Deubler v. Shepherd et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL of case without prejudice by Senior District Judge James A. Parker and denying as moot 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (bap)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RANDALL H. DEUBLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 18cv76 JAP/KK
DENISE BARELA SHEPHERD,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, and
KURT F. JOHNSON,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. No. 1) (Complaint) and Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 2) (Application).
Plaintiff is a defendant in a foreclosure action in state district court. See Complaint at 2.
Plaintiff’s trustee “sent a ‘money on account order’ to the state district court which . . . deemed
[the money on account order] as fraudulent.” Complaint at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Judge Shepherd “has deprived me of due process and a fair trial by unfairly making a
determination that the payment that was made by my trustees was fraudulent” and by not
“tendering the money on account order which is our restitution by the district court.” Complaint
at 2-3. Plaintiff asks this Court to “process the new payment.” Complaint at 3. Plaintiff does
not seek any relief from Defendants.
Plaintiff previously filed a similar complaint in this Court seeking the same relief, i.e. that
this Court process the new payment. See Doc. 1, filed May 1, 2017, in Deubler v. Johnson, No.
17cv511 JAP/KBM (D.N.M.). The Court dismissed the previous case for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction stating:
The Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because there is no “case” or
“controversy.” “Article III of the United States Constitution restricts the
jurisdiction of federal courts to the adjudication of ‘Cases’ or ‘Controversies.’”
Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1106 (10th Cir. 2007).
For a case or controversy to be justiciable, it must involve
“questions presented in an adversary context and ... capable of
resolution through the judicial process.” Massachusetts v. E.P.A.,
549 U.S. 497, 516, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007). The
three requirements of Article III standing—injury-in-fact,
causation, and redressability—ensure that the parties to any
litigation have “such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens
the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends
for illumination.” Id. at 517, 127 S.Ct. 1438. It is the plaintiff's
burden to demonstrate that these requirements are met. See
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142,
173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009). Each of these requirements “must be
established before a federal court can review the merits of a case.”
Consumer Data Indus. Assoc. v. King, 678 F.3d 898, 902 (10th
Cir.2012).
Petrella v. Brownback, 697 F.3d 1285, 1292-1293 (10th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff has
not asserted any claims against Defendants. Plaintiff only asks the Court to
process the new payment. Plaintiff’s request is not presented in an adversary
context and is not capable of resolution through the judicial process.
Mem. Op. and Order of Dismissal, Doc. 5, filed August 2, 2017, in Deubler v. Johnson, No.
17cv511 JAP/KBM (D.N.M.). In the case now before the Court, the only relief Plaintiff seeks is
that the Court process the new payment. As in Plaintiff’s previous case, Plaintiff’s request in this
case is not presented in an adversary context and is not capable of resolution through the judicial
process.
The Court will dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Dutcher v.
Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking
federal jurisdiction”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.,
434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2006) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without
prejudice because the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is
incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims.”).
Because it is dismissing this case, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Application as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiff’s
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot.
__________________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?