instead, he sought multiple
extensions of time, which were granted by the Court. (Doc. 29, 30, 31, 33). Shortly after filing
two motions for leave to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff finally filed his Amended Complaint
on December 28, 2021. (Doc. 37). Despite the Court’s instructions to the contrary, Mayfield again
named Presbyterian Hospital, Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office, and MDC as Defendants. (Doc.
1 at 1). The majority of the Amended Complaint is again devoted to allegations regarding a hearing
on May 4, 2016 before the Honorable Stan Whitaker and Mayfield’s transport to Presbyterian
Hospital. (Doc. 37 at 3-5). The Amended Complaint is in direct contravention of the Court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order. (See Doc. 28 at 9-10).
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the alleged failure of MDC to feed him are even more
vague than the allegations in his original Complaint. He states:
“Once Plaintiff left the hospital he was taken to the Metropolitan
6
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 7 of 11
Detention Center and placed in a holding cell for several days
being deprived of food and a shower. Correctional staff took
turns watching plaintiff [John Does 1-6]. All the while plaintiff
continued to ask for food and a shower, and being denied over
and over again. All of this being clear violations of plaintiff’s
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and is the
source of plaintiff’s right to medical care in prison/jail (M.D.C.).
(Doc. 37 at 5). Plaintiff Mayfield, again, does not identify with specificity any individual
MDC official and, contradictorily, references John Does 1-6, whom he elsewhere designated as
Presbyterian Hospital staff and Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Officers. (Doc. 37 at 1). He also does
not factually allege how the actions of any individual MDC official violated his constitutional
rights. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. at 48; Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d at 1249-50; Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 676. Further, his Amended Complaint is not limited to alleged deprivation of food as originally
claimed, but now includes alleged deprivation of showers and possibly even deprivation of
“shelter, food, exercise, clothing, sanitations, and hygiene.” (Doc. 1 at 5, 6). The allegations of
the Amended Complaint do not comply with the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Doc.
28 at 9-10).
Last, and contrary to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint states:
“The plaintiff Earl R. Mayfield also brings a new claim of
‘gross negligence’, Breach of contract, and Medical
Malpractice. Under the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff
is entitled to medical care for ‘serious medical needs.’”
(Doc. 37 at 8). Mayfield was specifically instructed that any new claims must be brought in a new
lawsuit and he could not assert new claims in this case. (Doc. 28 at 9-10).
Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to dismiss, strike, or
order a more definite statement where a complaint is so vague or ambiguous that an opposing party
cannot reasonably prepare a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) provides that the Court may strike
7
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 8 of 11
from a pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Rule 8 requires that
a complaint set out a short, plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(d)(1).
The Court is not required to sort through voluminous, vague allegations to try to identify
Plaintiff’s cause of action. A pro se complaint may be stricken or dismissed under Rule 8(a) if it
is “incomprehensible.” See Carpenter v. Williams, 86 F.3d 1015, 1016 (10th Cir.1996); Olguin v.
Atherton, 215 F.3d 1337 (10th Cir. 2000). Rule 8(a)'s purpose is to require plaintiffs to state their
claims intelligibly so as to give fair notice of the claims to opposing parties and the court. Mann
v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007); Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City,
Inc., v. American Cemetery Ass'n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir.1989). Imprecise
pleadings undermine the utility of the complaint and violate that purpose of Rule 8. See Knox v.
First Security Bank of Utah, 196 F.2d 112, 117 (10th Cir. 1952). Rambling and incomprehensible
filings bury material allegations in “a morass of irrelevancies” and do not meet Rule 8(a)'s pleading
requirement of a “short and plain statement.” Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148; Ausherman v. Stump, 643
F.2d 715, 716 (10th Cir.1981).
Moreover, a plaintiff may not seek to amend a complaint in a manner that turns the
complaint into a “moving target.” It is unreasonable to expect the Court or the defendants
continually to have to adapt as the plaintiff develops new theories or locates new defendants. There
comes a point when even a pro se plaintiff has had sufficient time to investigate and to properly
frame his claims against specific defendants. Minter v. Prime Equipment Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1206
(10th Cir.2006). Plaintiff was given precise instructions and the opportunity to frame his claims
against specific defendants. Plaintiff’s rambling, voluminous filing does not comply with the
8
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 9 of 11
requirements of Rule 8.
