Benavidez v. Garcia et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief District Judge William P. Johnson DISMISSING 7 Amended Complaint without prejudice. (mag)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RICK BENAVIDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 18cv433 WJ/KK
ERIKA GARCIA,
ALISON ARIAS,
GARALD LAVELLE,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT OF NEW MEXICO,
NEW MEXICO CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,
ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
HALLIE ROSSBACH,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Doc. 7,
filed May 16, 2018 (“Complaint”).
The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a
claim because Plaintiff failed to state with any particularity what each of the seven Defendants
did to Plaintiff. The Court explained that “to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must
explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s
action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant
violated” and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. See Doc. 5, filed May 11,
2018.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges that:
Defendant/Person, Erica Garcia, subscribed and volunteered my person in her
hand-writing without my authorization, to pay for her personal benefit, because I
am not getting any benefits and I have not ever seen my daughter since she was
born in the year of 2013 and said person is keeping my daughter away from I and
has made numerous attempts by trying to let another man adopt my daughter by
sending I letters in the mail and I did not have to partake in, which is an
constitutional violation of my life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to be in
my daughter’s life.
[sic] Amended Complaint at 2. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Erika Garcia for
failure to state a claim. While the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” appears in
the second line of the Declaration of Independence, the right “to be in a daughter’s life” is not in
the Constitution. Plaintiff’s vague allegation against Erika Garcia, without more, does not state a
claim for a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.
The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Lavelle issued a “fraudulent bench
warrant” which led to Plaintiff’s “unlawful arrest,” and that Defendant Rossbach willfully
refused to file Plaintiff’s “motion documents.” Amended Complaint at 2-3. The website for the
Second Judicial District, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, shows that Gerard Lavelle is a district
judge for the Second Judicial District and Hallie Rossbach is his assistant. The Court dismisses
the claims against Defendants Lavelle and Rossbach because they are immune from suits for
money damages because they are a judge and court employee and were acting in a judicial
capacity. See Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 Fed.Appx. 725, 727-728 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991)) (“[S]tate court judges are absolutely immune from monetary
damages claims for actions taken in their judicial capacity, unless the actions are taken in the
complete absence of all jurisdiction” and “[I]mmunity which derives from judicial immunity
may extend to persons other than a judge where performance of judicial acts or activity as an
official aid of the judge is involved. Absolute judicial immunity has thus been extended to nonjudicial officers, like clerks of court, where their duties had an integral relationship with the
judicial process”).
2
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim asserting that the Motor Vehicle Department of
New Mexico “suspended my driver’s license, because of [Defendant Garcia’s] debt to the State
of New Mexico, which I never borrowed any money from,” and that the New Mexico Child
Support Enforcement Division “mailed threatening letters stating that, if I don’t pay said
defendants that they were going to deprive [me] of my driving and passport privileges, which is a
guaranteed constitutional.” Amended Complaint at 3. Plaintiff makes the conclusory allegation
that “I have [a] constitutional right to travel or drive on the public highways, because I am a
taxpayer.” The New Mexico Motor Vehicle Department and the New Mexico Child Support
Enforcement Division, as arms of the State of New Mexico, are immune from suits for damages
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
See Hull v. State of New Mexico Taxation and Revenue
Department’s Motor Vehicle Division, 179 Fed.Appx. 445, 446 (10th Cir. 2006) (“It is well
established that arms of the state, or state officials acting in their official capacities, are not
‘persons’ within the meaning of § 1983 and therefore are immune from § 1983 damages suits”).
The Court dismisses the claims against Betsy Salcedo who Plaintiff alleges “violated my
freedom to enter into a contract and constitutional right to be a father, by mailing me 11 packets
and trying to move forward with Erika Garcia’s adoption, that I did not agree or consent to.”
Complaint at 4. There are no other factual allegations regarding Defendant Salcedo. The single
Plaintiff states that he wrote 28 U.S.C. § 1983 “by mistake” as the federal statute he was filing
under on the Civil Cover Sheet for his original Complaint. Plaintiff also states that he is filing
his Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1357
(granting district court jurisdiction over civil actions commenced by persons to recover damages
for injuries on account of any acts done by him, under any act of Congress, for the protection or
collection of any of the revenues, or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote),
and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (governing venue). The Court refers to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 because
Plaintiff is alleging violations of his constitutional rights. “28 U.S.C. § 1983 is not itself a source
of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those
parts of the United States Constitution and federal statutes that it describes.” Bird v. West Valley
City, 832 F.3d 1188m 1208 (10th Cir. 2016).
1
3
allegation against Defendant Salcedo, without more, is not sufficient to show a deprivation of a
right secured by the Constitution or federal law.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim asserting that the Albuquerque Police Department
“abducted” Plaintiff, did not read Plaintiff his Miranda rights and did not promptly take Plaintiff
“to the Magistrate.” Amended Complaint at 3. In its Order dismissing Plaintiff’s original
Complaint, the Court notified Plaintiff that:
the Albuquerque Police Department is not a suable entity because it is a subunit of
the City of Albuquerque. See Hinton v. Dennis, 362 Fed.Appx. 904, 907 (10th
Cir. 2010) (“Generally, governmental sub-units are not separate suable entities
that may be sued under § 1983”) (citing Martinez v. Winner, 771 F.2d 424, 444
(10th Cir. 1985) (holding that City and County of Denver would remain as a
defendant and dismissing complaint as to the City of Denver Police Department
because it is not a separate suable entity)).
Doc. 5 at 2.
Having dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims in the Amended Complaint, the Court
dismisses this case without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
CHIEF 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?