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.

Archuleta v. Sanchez

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

January 25, 2018

BENJAMIN ARCHULETA, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES CHARLES SANCHEZ, Defendant.

          Benjamin Archuleta Plaintiff pro se.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1981-1985, filed May 5, 2017 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”); (ii) the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, filed May 5, 2017 (Doc. 2)(“Application”); and (iii) the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal without Prepayment of Costs or Fees In Re Mandamus Remand Sovereign Grand Jury Muslim Elect Ministrative Order Original Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction, filed October 3, 2017 (Doc. 9) (“Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal without Prepayment of Costs or Fees”). Plaintiff Benjamin Archuleta appears pro se. For the reasons set out below, the Court will: (i) grant Archuleta's Application; (ii) dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; and (iii) deny as premature Archuleta's Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal without Prepayment of Costs or Fees.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The Complaint's caption identifies one defendant: “James Charles Sanchez.” Complaint at 1. The “Jurisdiction” section of the Complaint identifies two defendants: (i) “1835-NM-314 Los Lunas, N.M. 87031”; and (ii) “James Charles Sanchez, ” with an address of “1835-NM-314 Los Lunas, N.M. 87031.”[1] Complaint ¶ A(2), at 1-2. The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico's address is 1835 Highway 314 SW, Los Lunas, New Mexico 87031. See Court Directory, New Mexico Courts, https://thirteenthdistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/valencia-court-directory.aspx. “James Lawrence Sanchez” is identified as a Thirteenth Judicial District judge. See Court Directory, New Mexico Courts, https://thirteenthdistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/valencia-court-directory.aspx.

         Archuleta alleges:

My father (Alejandro Archuleta) Pass on in 2014 Prior he stated to me what is what of his estate. Mr. James Charles Sanchez allowed a Ms. [R]ebecca Martinez to Counsel without notice. She is not related and for that reason [there] was [willful] error. Upon Mandate [there] was no [receipt] of transmittal otherwise barring Justice Law and equity of the Deceased and my Inherent, natural and [reserved] rights now invoked for relief.

         Complaint ¶ B(1), at 2 (alterations added). Archuleta indicates that he had begun another lawsuit dealing with the same facts involved in this action in the “13th Judicial Court” and that the issue in the previous case was “Conveyance of Property to My Custody.” Complaint ¶ D(1)(d), at 4. Archuleta states that the state court case is “closed, not appealed.” Complaint ¶ D(1)(c), at 4. In the case now before the Court, Archuleta seeks “Conveyance of Property” at a Los Lunas address and/or $250, 000.00. Complaint ¶ E(1), at 5; id. at 7.

         Archuleta's Application to proceed in forma pauperis states: (i) his “[a]verage monthly income amount during the past 12 months” was $1, 200.00 in disability income; (ii) he is unemployed; (iii) he has no assets; (iv) his estimated monthly expenses total $807.00; and (v) “Medicare does not cover Dental and Vision.” Application at 1-5. Archuleta signed an “Affidavit in Support of the Application, ” stating that he “is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings” and declaring under penalty of perjury that the information that he provides in the Application is true. Application at 1.

         On October 3, 2017, Archuleta filed his Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal without Prepayment of Costs or Fees. Archuleta has not filed a notice of appeal in this case.

         LAW REGARDING PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS

         The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), provides that a district court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person possesses and that the person is unable to pay such fees.

When a district court receives an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it should examine the papers and determine if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted. Thereafter, if the court finds that the allegations of poverty are untrue or that the action is frivolous or malicious, it may dismiss the case.

Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 F. App'x 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010)(unpublished)[2](citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 (10th Cir. 1962)). “[A]n application to proceed in forma pauperis should be evaluated in light of the applicant's present financial status.” Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App'x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008)(unpublished)(citing Holmes v. Hardy, 852 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir. 1988)). “The statute [allowing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis] was intended for the benefit of those too poor to pay or give security for costs . . . .” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344 (1948). While a litigant need not be “absolutely destitute . . .[, ] an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted). While the district court should not deny a person the opportunity to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) because he or she is not “absolutely destitute, ” the court may deny permission for a person to proceed IFP where his or her monthly income exceeds his or her monthly expenses by a few hundred dollars. Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police Department, 24 F. App'x 977, 979 (10th Cir. 2002)(unpublished)(stating that a litigant whose monthly income exceeded his monthly expenses by a few hundred dollars according to his own accounting appeared to have sufficient income to pay filing fees, and, thus, was not entitled to IFP status).[3]

         The district court may grant a motion to proceed IFP even if the complaint fails to state a claim and the court must thereby dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (10th Cir. 2012)(“There is simply nothing in the language of the statute [regarding IFP proceedings, 28 U.S.C. § ...


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.