Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190313_0000551.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-03-28 19:02:33
Document Index: 319143895

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

FindACase™ | Ansley v. State
KAHEEM RICKY ANSLEY, Plaintiff,
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, WILLIAM J. HULL, WILLIAM G.W. SHOEBRIDGE, and ERIK SCRAMLIN, Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Plaintiff, Kaheem Ricky Ansley, on June 13, 2018 (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss Plaintiff Ansley's Complaint based on immunity, failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, and as barred by the Heck doctrine.
Plaintiff Kaheem Ricky Ansley filed his Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”) on June 13, 2018. (Doc. 1) His Complaint names, as Defendants, State of New Mexico, Public Defender William J. Hull, Judge William G. W. Shoobridge, and District Attorney Erik Scramlin. (Doc. 1 at 1, 3). Ansley is proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming denial of his rights and violations of the cannons of judicial conduct arising out of his criminal conviction in State of New Mexico, Fifth Judicial District cause no. D-506-CR-201400231. (Doc. 1 at 2). Ansley alleges three counts against the Defendants:
“Count I: Conflict of Interest imposed by the State of New Mexico's Fifth Judicial District Court . . .
Count II: Conflict of Interest Imposed by the State of New Mexico's Fifth Judicial District Attorney's Office and the Lea County Public Defenders' Office . . .
Count III: Denial of Rights; Jurisdiction; Illegal Sentence . . .”
(Doc. 1 at 4-5). Ansley seeks reversal of his conviction, “Full Rights With Prejudice, ” and $9, 500, 000.00 in damages. (Doc. 1 at 6).
Plaintiff Ansley is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 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. Id.
III. Analysis of Plaintiff Ansley's Claims
A. Plaintiff's Claims Against Judge Shoobridge and District Attorney Scramlin are Barred by Judicial and Prosecutorial Immunity:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Civil rights and state law claims against judicial officers acting as judges are clearly barred by absolute judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Christensenv. Ward,916 F.2d 1462, 1473-76 (10th Cir. 1990); Hunnicutt v. Sewell,147 N.M. 272, 277-78, 219 P.3d 529, 534-45 (Ct. App. 2009). It is well settled that the doctrine of judicial immunity is applicable in actions, such as the case at bar, with 42 U.S.C. &sect; 1983 claims as well as state law claims. Van Sickle v. Holloway,791 F.2d 1431, 1434-35 (10th Cir.1986); Collins on Behalf ofCollins v. Tabet,111 N.M. 391, 396, 806 P.2d 40, 45 (1991). ...