Mendez v. New Mexico Department of Corrections et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Margaret Strickland. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MARIO MENDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 20-cv-0680 MIS-KRS

THE GEO GROUP, INC., et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mario Mendez’s Amended Civil Rights
Complaint (Doc. 6) (Amended Complaint).

Also before the Court is his Motion to

Release All Federal Claims against Defendants (Doc. 7). Plaintiff is incarcerated and
proceeding pro se. He alleges prison officials failed to protect him from attack; housed
him with friends of his original attacker; and then placed him in segregation for an
extended period. Plaintiff originally filed this case in New Mexico’s First Judicial District
Court, and Defendants removed the matter.

The Court (Hon. Kenneth Gonzales)

liberally construed the original complaint to raise claims under the federal constitution and
state law. Judge Gonzales directed Plaintiff to amend his original complaint to cure
deficiencies in those claims. (Doc. 5).
Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on October 4, 2021. (Doc. 6). The factual
allegations describe the same scenario as the original complaint.

The Amended

Complaint also cites cruel and unusual punishment, deliberate indifference to safety, and
a series of federal cases. Such references would ordinarily raise a federal question, and
this Court would exercise jurisdiction. See Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S.

1, 6 (2003) (“To determine whether [a] claim arises under federal law, [courts] examine
the ‘well[-]pleaded’ allegations of the complaint”). This is particularly true where the
plaintiff is pro se; the Court liberally construes the allegations to raise all plausible claims.
See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (addressing pro se screening
and noting: “if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which
the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal
authority [or] his confusion of various legal theories”).
Here, however, Plaintiff clarifies he wishes to dismiss all federal claims, return to
state court, and proceed with his case under the state constitution and/or New Mexico
Tort Claims Act. The Amended Complaint states he wants to: “drop[] all federal charges
[and] claims from [the] complaint and … maintain[] [his] case at state level and grounds.”
Doc. 6 at 9. Plaintiff also filed a separate motion to “release all defendants … on any
federal charges that have been held against them.” Doc. 7 at 1. See also Doc. 6 at 9
(clarifying the motion was meant “to drop all federal claims”).
Plaintiff is “the master of [his] claim.” Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. Mosaic
Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195, 1202 (10th Cir. 2012). “By omitting federal claims
from a complaint, a plaintiff can [generally] guarantee an action will be heard in state
court.” Id. (quoting Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258, 1264 n. 1 (10th Cir.
2004)). Moreover, the Tenth Circuit counsels that federal courts should generally decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain. See Bauchman v.
W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 549 (10th Cir. 1997); Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213,
1229–30 (10th Cir. 2010). Based on this authority, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion
2

to Release All Federal Claims against Defendants (Doc. 7). Any federal claims in the
original complaint (Doc. 1-1) or Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) will be dismissed. The
dismissal will be without prejudice. Plaintiff may ultimately obtain counsel, based on the
nature of the allegations, and counsel may elect to raise federal claims. The Court also
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in the Amended
Complaint and will remand this case to New Mexico’s First Judicial District Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Release All Federal Claims against
Defendants (Doc. 7) is GRANTED; and any federal claims in Plaintiff Mario Mendez’s
original complaint (Doc. 1-1) and/or Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) are DISMISSED
without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to New Mexico’s First
Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, Case No. D-101-CV-2020-00657; and the
Clerk’s Office is hereby directed to take all necessary steps to remand the case.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Court will enter a separate judgment closing
the federal case.

………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3