Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170920_0001686.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-23 13:07:35
Document Index: 512802106

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§1331', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 41', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1914A and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the Complaint (Tort) and Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Victor Andrew Apodaca Sr. and removed to this Court on November 8, 2016 (Doc. 1-1, 1-2). Also pending before the Court is Defendant Stevi Madera's Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 2). The Court will deny Defendant Madera's Motion as moot and will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff Victor Andrew Apodaca, Sr., is a prisoner incarcerated at the Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs, New Mexico. (Doc. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff Apodaca filed his Complaint (Tort) in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico on July 6, 2016. (Doc. 1-1 at 1). Although his Complaint states that the suit is authorized under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, Chapter 41 N.M.S.A., Apodaca alleges violation of due process and retaliation in violation of First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. (Doc. 1-1 at 1).
In the caption, Plaintiff Apodaca names Warden R.C. Smith, N. Alaniz, Mrs. Maldonado, Mrs. Strub, Mailroom Supervisor, Stevi Madera, and Geo Group as Defendants. (Doc. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October 13, 2016, naming Secretary of Corrections N.M.C.D. Greg Marcantel, Director Jerry Roark, Employs at L.C.C.F., and Mrs. Gomez as additional Defendants. (Doc. 1-2 at 1).
On November 8, 2016, Defendant Stevi Madera filed a Notice of Removal, removing the case from the State of New Mexico, First Judicial District Court to this Court. (Doc. 1). Defendant Madera removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1441, and 1446 on the grounds that Plaintiff Apodaca asserts federal constitutional claims. (Doc. 1 at 2). Defendant Madera also filed a Motion for More Definite Statement on November 8, 2016. (Doc. 2).
2. Standards for Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiff Apodaca is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 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. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); 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. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Services, 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. A claim should be dismissed where it is legally or factually insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
3. Apodaca's Complaint Fails to State a Claim
Apodaca's Complaint is filed on a New Mexico state form for claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, N.M.Stat.Ann. § 41-4-1, et seq. However, in his Complaint and in the Amended Complaint, Apodaca alleges violation of his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See Doc. 1-1 at 2; Doc. 1-2 at 1. The 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 the Constitution. 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). Therefore, the Court construes Apodaca's claims for violation of rights under the Constitution as civil rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.