Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carabajal v. Aragon

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

October 11, 2017

WILFRED CARBAJAL, Plaintiff,
v.
MAJOR ARAGON, WARDEN E. BRAVO, ASSOCIATE WARDENS R. ULIBARRI, J. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Plaintiff Wilfred Carbajal on August 4, 2016 (“Complaint”) (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim and will impose a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Wilfred Carbajal is a prisoner incarcerated at the Otero County Prison Facility (“OCPF”) in Chaparral, New Mexico. (Doc. 1 at 1). Carbajal filed his Complaint asserting civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Carbajal's Complaint alleges violation of the following constitutional rights:

“Count I: Constitutional violation of my right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment including physical, emotional, and psychological harm . . .
Count II: Violations of my fourth amendment right to be secure in their persons. . .
Count III: Violation of Constitutional Amendment V . . .Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

(Doc. 1 at 8-9). The supporting factual allegations of the Complaint state:

“Major Aragon came on 1B Pod and announced that this pod is not a protective custody unit and all inmates will be moved to housing 2 (which places us in imminent harm of physical attack by inmates due to the nature of our charges.) And anyone who refuses will be written up, placed in disciplinary seg. our good time taken, loss of commissary, and we would not be able to contact our family by phone, visits, or mail . . .
Major Aragon with the approval of the warden's has made it a personal issue to force men to enter prison confines knowing that to do so would surely put men's lives in danger.”

(Doc. 1 at 8-9). Carbajal's address of record indicates he is currently incarcerated at OCPF, but the claims he asserts appear to arise out of conditions or events at a different prison, Guadalupe County Correctional Facility (“GCCF”). (Doc. 1 at 4).

         Carbajal only names four individuals in the case caption. (Doc. 1 at 1). However, he lists a total of 27 Defendants in the body of his Complaint and seeks relief from additional entities and individuals not even identified as Defendants in his “Defendant Culpability” list. (Doc. 1 at 2-7, 13-14). Although Carbajal is the only identified Plaintiff, Carbajal's Request for Relief indicates that “we” seek damages ranging from $80 million against the New Mexico Corrections Department to $350, 000 from certain case workers and a chaplain. (Doc. 1 at 11, 13-14).

         II. DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

         The Court has the discretion to dismiss a pro se complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A claim should be dismissed where it is legally or factually insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 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. 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. 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.

         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 County,32 F.3d 452, 455 (10thCir. 1994). The court is not obligated to craft legal theories for the plaintiff or to supply factual allegations to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.