Plaintiff’s filing buries any material allegations in “a morass of
irrelevancies” and does not meet Rule 8(a)'s “short and plain statement” pleading requirement.
Mann, 477 F.3d at 1148; Ausherman, 643 F.2d at 716; Minter, 451 F.3d at 1206.
Pro se litigants are required to follow the federal rules of procedure and simple,
nonburdensome local rules. See Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980). The
Court may dismiss an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, to comply with
statutes or rules of civil procedure, or to comply with court orders. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d
1199, 1204, n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff Mayfield has deliberately failed to comply with the Court’s Order, failed to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 11, and failed to prosecute this action. The Court may dismiss
this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, to comply with the rules of civil
procedure, to comply with statutes, and to comply with court orders. Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d at
1204, n. 3. The Court will dismiss this civil proceeding pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply
with rules and a Court Order and failure to prosecute this proceeding. The Court’s dismissal is
without prejudice. If Plaintiff Mayfield believes he has new civil rights claims, he may institute a
new case by filing a new complaint that complies with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and
11 and by paying the filing fee or qualifying to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
III. The Court Again Declines to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction
The Tenth Circuit also set aside the Court’s decision not to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over any state law claims. Plaintiff chose to pursue any state law claims in a separate
proceeding and that case has been remanded to state court for consideration of those claims. The
Court will again decline to reach the merits of state law claims, if any, and will dismiss those
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
9
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 10 of 11
IV. Consideration of the Ehrenhaus Factors
Before dismissing a complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order,
a court should ordinarily consider the factors outlined by Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds: “(1) the degree
of actual prejudice to the defendant; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; . . .
(3) the culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party in advance that dismissal
of the action would be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser
sanctions.” 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted); see also Mobley v.
McCormick, 40 F.3d 337, 340–41 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding the Ehrenhaus factors apply to Rule
41(b) involuntary dismissals).
The Court has considered the Ehrenhaus factors and concludes that Plaintiff is not
significantly prejudiced by the dismissal.
To the extent his one claim relating to alleged
deprivation of food at MDC is being dismissed beyond the statute of limitations, he has had
multiple opportunities to raise and adjudicate that claim within the limitations period. See Mayfield
v. Presbyterian Hospital, No. CV 19-00248 KWR/SMV; Mayfield v. Garcia, No. CV 16-00805
JB/JHR. Further, the new claims that he alleges appear to be within the limitations period and can
be raised in a new, separate proceeding. (Doc. 37 at 8; Doc. 39).
The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s filing of a non-complying amended complaint after
multiple extensions of time has significantly interfered with and delayed the judicial process in
this case. Under the third factor, Plaintiff’s direct contravention of the Court’s instructions
regarding the amended complaint demonstrates culpability. Fourth, Plaintiff was warned that if
he did not file an amended complaint that complied with the Court’s instructions, this case would
be dismissed.
(Doc. 28 at 10).
Last, because Plaintiff has already been given multiple
opportunities to prosecute his claims, has failed to comply with prior Court orders, and his claims
10
Case 1:17-cv-00398-JCH-KRS Document 42 Filed 05/31/22 Page 11 of 11
have been repeatedly dismissed, the Court determines that any lesser sanction than dismissal would
be ineffective. Mobley v. McCormick, 40 F.3d at 340–41.
V. Pending Motions
Also pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Amended Motion in Support for Leave to File
Amended Complaint (Doc. 34), Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 35), Motion
to Produce Documents (Doc. 36), Motion for Temporary Injunction against non-party Western
New Mexico Correctional Facility (Doc. 39), and Motion for Telephonic Hearing on the Motion
for Temporary Injunction (Doc. 40). The Court will deny all pending motions as moot in light of
the dismissal of this case. The Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff is seeking to assert any claims
against non-party Western New Mexico Correctional Facility, those claims are more properly
brought in a separate lawsuit.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion in Support for Leave to File Amended Complaint
(Doc. 34), Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 35), Motion to Produce Documents
(Doc. 36), Motion for Temporary Injunction (Doc. 39), and Motion for Telephonic Hearing (Doc.
40) are DENIED as moot; and
(2) the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Earl R. Mayfield (Doc. 37) is DISMISSED
without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s August 28,
2021 Order and with the rules of procedure, and Judgment will be entered closing this civil case.
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
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?