Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180306_0000499.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:48:25+00:00

Document:
NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT; and RICARDO MARTINEZ, WARDEN, Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the Civil Complaint (Tort) filed by Plaintiff Ryan Thompson in New Mexico state court on June 12, 2017, and removed to this Court by Defendant Ricardo Martinez, on July 21, 2017. (Docs. 1; 1-1.) Also before the Court is Defendant Martinez's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Plaintiff [sic] Civil Complaint and Plaintiff's Request for Removal (Doc. 9). The Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss, in part, and dismiss all federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remands any state law claims to New Mexico state court.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The Court has the discretion to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under either Rule 12(b)(6) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim should be dismissed where it is legally or factually insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Under Rule 12(b)(6) the Court must accept all well-pled factual allegations, but not conclusory, unsupported allegations, and may not consider matters outside the pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989). The court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim if “it is ‘patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting McKinney v. Okla. Dep't of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991)). A plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Under § 1915(e)(2)(B) the court may dismiss the complaint at any time if the court determines the action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(2). The authority granted by § 1915 permits the court the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); see also Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109. The authority to “pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations” means that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff's allegations. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). The court is not required to accept the truth of the plaintiff's allegations but, instead, may go beyond the pleadings and consider any other materials filed by the parties, as well as court proceedings subject to judicial notice. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33.
In his Complaint, Thompson alleges claims for violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. He claims his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment has been violated by alleged indifference to his serious medical needs. (Doc. 1-1 at 2-5). Thompson's Complaint does not expressly allege causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the exclusive vehicle for vindication of substantive rights under both the Constitution and § 1981. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994) (Section 1983 creates no substantive rights; rather it is the means through which a plaintiff may seek redress for deprivations of rights established in the Constitution); Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006) (claims against state actors for violation of § 1981 must be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Therefore, the Court construes Thompson's claims for violation of rights under the Eighth Amendment as civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

References: § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1981
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1981
 § 1983
 § 1983