Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180705_0001419.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:16:57+00:00

Document:
ROBERT C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) on the Complaint (Tort) filed by Plaintiff Woodrow Dunn, Jr., on May 10, 2018. (Doc. 1.) The Court dismisses the Complaint based on prosecutorial immunity, failure to state a claim for relief, and the bar of Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court also declines to grant leave to amend the Complaint and to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims.
Plaintiff Woodrow Dunn, Jr., is a prisoner incarcerated at the Northeastern New Mexico Correctional Facility. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On February 24, 2013, Plaintiff shot and killed David Rogers at close range in front of witnesses including Plaintiff's father, Woodrow Dunn Sr.
Plaintiff was charged with first degree murder in New Mexico state court cause no. D-506-CR-201400159. The Court has reviewed the official record in Plaintiff's state court proceedings through the New Mexico Supreme Court's Secured Online Public Access (SOPA). The Court takes judicial notice of the official New Mexico court records in No. D-506-CR-201400159. United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (The Court may take judicial notice of publicly filed records in this court and other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand); Shoulders v. Dinwiddie, 2006 WL 2792671 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 26, 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state court records available on the world wide web including docket sheets in district courts); Stack v. McCotter, 2003 WL 22422416 (10th Cir. Oct. 24, 2003) (finding state district court's docket sheet is an official court record subject to judicial notice under Fed.R.Evid. 201).
The Court has the discretion to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under either Fed.R.Civ.P. 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 (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. 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. § 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. Id.
The Court liberally construes the factual allegations in reviewing a pro se complaint. See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1992). However, a pro se plaintiff's pleadings are judged by the same legal standards that apply to all litigants and a pro se plaintiff must abide by the applicable rules of court. Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The court is not obligated to craft legal theories for the plaintiff or to supply factual allegations to support the plaintiff's claims. Nor may the court assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

References: § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.