Trujillo v. Williams, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Martha Vazquez; IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Cause and Find Defendants in Contempt of this Court's Order 147 is DENIED IN PART, to the extent it seeks to reopen this case, an d GRANTED IN PART, to the extent it seeks enforcement of the Court's September 30, 2011 Order and a civil-contempt sanction; and Defendants are DIRECTED to continue to comply with the postage plan adopted by this Court's September 30, 2011 Order 129 . (mjr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
No. CV 04-00635 MV/GBW
JOE WILLIAMS, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO REOPEN CAUSE AND FIND
DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT’S ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the pro se Motion filed by Plaintiff, Jesse Trujillo,
asking the Court to reopen this case and find the Defendants in contempt of court (Doc. 147), the
Defendants’ Response (Doc. 149), Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 150), Defendants’ Surreply (Doc.
151), and Plaintiff’s Answer to Surreply (Doc. 152). The Court will grant, in part, and deny, in
part, the Motion to reopen this case and will direct the Defendants to continue to comply with the
Court’s September 30, 2011 Order Adopting Postage Plan (Doc. 129).
Plaintiff, Jesse Trujillo, is a prisoner under control of the New Mexico Corrections
Department but housed, under contract, in the State of Virginia. Plaintiff Trujillo is proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff Trujillo filed his Civil Rights Complaint commencing
this action on June 4, 2004.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff Trujillo alleged his
constitutional right of meaningful access to the New Mexico state courts, where he was
sentenced, was being infringed, in part due to having to pay postage in order to send his filings to
New Mexico (Doc. 1 at 4, 11). On September 8, 2004, the Court entered a Memorandum
Opinion and Order and a Judgment dismissing the case for failure to state a claim for relief.
(Doc. 8, 9). Plaintiff Trujillo appealed from the dismissal, and the Tenth Circuit reversed, in
part, and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings. (Doc. 11, 14).
Trujillo filed an Amended Complaint on April 4, 2007, adding an equal protection claim
against the Defendants.
The Magistrate Judge entered Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) on July 13, 2009. (Doc. 62). Plaintiff Trujillo objected to
the PFRD. (Doc. 64). On September 30, 2009, the Court entered its Order granting, in part,
motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants, overruling Plaintiff’s objections, and adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s PFRD. (Doc. 67). Trujillo appealed to the Tenth Circuit and the appeal was
placed in abeyance due to the lack of a final order. (Doc. 69).
Plaintiff Trujillo filed a second Amended Complaint on November 9, 2009, claiming that
he was not being provided postage in order to be able to access the New Mexico Department of
Corrections grievance system and the New Mexico courts. (Doc. 72). In response to an Order of
the Court, the Defendants filed a Martinez Report on May 7, 2010. (Doc. 91). On May 21,
2010, the Court then granted Trujillo in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and
certified its September 30, 2009 Order for appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). (Doc. 95).
Trujillo filed an Amended Notice of Appeal on September 27, 2010, and, on appeal, the Tenth
Circuit affirmed this Court’s dismissal. (Doc. 97, 104).
The Magistrate Judge then issued a PFRD on Plaintiff’s second Amended Complaint on
October 5, 2010, recommending that a plan be adopted to provide Plaintiff with access to the
New Mexico Corrections Department grievance system and the New Mexico Courts. (Doc.
105). Plaintiff Objected to the PFRD on November 29, 2011. (Doc. 109). On August 3, 2011,
Recommendations, and ordered that the Defendants file a plan with the Court to enable Plaintiff
to send legal requests and grievances to the NMCD at no expense to himself. (Doc. 120).
Plaintiff Trujillo filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing from the Court’s August 3, 2011 Order.
(Doc. 120). The appeal was, again, held in abeyance due to the lack of a final order.
Defendants filed their Plan to Allow Postage Free Legal Request by Plaintiff to NMCD
on August 17, 2011. (Doc. 121). The Plan stated:
“1. NMCD will provide to Plaintiff in Virginia three (3) standard
business envelopes stamped and addressed to NMCD for legal
requests and grievances upon acceptance of this plan by the Court.
2. In the response or reply sent to Trujillo, a new, stamped, preaddressed envelope will be include for the use of Trujillo in making
The Court adopted Defendants’ Plan in its September 30, 2011 Order and entered
Final Judgment. (Doc. 129, 130). The Tenth Circuit issued its Mandate, affirming the rulings of
this Court, on March 12, 2012. (Doc. 133).
Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Order, asking the Court to enter an order on his request
for an award of filing fees and costs on April 24, 2013. (Doc. 139). The Magistrate Judge
entered a third PFRD on October 9, 2013. (Doc. 141). The Court adopted the PFRD over
objections filed by Plaintiff Trujillo. (Doc. 142, 143). Plaintiff Trujillo also filed a Motion for a
temporary restraining Order on February 24, 2014. (Doc. 144). The Court entered an Order and
Corrected Order noting that Plaintiff’s Motion sought relief on matters beyond the scope of the
original complaint and ordering that the Motion be re-docketed as a pleading commencing a new
civil rights case. (See Doc. 145, 146; See, also, No. CV 14-00206 MCA/KK).
Plaintiff Trujillo filed his Motion to Reopen Case on August 4, 2016. (Doc. 147). In his
Motion, Plaintiff claims that Defendants are no longer complying with the September 30, 2011
Order and seeks to have the Court reopen this case, require the Defendants to comply with the
Court’s September 30, 2011 Order, and hold Defendants in contempt. (Doc. 147).
A motion to reopen a case following final judgment proceeds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
In order to set aside a final order or judgment and reopen a case, a plaintiff must establish one of
six enumerated reasons:
“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). Plaintiff’s Motion does not made the showing necessary to set aside
the final judgment in this case, and, to the extent he seeks to reopen the case, the Court will deny
the Motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
In addition to reopening the case, Plaintiff Trujillo’s Motion seeks enforcement of the
terms of the Court’s September 30, 2011 Order and a determination that the Defendants are in
contempt of the Court’s Order.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce its
September 30, 2011 Order. See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 56 (1991)(a
district court has authority to enforce its orders and impose sanctions for years after entry of final
judgment); Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 76 F.3d 1538, 1553 (10th Cir. 1996); Floyd v. Ortiz, 300
F.3d 1223, 1226–27 (10th Cir. 2002). Trujillo’s motion is properly characterized as seeking a
finding of civil contempt. “A contempt sanction is considered civil if it is remedial and for the
benefit of the complainant.” Cottriel v. Jones, 588 F. App'x 753, 755 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Federal Trade Comm'n v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745, 752 (10th Cir.2004) (brackets and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
In seeking a civil contempt finding, Trujillo has the initial burden of proving, by clear
and convincing evidence, that a valid court order existed, that the defendant had knowledge of
the order, and that defendant disobeyed the order. Once Plaintiff makes that showing, the burden
then shifts to the Defendants to show either that they have complied with the order or that they
could not comply with it. ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 651 F.3d 1200, 1210 (10th Cir.
2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Mast Constr.
Co., 159 F.3d 1311, 1315 (10th Cir.1998).
In this case, Plaintiff Trujillo’s Motion and the Court record establish the existence of the
Court’s September 30, 2011 Order, that Defendants have knowledge of that Order, and that
Defendants have ceased to comply with the Order. (Docs. 147, 149, 150, 151, 152). Defendants
do not contend that they have continued to comply with the Order or could not comply but,
instead, seek to have the Court relieve them of further obligation to comply. (Docs. 149, 151).
The Court finds that Defendants have not complied with the Court’s September 30, 2011 Order
and will impose a civil-contempt sanction.
As set out, above, the purpose of a civil-contempt sanction is remedial and is intended to
benefit the complainant. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d at 752. “In civil contempt, the contemnor is able
to purge the contempt ... by committing an affirmative act [to bring himself into compliance].”
Lucre Mgmt. Group, LLC v. Schempp Real Estate, LLC (In re Lucre Mgmt. Group, LLC), 365
F.3d 874, 876 (10th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court will direct
Defendants to purge the contempt by continuing to comply with the Plan submitted by
Defendants (Doc. 121) and adopted by the Court’s September 30, 2011 Order (Doc. 129). If
Defendants wish to be relieved of the obligation to comply with the September 30, 2011 Order,
they will be required to file a motion made in compliance with the requirements of Rule 60(b) to
have that order set aside.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Cause and Find Defendants in Contempt of this Court’s
Order (Doc. 147) is DENIED IN PART, to the extent it seeks to reopen this case, and
GRANTED IN PART, to the extent it seeks enforcement of the Court’s September 30, 2011
Order and a civil-contempt sanction; and
(2) Defendants are DIRECTED to continue to comply with the postage plan adopted by
this Court’s September 30, 2011 Order (Doc. 129).
UNITED STATES 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?