Benavidez v. Jinping
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales denying as moot 4 Motion to Amend Prayer for Relief; and dismissing 1 Civil Rights Complaint. (tah)
Case 1:20-cv-00799-KG-LF Document 11 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ERNESTO J. BENAVIDEZ,
No. CV 20-00799 KG/LF
PRESIDENT OF CHINA,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint filed by
Plaintiff Ernesto J. Benavidez. (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss the Complaint, in the
alternative: (1) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply
with Court orders; (2) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of jurisdiction; or (3) under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff Benavidez filed his Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint on August 10, 2020.
(Doc. 1). Benavidez names as the sole Defendant, Xi Jinping, President of the Country of China.
(Doc. 1 at 1). He asserts claims against President Xi Jinping for 8th Amendment deliberate
indifference, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress by subjecting Plaintiff (and the
entire United States) to a risk of illness or death from the COVID-19 virus. (Doc. 1 at 2-4). He
seeks to be granted “monetary relief in triplicate for emotional distress daily.” (Doc. 1 at 5).
Plaintiff Benavidez also filed a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). On August 12, 2020, the Court denied the Motion
under the three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and ordered Plaintiff to pay the entire filing fee
Case 1:20-cv-00799-KG-LF Document 11 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 4
for this proceeding within 30 days. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff did not pay the fee and, instead, filed a
Notice of Appeal, appealing the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit on August 25, 2020. (Doc. 6). On September 22, 2020, the Tenth Circuit ordered
Benavidez to pay the $550 appellate filing fee within 30 days under § 1915(g). (Doc. 9). When
Benavidez did not pay the appellate filing fee, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal on October
26, 2020. (Doc. 10).
1. Dismissal for Failure to Pay the Filing Fee: The filing fee for a § 1983 proceeding is
$400.00. Federal statutes mandatorily require this Court to collect the filing fee: “The clerk of
each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil action or proceeding in such
court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise, to pay a filing fee. . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a) (emphasis added). The Court may permit a prisoner to proceed without prepayment of
the fee, but only in compliance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff Benavidez has
accrued three strikes under § 1915(g) (Doc. 3), and the Court does not have discretion to allow a
prisoner who has accrued three strikes to proceed without paying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). The language of § 1915(g) that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action” is
non-discretionary and precludes this Court from allowing Plaintiff Benavidez to proceed without
paying the filing fee. See Hafed v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (10th Cir.
2011); White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir.1998).
Plaintiff Benavidez has not paid the filing fee for this case as ordered by this Court.
(Doc. 3). Nor has he paid the appellate filing fee as ordered by the Tenth Circuit. (Doc. 9). The
Court may dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with the rules of procedure
or court orders and for failure to prosecute the case. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204,
n. 3 (10th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the Court will dismiss this proceeding under Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 1:20-cv-00799-KG-LF Document 11 Filed 02/17/21 Page 3 of 4
41(b) for failure to comply with statutes, failure to comply with Court orders, and failure to
prosecute the case.
2. Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction: The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant “so long as there exist minimum contacts
between the defendant and the forum State.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444
U.S. 286, 291 (1980). The “minimum contacts” standard may be met, consistent with due
process, “if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and
the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985). A district court’s exercise of personal
jurisdiction over defendant must also be reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the
case. See id. at 477–78.
Although Benavidez alleges the presence of COVID-19 in the State of New Mexico, he
does not allege any contacts, much less minimum contacts, between President Xi Jinping and the
State of New Mexico. There are no contacts sufficient to allow this Court to exercise personal
jurisdiction over Defendant Xi Jinping consistent with due process. Burger, 471 U.S. at 472,
477-78. Therefore, the Court alternatively will dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)
for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claims: Plaintiff Benavidez claims to be proceeding
on civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1 at 1). Section 1983 states:
Every person who, under color of any statue, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State, Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (emphasis added). To hold an individual liable under § 1983, then, the
Case 1:20-cv-00799-KG-LF Document 11 Filed 02/17/21 Page 4 of 4
defendant must have acted under color of state law.
Plaintiff Benavidez does not allege that President Xi Jinping was acting under color of
state law. Instead, he claims that Defendant Xi Jinping acts “under International Law.” (Doc. 1
at 1). Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim on which relief can be granted.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). The Court also will dismiss the Complaint under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
4. Pending Motion: Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
Prayer for Relief. (Doc. 4). The Court will deny the pending Motion as moot in light of the
Court’s dismissal of this proceeding.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Prayer for Relief (Doc. 4) is DENIED as moot; and
(2) The Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint filed by Plaintiff Ernesto Benavidez (Doc. 1)
is DISMISSED under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with Court orders and to
prosecute, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Xi
Jinping, or under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
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?