Steward v. Chandler et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kea W. Riggs DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 Complaint. (arp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSEPH SAUL STEWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 23-cv-00368-KWR-GJF
MATTHEW CHANDLER, et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court following Plaintiff Joseph Saul Stewards failure to file an
amended complaint as directed. Plaintiff was incarcerated when this case was filed and is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The original Complaint (Doc. 1) alleges he served 54
months in state prison, even though his convictions carry a punishment of 18 months. Plaintiff
contends State District Judge Matthew Chandler, Assistant District Attorney (D.A.) Brian Stover,
and Assistant Public Defender Jonathon Miller were responsible for the discrepancy based on their
conduct at the sentencing hearing. See Doc. 1 at 8-9. Plaintiff believes they act[ed] as if they had
bugs running through their hair and bodies and had dilated pupils or no pupils. Id. at 9. The
original Complaint alleges Plaintiff complained about his sentence to Shelly Burger, the Court
Clerk at New Mexicos Ninth Judicial District Court, and to Probation Officers Kendra Fergerson,
Morgan Gomez, and Michael Garcia. Id. at 9-11. Burger did not respond to Plaintiffs letter. Id.
at 9. Plaintiff had some disagreement with the Probation Officers, although the details are unclear.
It appears Fergerson reported Plaintiff for absconding, and the Officers allegedly conveyed
unflattering or inaccurate information to a professional training program. Id. at 14.
The original Complaint raises claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for illegal sentencing, false
imprisonment, and cruel and unusual punishment; it also appears to raise a state law claim for
defamation. See Doc. 1 at 17, 19-22. The original Complaint seeks damages from: (1) Judge
Matthew Chandler; (2) Assistant D.A. Brian Stover; (3) Assistant Public Defender Jonathon Miller;
(4) Court Clerk Shelly Burger; (5) Probation/Parole Officer Kendra Fergerson; (6) Probation/Parole
Officer Morgan Gomez; and (7) Probation/Parole Officer Michael Garcia. Id. at 1-4, 17.
By a ruling entered March 26, 2024, the Court screened the original Complaint and
determined it fails to state a cognizable federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. See Doc. 7 (Screening
Ruling); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (requiring sua sponte screening of in forma pauperis
complaints). The Screening Ruling explains that Judge Chandler, Assistant D.A. Stover, and Court
Clerk Burger are immune from a § 1983 damages suit for actions taken in connection with the
judicial process. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (addressing judges); Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (addressing prosecutors); Sawyer v. Gorman, 317 Fed. Appx.
725, 728 (10th Cir. 2008) (addressing court clerks). Miller cannot be sued under § 1983 because
public defenders do not act under color of state law. See Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 316318 (1981). The Screening Ruling further notes probation officers are immune under certain
circumstances, and Plaintiff cannot sue Officers Fergerson, Gomez, Garcia for reporting case
details to a judge that impact probation. See United States v. Davis, 151 F.3d 1304, 1306 (10th Cir.
1998).
The Screening Ruling alternatively explains that even if some Defendants can face liability
under § 1983, the original Complaint fails to state a cognizable federal claim against any Defendant
for illegal sentencing, false imprisonment, or cruel and unusual punishment. Any illegal sentencing
claim is barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). See Denney v. Werholtz, 348 Fed.
2
Appx 348, 350 (10th Cir. 2009) (awarding damages based on allegedly illegal sentence is barred
by Heck). The original Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts showing Plaintiffs detainment is
without lawful authority or legal process, which is necessary to state a false imprisonment
claim. See Santillo v. N.M. Dept of Pub. Safety, 2007-NMCA-159, ¶ 12; Wallace v. Kato, 549
U.S. 384, 389 (2007). The Screening Ruling finally observes that the original Complaint is devoid
of facts showing an objective harm or subjective knowledge of a risk of harm for purposes of the
Eighth Amendment. See Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1214 (10th Cir. 2018). Based on
each alternative ruling above, the Court dismissed the original Complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to
state a cognizable claim.
Consistent with Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), the Court permitted
Plaintiff to amend his federal claims within thirty (30) days of entry of the Screening Ruling. The
Court deferred ruling on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims until
the amendment was filed. The Screening Ruling warns that if Plaintiff fails to timely comply, the
Court may dismiss all federal § 1983 claims with prejudice and dismiss any state law claims without
prejudice. See Doc. 7 at 8. The deadline to file an amended complaint was April 25, 2024.
Plaintiff did not amend, show cause for such failure, or otherwise respond to the Screening Ruling.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss all federal § 1983 claims in the original Complaint (Doc. 1)
with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 12(b)(6).
See 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 [under Rule 12(b)(6)]
but gave [plaintiff] leave to amend, cautioning that failure to allege a plausible claim would result
in
[such a] dismissal). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state
3
law claims in the original Complaint (Doc. 1) and will therefore dismiss those claims without
prejudice. See Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 549 (10th Cir. 1997) (federal courts
should generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain).
IT IS ORDERED that each federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in Plaintiffs original Prisoner
Civil Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice 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 in the original Prisoner Civil Complaint (Doc. 1); such state law claims
are therefore DISMISSED without prejudice; and the Court will enter a separate judgment
closing the civil case.
SO ORDERED.
____/S/__________________________
KEA RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?