Rees v. Clovis Police Department et al

Filing 11

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER and ORDER denying without prejudice 10 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel by Chief Magistrate Judge Carmen E. Garza (crc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RICHARD GENE REES,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. CV 21-29 MV/CG

CLOVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
PRO SE PRISONER CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has received and
docketed the prisoner’s civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed pro se
by Plaintiff Richard Gene Rees. Mr. Rees shall include the case number, CV 21-00029
MV/CG, on all papers filed in this proceeding.
Mr. Rees must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules
of this Court, and any Order of the Court. Failure to comply with the Rules or Court
Orders may result in dismissal of this case or other sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see
also, Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Mr. Rees is
obligated to keep the Court advised of any changes in his mailing addresses. Failure to
keep the Court informed of his correct address may also result in dismissal of the case
or other sanctions. D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6.
Because Mr. Rees is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court is obligated to
conduct a preliminary screening of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Whenever a
prisoner brings a civil action against government officials, as Mr. Rees has here, the
Court is obligated to screen the prisoner’s complaint or petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Section 1915A states:

“The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity.”
...
On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b). The Court has a similar obligation to screen the
complaint when a pro se plaintiff is proceeding without prepayment of fees and costs
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2):
“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may
have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that—
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
Any request to the Court for relief must be in the form of a motion. Fed. R. Civ. P.
7(b). The filing of excessive motions may cause substantial delay in completion of the
Court’s preliminary screening and resolution of the case. Mr. Rees should avoid filing
unnecessary motions. Requests for service of process, discovery, and submissions of
proof are also premature and unavailable prior to the Court’s completion of its screening
obligation. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 213-214 (2007). If Mr. Rees’s Complaint is
not dismissed on initial screening, the Court will enter further orders governing service
of process, discovery, and scheduling.

2

Mr. Rees should not send any letters to the Court other than transmittal letters or
requests for information or copies. All mail relating to this case must be directed to the
Clerk of the Court. Mr. Rees is not to send any mail directly to the assigned District
Judge or the assigned Magistrate Judge. Mr. Rees also should not make telephone
calls to or ask to speak to the assigned District Judge, the assigned Magistrate Judge,
or the Judges’ staff, nor should Mr. Rees ask family members or friends to do so.
Finally, the Court finds that Mr. Rees’s Motion to Compel, (Doc. 10), filed June 1,
2021, is premature until the Court completes its screening obligation under §§ 1915A
and 1915(e)(2)(B). Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 213-214. Therefore, the Court will deny
the Motion to Compel, (Doc. 10), as premature.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. Rees’s Motion to Compel, (Doc. 10), is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Case Management Order shall govern
proceedings in this case until further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
THE HONORABLE CARMEN E. GARZA
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3