Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170419_0000639.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-23 21:57:08
Document Index: 373455774

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1997']

This matter is before the Court, sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), on Plaintiff Dylan J. Maho's Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on July 7, 2016. [Doc. 1] Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion, filed on April 11, 2017. [Doc. 16] Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of filing, appears pro se, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's summary judgment motion will be denied, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and Plaintiff will be afforded thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (BCMDC) violated his constitutional rights by failing to follow the policies set forth in the 2014 Inmate Handbook. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that: (1) inmates are subjected to an unconstitutional strip search and a radiating metal detector upon entry into BCMDC; (2) inmates are fed known carcinogens (such as processed meats); (3) breakfast is served between 4:00 and 4:30 a.m., instead of at 6:00 a.m.; (4) meals are delivered by inmate workers, instead of correctional officers; (5) too much ice is included in the inmates' beverages; (6) inmates are not provided with proper medical care (for example, an infection in Plaintiff's eye was misdiagnosed); (7) inmates are required to wear their uniforms at all times; (8) inmates are required to make their beds; (9) inmates' private telephone calls are recorded and shared with the District Attorney; (10) inmates' incoming mail is limited to four pages; and (10) inmates are not allowed to receive books in the mail. Plaintiff's complaint seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $160, 000 and constitutional training for all BCMDC staff. [Doc. 1 at 7]
On February 2, 2017, Plaintiff submitted two documents in support of the § 1983 claims raised in his complaint: (1) a letter from Randy Chavez, a New Mexico County Insurance Authority Claims Examiner, denying the claims in Plaintiff's complaint; and (2) a copy of the 2014 Inmate Handbook. [Doc. 15] On April 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Summary Judgment Motion, requesting the entry of summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 because the “Defense has not responded to any of the issues Plaintiff raised” and “it appears the defendant has no defense.” [Doc. 16]
With this standard in mind, the Court will review Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion and screen Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
A. Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Motion Will Be Denied
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” A summary judgment motion must be supported by citation to “particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). Furthermore, the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico require a party moving for summary judgment to “file with the motion a written memorandum containing a short, concise statement of the reasons in support of the motion with a list of authorities relied upon (the ‘Memorandum').” D.N.M.LR-Civ. 56.1(b). “The Memorandum must set out a concise statement of all the material facts as to which the movant contends that no genuine issues exists. The facts must be numbered and must refer with particularity to those portions of the record upon which the movant relies.” Id.
Plaintiff's summary judgment motion is not supported by citations to the record, is not accompanied by a written memorandum, and does not include a concise statement of the reasons in support of the motion with a list of authorities relied upon. Plaintiff's “pro se status does not excuse the obligation . . . to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil . . . Procedure, ” Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994), or “simple nonburdensome local rules, ” Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, Plaintiff's summary judgment motion will be denied.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court can “ignore the legal label” that Plaintiff attached to his summary judgment motion “and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category.” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003). Plaintiff's motion seeks the entry of judgment in his favor because the “Defense has not responded to any of the issues Plaintiff raised” and “it appears the defendant has no defense.” [Doc. 16] To the extent that Plaintiff moves the Court to enter default judgment in his favor, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
Default judgment cannot be entered against a defendant unless service of process has been effected or the defendant waives service of process. See Hukill v. Oklahoma Native Am. Domestic Violence Coal., 542 F.3d 794, 797 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that “[a] default judgment in a civil case is void if there is no personal jurisdiction over the defendant. . . . [a]nd service of process [under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4] provides the mechanism by which a court having venue and jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action asserts personal jurisdiction over the person of the party served” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Ashby v. McKenna, 331 F.3d 1148, 1152 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n entry of default judgment against [a defendant] before it had any obligation to file an answer, would [be] incorrect as a matter of law.”). Additionally, Plaintiff's civil rights complaint is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, which provides, in relevant part, as follows:
§ 1997e(g)(1). Thus, “defendants can waive their right to reply to a prisoner complaint without the usual consequence of being deemed to have admitted the allegations in the ...