Ombe v. Cook et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Sr. District Judge Robert C. Brack DENYING 1 Complaint, DENYING AS MOOT 6 MOTION to Clarify; DENYING AS MOOT 7 MOTION for Order, AND DENYING AS MOOT 8 MOTION for Order, (yc)
Case 2:20-cv-00786-RB-GBW Document 13 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GEORGE COOK, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Response to Order to Show
Cause. (Doc. 9.)
Mr. Ombe filed a Complaint 1 asserting claims pursuant to Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act “ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a), Title VII, and various state laws arising from
Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants “from April 2011 to October 2016.” 2 (Doc. 1 at 33 ¶ 1.)
Mr. Ombe filed a motion regarding Judge assignment concurrently with his Complaint.
(See id. at 1–31 (demanding that this case not be assigned to the undersigned or to United States
Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen).) Mr. Ombe argues that the undersigned and Judge Molzen
did “not know the law” and did not understand or accommodate his autism disorder in his three
consolidated civil rights suits. See Ombe v. Martinez, No. 1:14-cv-00763-RB-KBM (“Ombe I”).
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion regarding the assignment of Judges to this case because the
Mr. Ombe filed his Complaint with several other documents. (See Doc. 1.) The Complaint may
be found in pages 32-71 of Document 1.
Mr. Ombe previously filed a complaint asserting similar claims against these Defendants. See
Ombe v. Cook, No. 1:16-cv-01114-RB-LF (D.N.M.). The Court dismissed the case without
prejudice on November 20, 2017.
Case 2:20-cv-00786-RB-GBW Document 13 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 4
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Court’s final judgment in in
Ombe I, stating that Mr. Ombe “is mistaken in believing that the district court was required to
disregard the legal rules that govern civil lawsuits in response to his cognitive and mental health
issues or his pro se status.” (See Ombe I, Doc. 206-1 at 7.)
The Court notified Mr. Ombe that his federal-law claims in this case appear to be barred
by the statutes of limitations because he did not file this Complaint within the 90-day period for
Title VII and Title I of the ADA claims, or within the three-year period for Section 1981 claims.
(See Doc. 4.) The Court ordered Mr. Ombe to show cause why the Court should not dismiss the
federal-law claims as barred by the statutes of limitations or file an amended complaint. (See id.)
Mr. Ombe subsequently filed a motion for clarification seeking: (i) clarification of what
the Court ordered; (ii) clarification of the deadline; and (iii) “How to coordinate with my state
case.” (Doc. 6.) The Court denies the motion for clarification as moot because Mr. Ombe
subsequently filed a Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, and his “state case” is not
before this Court. (Doc. 9.)
In his Response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff states “[t]he cause of delay of refiling
these claims is because I was suffering from severe mental illness with depression and anxiety and
lost my ability to do any kind [of] persuasive pleading.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff argues that the statutes
of limitations should be tolled “because of the circumstances created and of mental illness caused
by every relevant person including defendants, judges and lawyers during the past 10 years.” (Id.
“To be entitled to equitable tolling, [a party] must show (1) that he has been pursuing his
rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented
timely filing. Equitable tolling is only appropriate in ‘rare and exceptional circumstances.’” Del
Case 2:20-cv-00786-RB-GBW Document 13 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 4
Rantz v. Hartley, 577 F. Appx. 805, 809 (10th Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). “[F]ederal courts
equitably toll the limitations period only when there is a severe or profound mental impairment,
such as that resulting in institutionalization or adjudged mental incompetence.” Id. at 810 (citations
omitted). The Tenth Circuit “has yet to apply equitable tolling on the basis of mental incapacity.”
Id. (quotation and citations omitted).
The Court dismisses the federal law claims because Mr. Ombe has not shown that he is
entitled to equitable tolling of the statutes of limitations. While Mr. Ombe has stated that he has a
severe mental impairment, he has not shown that he was institutionalized or adjudged mentally
incompetent. Furthermore, his mental impairment was not so extraordinary as to prevent him from
actively prosecuting his other civil rights cases from August 2014 through February 2018,
appealing the final judgment, and filing a petition for writ of certiorari in May 2019. See Ombe I
The Court, having dismissed all of the federal law claims, declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“district
courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court
has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).
Because it is dismissing this case, the Court denies the motion for a hearing on autism
disability and the motion for service as moot.
IT IS ORDERED that:
Mr. Ombe’s Extraordinary Motion to Demand to Assign This Case to Competent
Judge(s) and Lawyers Because of the Past Hellishly and Murderously Painful
Experience (Doc. 1 at 1–31) is DENIED.
This case is DISMISSED. Mr. Ombe’s federal law claims are dismissed with
prejudice and his state law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Case 2:20-cv-00786-RB-GBW Document 13 Filed 10/15/20 Page 4 of 4
The Motion to Request Clarification (Doc. 6) is DENIED as moot.
The Motion to Request a Hearing Related to Autism Disabili[t]y (Doc. 7) is
DENIED as moot.
The Motion to Request to Summon the Defendants by Section 1915(d) (Doc. 8) is
DENIED as moot.
ROBERT C. BRACK
SENIOR U.S. 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?