Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180724_0001530.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:17:51+00:00

Document:
AUDREY LYNN MOREY and STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Defendants.
The Court will grant Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit stating he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the following information: (i) Except for the past week, Plaintiff has been unemployed during the past two years; (ii) Plaintiff's average income during the past 12 months was $192.00 in public assistance; and (iii) Plaintiff is homeless. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because he has been unemployed for most of the past two years and is homeless, and because of his low monthly income.
My complaint . . . applies to the murder of Khaleb Cruz and the use of official documents to lie and slander placing the Plaintiff under prejudicial light. In essence, the State of NM and Audrey Morey acted together to destroy the life-reputation of Lukis Cruz the Plaintiff while also covering the murder of Khaleb J. Cruz from the Plaintiff.
Complaint at 2. Where the form Complaint prompts Plaintiff to identify the constitutional rights, privileges or immunities that have been violated, Plaintiff wrote: “Through causation, Audrey Morey (Defendant) and State of NM have both destroyed the professional and monetary life of the Plaintiff.” Complaint at 3. Plaintiff also appears to assert claims for slander, conspiracy and fraud. See Complaint at 3.
Section 1983 only authorizes suits against persons acting under color of state law. See McCarty v. Gilchrist, 646 F.3d 1281, 1285 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Section 1983 provides a federal civil remedy for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution by any person acting under color of state law”). The “state action doctrine requires that the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible and the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.” Stone v. Elohim, Inc., 336 Fed.Appx. 841, 842 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). “Private persons may be said to act under color of state law if they are jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action . . . But private conduct that is not fairly attributable to the State is simply not actionable under § 1983, however discriminatory or wrongful the conduct is.” Hall v. Witteman, 584 F.3d 859, 864 (10th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff can state a cognizable § 1983 claim against private citizens if he adequately alleges that the private citizen defendants conspired with the state actors to violate his federal rights. See Beedle v. Wilson, 422 F.3d 1059, 1073 (10th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a plaintiff attempts to assert the state action required for a § 1983 claim against private actors based on a conspiracy with government actors, ‘mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient,' [instead] the plaintiff must specifically plead “facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Id.
The Court will dismiss the Section 1983 civil rights claims against Defendant Morey without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Morey is a state actor. Where the form “Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983” asks “At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, was this defendant acting under color of state law?”, Plaintiff indicated “No.” Complaint at 1. Although Plaintiff alleges “the State of NM and Audrey Morey acted together to destroy the life-reputation of [Plaintiff], ” and refers to a conspiracy, Plaintiff has not pled specific facts tending to show agreement and concerted action between Defendant Morey and the State of New Mexico. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged any deprivation of his civil rights. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe County Justice Center, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v.