Wahhaj v. Cibola County Correctional Center

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kea W. Riggs dismissing without prejudice 3 Amended Complaint. (arp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SIRAJ WAHHAJ,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 23-cv-0680-KWR-LF

CIBOLA COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court following Plaintiff Siraj Wahhaj’s failure to amend his
prisoner civil rights complaint as directed. Plaintiff is incarcerated, pro se, and proceeding in forma
pauperis. The original Complaint (Doc. 3) primarily focuses on the alleged lack of access to legal
materials. Plaintiff elected to proceed pro se in his federal criminal trial; he believes the lack of
legal materials caused the jury to convict him of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists
(18 U.S.C. § 2339A) and conspiring to murder a federal officer (18 U.S.C. § 1117). The original
Complaint (Doc. 3) also alleges the Cibola County Correctional Center (CCCC) mishandled the
grievance process. Plaintiff describes over 25 grievances he filed while in pretrial custody. The
grievances touch on all aspects of detention including educational courses, medical care, email/fax
policies, hygiene supplies, food service, restraints, and CCCC’s tier management policy.
The original Complaint (Doc. 3) consists of 230 pages. It is difficult to discern the exact
nature of the legal claims based on the extensive list of grievances. Construed liberally, and at a
minimum, the Complaint appears to raise First Amendment claims for denial of access to courts
and violation of religious freedoms; Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to
health/safety; and Due Process claims regarding the failure to follow grievance procedures and the

imposition of tier restrictions. The Complaint also raises New Mexico tort claims for negligent
hiring and supervision of CCCC officials. Plaintiff names Defendants CCCC; Core Civic/CCA;
and Warden Mark Foreman.
By a ruling entered January 28, 2025, the Court screened the original Complaint (Doc. 3)
and determined it fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). See Doc. 13 (Screening Ruling); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (requiring sua sponte screening of all in forma pauperis complaints). The
original Complaint functions as a classic “kitchen-sink” or “shotgun” filing, which canvasses every
aspect of Plaintiff’s detention and re-asserts every grievance he filed at CCCC. See Glenn v. First
Nat. Bank in Grand Junction, 868 F.2d 368, 371 (10th Cir. 1989) (“The law recognizes a significant
difference between notice pleading and ‘shotgun’ pleading.”). Because the grievances raise facts
that do not appear to relate to Plaintiff’s list of legal causes of action, it is difficult to discern which
claims he intends to pursue. Moreover, the original Complaint purports to incorporate over 160
pages of exhibits to support the factual allegations. See Doc. 3 at 54 (stating Plaintiff “outlined
dates and who did what … with the attachments”). The Screening Ruling explained that it “is not
the role of … the court … to sort through … voluminous exhibits … to construct plaintiff’s causes
of action.” McNamara v. Brauchler, 570 Fed. App’x 741, 743 (10th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).
Alternatively, to the extent certain legal theories are clear, the Screening Ruling concluded
the original Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Doc. 13 at 5-10 (setting forth the relevant pleading standards for First Amendment
claims; Eighth Amendment claims; and Due Process claims). The Screening Ruling therefore
dismissed the original Complaint (Doc. 3) for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) and alternatively,
for failure to state a cognizable federal claim under the applicable § 1983 pleading standards. The

2

Court deferred ruling on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims
until after reviewing the amended complaint. See Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213, 1229–30
(10th Cir. 2010) (federal courts should generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
a state-law claim if no viable federal claims remain).
Consistent with Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990), the Court sua
sponte invited Plaintiff to amend within thirty (30) days of entry of the Screening Ruling. Plaintiff
was advised that the amended complaint must not exceed 40 pages; must comply with Rule 8(a);
and must include all state and federal claims Plaintiff intends to pursue in this case. The Screening
Ruling warns that if Plaintiff fails to timely amend, the Court may dismiss all federal claims; decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and dismiss any state law claims without prejudice. See Doc.
13 at 11.
The deadline to file an amended complaint expired on February 27, 2025. Plaintiff did not
comply, show cause for such failure, or otherwise respond to the Screening Ruling. Ordinarily,
courts dismiss federal claims with prejudice where the prior complaint does not state a cognizable
claim, and the plaintiff fails to amend as directed. See, e.g., Novotny v. OSL Retail Servs. Corp.,
2023 WL 3914017, at *1 (10th Cir. June 9, 2023) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where the
district court rejected a “claim but gave [plaintiff] leave to amend, cautioning that failure to allege
a plausible claim would result in a dismissal”). Because the original Complaint (Doc. 3) spans 230
pages and is difficult to construe, the exact nature of the claims is still unclear. For this reason, the
Court will dismiss all federal claims raised in the original Complaint without prejudice for failure
to comply with Rule 8(a) and - as a separate, alternative basis for dismissal - for failure to state a
cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 12(b)(6). See Fontana v. Pearson, 772 Fed.

3

App’x 728, 729 (10th Cir. 2019) (“If the complainant fails to comply with Rule 8, a court may
dismiss an action with or without prejudice.”); Smith-Bey v. Hosp. Adm'r, 841 F.2d 751, 756 (7th
Cir. 1988) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to permit screening dismissals with or without
prejudice, even where the complaint fails to state a claim). The Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims raised in the original Complaint and will dismiss
those claims without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that all federal claims raised in Plaintiff Siraj Wahhaj’s Amended
Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 3) are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
comply with Rule 8(a) and alternatively, for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and Rule 12(b)(6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over any state law claims raised in Plaintiff Siraj Wahhaj’s Amended Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaint (Doc. 3); such state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; and the Court will
enter a separate judgment closing the civil case.
SO ORDERED.
____/S/__________________________
HON. KEA RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4